Colony loss

[jenkinsbrynmair]

but neither with any corroborating evidence

 

[JamezF]

Or there again you can just accept that there may be excessive colony over winter losses in Hertfordshire ... At present there's two unconnected anecdotal reports of major losses and no anecdotal reports of few losses.

It would indeed be possible to accept it as fact. But there's no good reason to believe that you'd be right to do so. That's the entire point. People sometimes believe things are true for all sorts of reasons. Even experts in the field who perhaps ought to know better. But ultimately the only way to be sure is to look at the hard data. More specifically, by someone who understands the context of the information and can decide how meaningful it is, because it's far from uncommon for that not to be consistent with our personal intuition.

James

 

[pargyle]

Depends on how cynical you are ....if the local association are reporting significant losses one must assume that they have some evidence for that statement ? I can't see a reason to doubt what has been said ...

 

[JamezF]

Depends on how cynical you are ....if the local association are reporting significant losses one must assume that they have some evidence for that statement ? I can't see a reason to doubt what has been said ...

It doesn't require cynicism at all. Just an understanding of how people can completely unintentionally mislead themselves and/or others despite the best possible of intentions. That you see no reason to doubt it says more about you (and certainly that doesn't mean in a negative way) than it does about the validity of the opinions of those you choose to believe.

James

 

[Antipodes]

Hello. this morning I finally found the courage to clear my hive of my dead colony. I am so sad that my bees have not survived my very first winter as a bee keeper. I reached out to my local beekeepers association (I’m in Hertfordshire) and they told me that this winter has resuited in a high percentage of lost colonies. They also advised me not to try to get a colony this year as colonies will come at a premium. I attach photos in case anyone can help me find out what happened. Also should I attempt to get a colony? My mentor got me a colony last year but his work commitment means that he is too busy to help. Thank you.

From the photos, it does look like a small colony that you had. If you are relatively inexperienced or have only one or two colonies, it can be hard to judge their strength.

 

[ericbeaumont]

From the photos, it does look like a small colony that you had. If you are relatively inexperienced or have only one or two colonies, it can be hard to judge their strength.

Yes, which is the reason it would be good to know whether the queen really was laying well 'all the way to autumn'.

As the population declines a small colony (perhaps because of a failing queen) will eventually be unable to maintain nest heat, and a small nest can succumb easily to isolation starvation (photos, 4, 5 & 6).

 

[Antipodes]

Yes, which is the reason it would be good to know whether the queen really was laying well 'all the way to autumn'.

As the population declines a small colony (perhaps because of a failing queen) will eventually be unable to maintain nest heat, and a small nest can succumb easily to isolation starvation (photos, 4, 5 & 6).

Yes. As it's autumn here at the moment, autumn inspections are fresh in my mind. I've got a few colonies (recently inspected) where the queen is laying well, but those colonies have no size to them and yet other colonies that are huge but apparently eggless, with just the tail end of brood in them.

 

[Erichalfbee]

So we. can return to the notion that something is happening to SOME of our queens. That they are somehow running to of laying capacity, often not spotted till we find a dead out the following spring with a dwindled colony.
Is there a common theme to all these Hertfordshire queens or drones or as has been mentioned the winter stores the bees are laying down?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

if the local association are reporting significant losses one must assume that they have some evidence for that statement ? I can't see a reason to doubt what has been said

Having seen how quite a few associations are run it just reinforces my argument - not yours

It doesn't require cynicism at all. Just an understanding of how people can completely unintentionally mislead themselves and/or others

 

[pargyle]

It doesn't require cynicism at all. Just an understanding of how people can completely unintentionally mislead themselves and/or others despite the best possible of intentions. That you see no reason to doubt it says more about you (and certainly that doesn't mean in a negative way) than it does about the validity of the opinions of those you choose to believe.

James

But is it opinion ? If people and an association are reporting significant losses in a location - and there is no obvious reason for these losses - they are possibly colonies that have been treated for varroa - it's a fact, not opinion. Hopefully Hertfordshire and the general area will take some action to quantify the scale of the problem and perhaps then, you and the others that are questioning the veracity of the situation will concede that this is not pie in the sky ? Or you will be proved right in your skepticism ...

 

[Karol]

It doesn't require cynicism at all. Just an understanding of how people can completely unintentionally mislead themselves and/or others despite the best possible of intentions. That you see no reason to doubt it says more about you (and certainly that doesn't mean in a negative way) than it does about the validity of the opinions of those you choose to believe.

James

Neither does it help to close down lines of reasoning by dismissing conjecture prematurely.

So it is important to establish whether there is something going on in Hertfordshire and if there's a trend developing.

One thing that has changed recently:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...cQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1_tiKVGUFx1T5g16cn5ue3

 

[JamezF]

But is it opinion ?

Exactly. We just don't know. That a relatively small number of people have lost quite a few colonies doesn't necessarily mean the problem is likely to be widespread. It might be. It might not be. Until someone actually starts collecting hard data no-one will be sure.

Let's say for example that the committee of this BKA collectively buy some specific mite treatment as a group, but because of some sort of problem with their storage that they're not aware of before they divide it up it's not as effective as it should have been. They might then all end up with higher than expected losses over the winter, chat amongst themselves and decide that losses must be high generally because they've all had problems and their apiaries are not close to each other and they all work independently. So they start telling everyone else that losses have been high. A few more people who might have lost more colonies than they'd like for completely different reasons (potentially nothing more than poor beekeeping) just serves to reinforce the opinion. Those who have had low losses may say nothing because they don't want to make it look like they're boasting or just because they don't have time to spend on an issue that hasn't affected them. If they do say anything they'll often just be considered "lucky" rather than as a counter-example because at this point the minds of those affected have already subconsciously come to their opinion. If someone who is considered a good beekeeper says they had high losses, that will add unwarranted weight to the view, even if in fact that person had recently had a major row with a neighbour who subsequently took it into their heads to sneak into their garden and spray Raid into their hives and their beekeeping ability has no relevance.

Obviously I'm not for a moment saying that's how it happened, but that's the kind of way people behave as groups. And very often they're totally unaware that they may be completely misrepresenting the situation. So when this occurs it's perfectly reasonable, desirable even, to say "Ok, so you're saying things are bad, but what are the actual numbers?"

I don't disbelieve that there may have been a widespread problem in Hertfordshire. Neither do I believe that there may have been one. All I know is that someone else, on the basis of evidence that I am aware may not be reliable in the form it was presented in this forum, thinks there was.

James

 

[Gilberdyke John]

but who are 'they' and how have they reached that conclusion.
I remember years ago being told that 'everyone' was going to a fundraiser show one Saturday night.
four turned up.

Sounds like a child saying everyone in class has a grand new smart phone.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Exactly. We just don't know. That a relatively small number of people have lost quite a few colonies doesn't necessarily mean the problem is likely to be widespread. It might be. It might not be. Until someone actually starts collecting hard data no-one will be sure.

I wouldn’t be concerned much unless it happened again next winter
Then there is more urgency to get to the bottom of the matter.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Let's say for example that the committee of this BKA collectively buy some specific mite treatment as a group, but because of some sort of problem with their storage that they're not aware of before they divide it up it's not as effective as it should have been. They might then all end up with higher than expected losses over the winter, chat amongst themselves and decide that losses must be high generally

And on the same thought, if it's only one association, most following the same accepted 'wisdom' during their formative years maybe many are following the same unwise practices?

 

[JamezF]

And on the same thought, if it's only one association, most following the same accepted 'wisdom' during their formative years maybe many are following the same unwise practices?

Who knows? I certainly didn't base my example on experience. It was just the first idea that came into my head when trying to think of a situation where facts might end up being completely unintentionally distorted.

James

 

[Karol]

Exactly. We just don't know. That a relatively small number of people have lost quite a few colonies doesn't necessarily mean the problem is likely to be widespread. It might be. It might not be. Until someone actually starts collecting hard data no-one will be sure.

Let's say for example that the committee of this BKA collectively buy some specific mite treatment as a group, but because of some sort of problem with their storage that they're not aware of before they divide it up it's not as effective as it should have been. They might then all end up with higher than expected losses over the winter, chat amongst themselves and decide that losses must be high generally because they've all had problems and their apiaries are not close to each other and they all work independently. So they start telling everyone else that losses have been high. A few more people who might have lost more colonies than they'd like for completely different reasons (potentially nothing more than poor beekeeping) just serves to reinforce the opinion. Those who have had low losses may say nothing because they don't want to make it look like they're boasting or just because they don't have time to spend on an issue that hasn't affected them. If they do say anything they'll often just be considered "lucky" rather than as a counter-example because at this point the minds of those affected have already subconsciously come to their opinion. If someone who is considered a good beekeeper says they had high losses, that will add unwarranted weight to the view, even if in fact that person had recently had a major row with a neighbour who subsequently took it into their heads to sneak into their garden and spray Raid into their hives and their beekeeping ability has no relevance.

Obviously I'm not for a moment saying that's how it happened, but that's the kind of way people behave as groups. And very often they're totally unaware that they may be completely misrepresenting the situation. So when this occurs it's perfectly reasonable, desirable even, to say "Ok, so you're saying things are bad, but what are the actual numbers?"

I don't disbelieve that there may have been a widespread problem in Hertfordshire. Neither do I believe that there may have been one. All I know is that someone else, on the basis of evidence that I am aware may not be reliable in the form it was presented in this forum, thinks there was.

James

Sounds very familiar to arguments used by big pharma and agrochem to excuse first anecdotal events rather than treat them as red flag outliers.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Can we try not to turn yet another thread into a conspiracy discussion or it goes under the stairs. …. Please

 

[Karol]

Can we try not to turn yet another thread into a conspiracy discussion or it goes under the stairs. …. Please

Why does it have to be denigrated to be a conspiracy theory? If it quacks like a duck waddles like a duck and looks like a duck where's the conspiracy? Protuding proboscis, cluster failure (tetanised flight muscles failing to generate heat), queen laying failure, poor hive condition, heightened disease susceptibility, anecdotal reports of increased hive losses are all cardinal sysmptoms and yes they can be excused by other things of course they can. But that does not mean they automatically should be especially when there are coincidental local factors at play.