[JoeAltmaier]

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.

[will_brown]

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.

[tptacek]

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.

[will_brown]

Honestly, I don't expect a response, but getting the Global numbers and Canada's numbers on colonies by year isn't a simple Google Search.

I am not a beekeeper either but for a time I did sell honey, up to 65,000 units per order and so I am familiar with USDA annual reports and USDA Honey Production Survey.

In fairness I seem to be one of the only people in the thread not challenging you about the impact of the mites; however, USDA reports has guided my limits on the losses attributed to mites. Not to provoke you but the Honey Production Survey shows colony growth from 1987 when you say the mites were introduced until 1990, thereafter the numbers began declining sharply.

>Now, look up the introduction and adoption dates for neonicotinoids.

By all accounts I see development in late 80's and adoption in early 90's, coinciding with the time period honey bee (managed) colonies saw nearly 33% decline, but essentially during the same period as mites were introduced sans those few years of growth after the introduction of the mites.

Just so you understand where I am coming from the USDA 2015 annual attributes under 20% of loses to mites, and only 5% to pesticides, but 15% to "other" and over 20% (more the mites) to unknown.

Maybe my Google skills are subpar, but I could not find a straight forward graph of honey bee colony number by year for Canada or globally, which is readily available with a US bee population by year Google Search. What I did see is Canada territories in 2008 on the low end losing 20% of colonies and 48% on the high end (but 1 year snap shot is not helpful), and this year a 3.8% growth which they said was record growth over the last decade. I eventually found a standalone statement that Canadian Government which attributed the majority of loses to mites, which supports what you are saying, whereas the USDA 2015 report attributes only 20% of loses to mites and 40% between pesticides/other/unknown.

[tptacek]

The most widespread neonicotinoids, like the clothianidin in seed-treated rapeseed, weren't introduced until 2002.

Neonics aren't the reason varrao mites wiped out feral honeybees. The timeline for that argument just doesn't work.

[jly]

The BBC article deals with the nearly 20k species of bee that are NOT honeybees and are NOT affected in nearly the same way by varroa, showing a clear neonicotinoid link to reducing numbers. Linking honeybee losses to this study is not accurate.