Active hives have increased because beekeepers have reacted to the increase in bee die-offs by splitting hives and otherwise increasing the number of hives they have. This causes an increase in demand for queens, and companies that sell queens will have more hives in order to meet that demand. Also, simple economic growth is a possible contributor to the increase in number of hives.
When you talk about "increase in beehives", are you referring to hives that are managed by a beekeeper, or hives created by wild bees, and not managed by a human? When you talk about "fewer live bees", are you referring to wild bees, or bees in a managed hive? In my previous post, I was only referring to managed hives.
As an amateur beekeeper, I can tell you that honeybees _are_ wild, in a sense. A captured swarm is just a wild colony with the queen trapped in an excluder box in your hive.
They can't be domesticated, and containing them after they swarm involves tricking the bees into thinking they are the ones making a decision (you can turn their hive 90 degrees after they swarm in summer and they will return in most cases, assuming they've found a new spot for a hive).
Also, mites (and foul brood) are still a pain in the ass and I can see why bees need a beekeeper to even stand a chance.
I did a little more clicking around, and learned (wait for it) that native feral honeybees are probably gone in the UK as well. Honeybees in both the UK and North America are livestock, not wildlife.
No feral honeybees? I can attest from personal experience down here in Texas there are a lot of wild apis melifera and many other honey bee species doing just fine without us. Maybe your definition of 'feral' isn't the same as mine, but this is plain wrong.
Where are you getting your global numbers? Because the USDA Honey Production Survey data tells a different tale.
In 1989-1990 US honey Bee colonies were at about 3.5M. Neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990's and since then the US Bee colonies declined to an all time low in 2012 (below 2.5M colonies). Since 2012 there was a small but steady uptick to just above 2.5M colonies; however, that is still down 1M and nearly 33% total since the introduction of Neonicotinoids.
In fact, the biggest decline was from 1990-1996 when the number basically dropped from 3.5M to 2.5M. My understanding is Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) wasn't even acknowledged by the Government until 2006, which is odd because the decrease from 1996-2006 may have only been 2.5M to ~2.35M. Then again in 2006 our Government was championing the strength and stability of the housing market, so maybe they are just not the most proficient at interpreting numbers and data.
As to wild/ferral honey bees, they may be endangered but I assure you they do exist in the US. In fact my parents just has a wild hive removed from their property resulting in 80lbs of honey (including the comb). You can check out Willy the Bee Man, he runs the largest wild bee removal business in South Florida and his website includes some videos of the removals.
Is the time period for Neonicotinoids not accurate? I mean you completely glossed over my point just to say the time line I gave was consistent with the mites, I know the mites have had a devastating impact, but if their timeline is consistent with Neonicotinoids as I say, how do you just gloss over that, it would be on par with responding that the time period I cite corresponds with the introduction of rap/hip hop music. I was asking about your data in good faith because I know you are referencing global numbers and I am referencing US numbers, so I was genuinely interested, because if what you say is true about the introduction of Neonicotinoids in other countries having no impact on colonies in those countries that could obviously be very significant.
Nevertheless, your position is bee colonies have increased since the introduction of Neonicotinoids, which again may be true globally and in specific areas like Canada which you cite, but US data shows that is not true and we are at a net negative 1M (managed) colonies since their introduction.
Whether or not that is coincidence is beyond my point, as I said we know the mites have had a devastating impact on honey bees in the US, so we are left with the question why would the trend have reversed course (in the US) if entirely attributable to the mites? At least there is a theory I am aware of for the colonies reversing course despite the continued use of Neonicotinoids.
Moreover, there are studies that suggest of the 4,000 honey bee species in the US, only some were susceptible to Neonicotinoids while other species resistant, hence the major decline in the first 6 years since the introduction of Neonicotinoids and a slow taper off over the next 12 years until those susceptible species are gone leaving the resistant species which are now growing.
All things being equal, if the decline were solely attributable to mites, then what is your take on the US pattern for the initial huge decline followed by a slow decline and then the recent turn around? I know there has been some genetic modifications of both the mites and bees to address the issue, but that is more recent and wouldn't explain the big taper off in decline from 1996-2008 and it is not like they have been eradicated.
The answer to complex problems is usually "all of the above" in some degree. Weakened bees can succumb to things they normally would weather ok. Each different assault weakens them. Which is the 'real problem'? I'm thinking, all of them together.
If it is not clear, that is exactly what I suggest.
Specifically, I acknowledge the devastating impact of the mites, but believe because the patterns (I am aware of) suggest more.
I am thoroughly interested in the global data if it suggests the U.S. Honey Production Survey data is an anomaly in terms of net negative colonies after introduction Neonicotinoids.
Respectfully: come on. Once again, these aren't hard numbers to get. The varroa mite outbreak began in 1987. Feral honeybees were probably effectively eradicated by the end of the 1990s. Now, look up the introduction and adoption dates for neonicotinoids.
I know approximately fuck-all about beekeeping. It should not be this easy for me to rebut arguments about neonic toxicity, but I appear to be holding my own on approximately 3 Google searches per day.
The introduction of neonicotinoids corresponds with an increase in the number of active hives, to record numbers in some areas (like Canada).
The number of honeybee colonies in the US (where honeybees are livestock, not an indigenous species) is up since the announcement of CCD in 2006. Colonies are down since around 1990, when wild honeybees were wiped out by the varroa mite --- which mites remain the biggest stressor of honeybee colonies in the US.
I believe the assertion is that in order to maintain the bee population at the level necessary to meet demands on agriculture given the extraordinary rise in the death rate of both individual bees and entire colonies, the beekeeping industry has had to import far more colonies per year.
If you have signed a pollination contract to provide 100 beehives for a commercial orchard and your colonies keep dying then in order to be sure you can perform your contract and not incur damages, you will make sure you have more than 100 beehives in order to allow for colony collapse.
Similarly if you are making honey. If you have the right to make honey over an area that will support 100 beehives but you know that 20 of them are going to die, ten you will put in 120 beehives.
Commercial beekeepers know how to create new colonies by artificially triggering the split/swarming process. Thus, the logical response of commercial beekeepers to the colony collapse disorder is to keep extra colonies around. It makes complete sense.
Unfortunately, I doubt a similar adaptation is happening in the wild. We are losing wild pollinators and that may have all kinds of negative effects on the ecosystem.
Active colonies != total bee population.
If the mortality rate is high, then you need more colonies with reproducing bees in them to maintain the population at a certain level.
Regardless, a better metric to consider re: managed hives might be annual colony losses, not total quantity of active hives. Of course beekeepers can make new hives. Thus far they are thankfully able to keep up with higher and higher losses each year (and honey and pollination prices are continuing to rise as more energy and money is put into raising bees instead of bee products).
This spike in losses is more recent than the varroa introduction. Graphing out one positive metric and pretending things haven't gone weird with honeybees in the past decade or so seems misguided.
I don't know about the UK, but there are (essentially) no feral honeybees in the US, and there haven't been in something like 30 years, not because of pesticides, but because of the varroa mite.
If this is true, then it's likely just due to more beekeeping activity - commercial and hobby - due to the awareness of this issue and rapidly growing agricultural demands.
Beekeepers tend to use annual colony losses for whatever reasons as a measure of overall apiary health. These are increasing (sometimes dramatically). For example, a commercial apiary may count 10% as normal and expected losses overwintering, while we are currently seeing upwards of 40-45% annual losses. The numbers can be replenished but this takes time and money and is the worrying unnatural trend that is being discussed. The absolute number of active hives at any given time is not necessarily a useful metric to measure declines.
Numbers vary depending on the survey and most surveys only include maybe 1/3 of commercially managed hives, to start.
Overwinter losses are probably around your number for the last several years but all-year losses are much higher. The USDA stated for 2013-2014, for example, higher summer losses than winter for the first time, for an annual total of 42.1% *
Regardless of the exact number, my point is still valid in discussing your original question.