Former beekeeper here. The thing to remember about the declining bee population is that honeybees aren't in any danger. They also aren't indigenous to North America. Bee competition is also kinda weird, where hive bees (like the Italian Honeybee that makes the honey we eat) and indigenous solitary bees (like the Mason Bee) don't really compete with each other for food or space to live. Commercial beekeeping really doesn't have all that much to do with indigenous bee populations.
In fact, commercial honeybeekeeping actually does hurt native bees in the form of mites. Varroa mites are little parasites that prey on bees by waiting on flowers for them to land on and then clinging onto their backs (or nesting in their trachea if they're the small kind). Historically, varroa haven't been a huge problem for bees because they're such obsessive clean freaks that they'll just pick them off. Once the mite gets picked off of the bee's back, it falls to the ground and can't climb its way back and starves/freezes to death. Thing is, in the contemporary Langstroth Hive box design --the white boxes that you see people keep bees in-- the mite just falls to the floor of the hive where it can crawl its way back onto another bee.
Ok, well, that explains how it hurts bees that are kept as livestock, but how does that affect wild bees? Because if a honeybee hive is infected with mites (and literally 100% of hives in North America that aren't treated for mites are), it's acting as a constant mite-spreading vector, infecting other bees in the area. As long as the honeybee hive is filled with mites, those mites will lay eggs and then hitch a ride back onto flowers in the area, waiting to ambush another solitary or hive bee.
This effect caused an explosion in mite population iirc in the 90s? Either way, bee populations have been suffering since then, but commercially kept bees have had the support of the agricultural industry to keep them afloat. Wild bees? Not so lucky. The good news is that there's a few reasons that bee populations could be making a comeback. One is that bees are some of the animals with the highest rates of genetic recombination (i.e. they evolve the fastest), and wild bees are adapting to resist mites without the help of agricultural treatments. Another is that promising treatments for mites are on the horizon. I was using sublimated oxalic acid on my bees, and it was incredibly effective in my experience. The FDA approved research on using oxalic acid the year I got out of beekeeping, and I haven't kept up on it but I'm hopeful it'll make a difference
Wondering your source on bees not competing for the same resources as wild bees. Both compete for nectar and pollen, and unless they're specifically adapted for certain flower morphology like bumblebees, would be effected by local beekeeping agriculture.
I'd love to learn more, but my research has always indicated that.
You're probably right . My source for basically every claim I've made is other beekeepers that I've worked with. What I've heard is that it isn't the bees competing for nectar/pollen, its flowers competing for pollinators and that the limiting factor for maximum bee population isn't food but suitable habitats. If you've done research and found otherwise, absolutely trust your research.
I was just interested, like with dairy farmers and "facts" on how milk production is good and healthy, I distrust any farmer trying to downsell the negative impacts of whatever product they profit from, but am open to reading studies on if they're right.
Flowers do compete for pollinators too, that doesn't necessarily mean introducing more pollinators is always good if those pollinators do a worse job and hurt local pollinator species.
Honest question cause I’m dumb, does it negatively effect the bees in any way?
Former beekeeper here. The thing to remember about the declining bee population is that honeybees aren't in any danger. They also aren't indigenous to North America. Bee competition is also kinda weird, where hive bees (like the Italian Honeybee that makes the honey we eat) and indigenous solitary bees (like the Mason Bee) don't really compete with each other for food or space to live. Commercial beekeeping really doesn't have all that much to do with indigenous bee populations.
In fact, commercial honeybeekeeping actually does hurt native bees in the form of mites. Varroa mites are little parasites that prey on bees by waiting on flowers for them to land on and then clinging onto their backs (or nesting in their trachea if they're the small kind). Historically, varroa haven't been a huge problem for bees because they're such obsessive clean freaks that they'll just pick them off. Once the mite gets picked off of the bee's back, it falls to the ground and can't climb its way back and starves/freezes to death. Thing is, in the contemporary Langstroth Hive box design --the white boxes that you see people keep bees in-- the mite just falls to the floor of the hive where it can crawl its way back onto another bee.
Ok, well, that explains how it hurts bees that are kept as livestock, but how does that affect wild bees? Because if a honeybee hive is infected with mites (and literally 100% of hives in North America that aren't treated for mites are), it's acting as a constant mite-spreading vector, infecting other bees in the area. As long as the honeybee hive is filled with mites, those mites will lay eggs and then hitch a ride back onto flowers in the area, waiting to ambush another solitary or hive bee.
This effect caused an explosion in mite population iirc in the 90s? Either way, bee populations have been suffering since then, but commercially kept bees have had the support of the agricultural industry to keep them afloat. Wild bees? Not so lucky. The good news is that there's a few reasons that bee populations could be making a comeback. One is that bees are some of the animals with the highest rates of genetic recombination (i.e. they evolve the fastest), and wild bees are adapting to resist mites without the help of agricultural treatments. Another is that promising treatments for mites are on the horizon. I was using sublimated oxalic acid on my bees, and it was incredibly effective in my experience. The FDA approved research on using oxalic acid the year I got out of beekeeping, and I haven't kept up on it but I'm hopeful it'll make a difference
Wondering your source on bees not competing for the same resources as wild bees. Both compete for nectar and pollen, and unless they're specifically adapted for certain flower morphology like bumblebees, would be effected by local beekeeping agriculture.
I'd love to learn more, but my research has always indicated that.
You're probably right . My source for basically every claim I've made is other beekeepers that I've worked with. What I've heard is that it isn't the bees competing for nectar/pollen, its flowers competing for pollinators and that the limiting factor for maximum bee population isn't food but suitable habitats. If you've done research and found otherwise, absolutely trust your research.
I was just interested, like with dairy farmers and "facts" on how milk production is good and healthy, I distrust any farmer trying to downsell the negative impacts of whatever product they profit from, but am open to reading studies on if they're right.
Flowers do compete for pollinators too, that doesn't necessarily mean introducing more pollinators is always good if those pollinators do a worse job and hurt local pollinator species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clMNw_VO1xo
Yes, greatly.
If you take their honey before winter/flower die off they will die,it's their food
It's often replaced with plain sugar water which causes malnutrition and die-off.
European domesticated honeybees also outcompete endemic NA bee species, so they are invasive and a net negative to the environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clMNw_VO1xo
"Beekeeping is good" is marketing by the honey industry, not environmental organizations. Orgs recommend planting flowers for native bees.