As always thank you for your work. When you have a moment, can you address the anti-environment claims of the otherwise fine Landman? My only experience with insect armageddon is driving from montreal to boston in 1970s and 80s and having to stop 2 or 3 times to wipe windshield. Now i can drive 1000 miles with nary an insect gut to be found. I wondered if theyve designed better windshields but it’s not that. What do the data show?
Hi Jonathan ! "To draw robust conclusions about long-term trends in insect populations in the UK, scientists require data from multiple years, over long time periods, and over large spatial scales-the Bugs Matter citizen science survey has demonstrated that it has the potential to generate such data."....or not !
"Citizen scientists" is a derogatory term to start with ! And it is hardly scientific !
"Scientific experiments and the hypotheses they test must be falsifiable"
This principle, famously advocated by philosopher Karl Popper, states that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be capable of being proven false through observation or experimentation. .........Insect "splats" are hardly that !
One swarm of bees intercepted .....or one day of grasshoppers on the move .....and you get more "splats" than you can count !.....Hearsay , rumour and gossip at best !
Since we've ditched the lawn and put our yard into natives plants I've been amazed at the variety of bees and insects in general that we see now. Yes, a few are mildly problematic but manageable. It's really opened my eyes to how many different bees there are out there that suburbs and farm fields don't seem to support.
Andy, I support your approach 100%. Saves water, too!
I never had a lawn on my 5 acres of mixed forest and meadows in the Pacific Northwest. But I remove non-native plants, especially invasive ones. I also create occasional areas of bare soil because some wild bees need bare soil to make their nests.
Many native plants, especially bulbs, have been patiently waiting for decades for protection from deer browse and removal of the competing non-natives.
I still have remnants of the previous garden near my house because some of the plants are really special for me, such as a dwarf fragrant daphne, Daphne cneorum, that is over six feet across and a small Japanese maple, as well as a dwarf lavender that volunteers in the gravely areas. And wooly thyme and Corsican mint that also volunteer and are less than an inch tall. Trying for a fire wise landscape overall.
I do hope that you have left some "weeds" like the milkweed for any Monarch Butterflies to lay their eggs on !
I have a friend who "feeds sugar nectar" to migrating hummingbirds to assist them on their journey as nectar and insects become harder to find en-route , as the seasons change.....Your floral contribution would probably not go unnoticed and be appreciated by the migrating rufous hummimgbirds on their journeys !
I wish that Monarchs visited my island in Western Washington, just south of Canada. Apparently Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon , and Idaho are important habitats for Monarchs:
This is is a really good lesson on how it is important to look more closely at what is really being represented in graphs and by statistics.
It also highlights causation vs correlation.
Domesticated bee farms may actually also be thriving and growing because of struggling wild bee populations since farmers will sometimes rent bees during crop flowering seasons to make sure pollination occurs. I assume this was not as often the case in the past when wild bees were doing well.
Thus, there may actually be a statistical relationship between bee farming increases and wild be demise.
Statistics are always objective. However, the messages some may try to portray with them may not be accurate.
Some politicians like to pretend that the numbers themselves are false. However, this is not actually the case. It is how stats are being presented to paint a certain picture which people need to look more closely at and watch out for.
In your example you point out that one might assume that bee populations are fine if one does not look more closely at what the stats are really showing. One who is wanting to paint a false picture for political reasons (big donor insecticide company) might suggest exactly that and that pretend the graph shows that all bee populations are fine. Bees are also susceptible to diseases and some politician my not want to fund that research that is needed to keep them thriving and may misrepresent this information.
So, always look closely when someone is using data and a graph to support a narrative. Sometimes the graph and stats are good supporting evidence, sometimes they are not.
I enjoyed the clear-eyed analysis. I have a quick question as a non-bee person - are honeybees also wild bees? In the sense that we have lots of birds come to our birdfeeder, but I still think of them as wild birds. They come and go as they please and can decide to stop using the feeder if they want. But maybe I misunderstand beekeeping so the analogy may be wrong. And a short comment - I studied amphibian populations for a long time and did a global analysis of amphibian populations in the early2000's (found they were declining). But it is clear that most natural populations of living things fluctuate dramatically from year-to-year and so short term trends can appear alarming if interpreted as long-term trends. And most academic and citizen science is done in areas where people live - usually in fairly high densities (at least that was true for amphibians). And so might not be representative of 'global' trends. These were caveats we had to consider in our week. And, in my mind, emphasized the need for large-scale (over time and space) monitoring if we were going to be reasonably confident in our trend estimates.
I appreciate these subtleties of how to get good data. Wendell Berry invokes the declining numbers of people living in rural places as a factor that likely makes us less in touch and in tune with what nature is doing. He calls this the "eyes to acres ratio," and I find this helpful to think about what you are invoking here. More and more of our human eyes are focused in urban locations As a small scale local beekeeper in a semi-urban, I balance time creating forage for my honeybees (by planting trees and native perennials), and for all bees, as I do tending my hives. As for wildness, most bee scientists say that a beehive living without a beekeeper (for example, in a tree hollow) is "feral" rather than "wild". Honeybees have been a domesticated insect for as far back into history as we can look (and also have always created feral colonies when there are enough nice hollows to support them). It's very mysterious question as to just how, way back when, humans and honeybees struck up a partnership.
I agree broadly with the post but I disagree that the number of farmed animals increasing consistently and to massive numbers is at all positive, even just for food production.
It is actively detracting from the vast number of people we could feed if that land were instead used for efficient arable agriculture, it is a massive threat in terms of disease and antibiotic resistance, and it is a major source of emissions, deforestation, soil degradation and inefficient water and land usage.
Broadly agree with your posts and appreciate the time spent researching them but you completely missed the mark there, the only coherent and consistent environmentalist view cannot be lauding farmed animals as a great thing.
I fear this is a misreading of what Hannah wrote. I couldn't find anywhere in the text where she makes the point that farmed animals are a great thing, or even a positive thing. She even added a footnote to point out that it's not good for the animals.
If we've reached the point where stating clear, objective facts becomes partisan, then we're in trouble.
Yeah, I'm about 99% sure Ms Ritchie is fully agreed here (as am I). It was a statement of fact, the problem is that as soon as you start discussing how awful factory farming is people get defensive and ignore whatever other points one is trying to make (in this case about bees).
Brilliant clarification. The livestock analogy for managed honeybees is perfect, especially the chicken example. I've seen that exact chart weaponized to dismiss biodiversity concerns more times than I can count. The irony that thriving honeybee populations might actually threaten wild bees through competition and pathogen spread is something I hadnt fully considered. Data literacy matters not just in readng numbers but understanding what populations those numbers actaully represent.
Hannah , much as I love your work and your concern for 'nature' , I think that ONE SPECIES of humans is at far greater risk than the THOUSANDS OF SPECIES of bees !
There have been bees on planet earth for more than 100 million years. Mankind learned to harvest honey almost 8,000 years ago, and bees, the critical role they play in agriculture, and their gifts to us — the honey, pollen, and wax we harvest from their hives – have been integral to our species ever since. [ Bruce Rutter and Ella Scott ]https://bestbees.com/bee-facts/#:~:text=There%20have%20been%20bees%20on,certain%20you'll%20find%20fascinating.
.
Worldwide there are over 200,000 different species of pollinators, including not just bees,
birds, and butterflies, but bats, beetles, flies, moths, small mammals, and wasps.
Australia hosts over 2,000 known species of native bees, with of hundreds more awaiting scientific description.........and there are more than 4,000 species of native bees in the U.S. alone.
.
Varroa Destructor Mite is the greatest threat to bees in Australia....the main establishment in Australia occurred in New South Wales.....that originated at the Port of Newcastle, New South Wales, in June 2022, likely spread through human activity and the movement of commercial bee hives. Our honey bees are susceptible to these mites which eventually destroy the larvae and the hive. They lay their eggs in the hives and overwhelm the developing larvae. Varroa mites weaken honey bees by feeding on their vital fat body tissue, impairing immunity, growth, and energy, while also transmitting deadly viruses like Deformed Wing Virus (DWV); this dual attack leads to crippled bees, reduced flight, poor foraging, and eventual colony collapse, making infestations a primary threat to bee health. They attach to adult bees, feeding and spreading viruses, then move to new brood to continue the cycle.
CSIRO scientists have noted that the mite will likely cause 90–100% loss of feral colonies.
Breeding for Resistance: CSIRO scientists are investigating Varroa-resistant genetics from imported bees and working to track this protective DNA to help breed bees that can better handle infestations.....but.......With eradication no longer considered feasible as of late 2023, the focus has shifted to managing the mites in established areas.
There is a predatory mite , Stratiolaelaps scimitus (formerly known as Hypoaspis miles and often sold under this name) which is a predatory soil mite that has been investigated as a biocontrol agent against Varroa destructor. It is known to hunt and feed on Varroa mites, and research suggests it may help reduce Varroa populations without harming the bees. Sadly , while laboratory tests showed promising predation, field studies have generally found that S. scimitus is ineffective at controlling Varroa populations within honey bee colonies. The mites , soil-dwellers , do not readily attack Varroa mites while they are attached to bees (phoretic phase), but instead, they attack them after they have fallen to the bottom of the hive.
Hopefully , some biological solution can be found ! Interestingly , although the thought of mites might make your skin crawl : almost everyone has Demodex mites (tiny, microscopic arachnids) living in their eyelash follicles, feeding on dead skin cells and oils; they are a normal part of our body's microbiome, usually harmless, keeping your follicles from blocking-up , but their numbers increase with age, and too many may cause eyelid inflammation (blepharitis) or irritation.
Demodex mites are harmless: a natural resident, like bacteria on your skin, cleaning up debris.
.
Other Potential VARROA MITE Predators: Pseudoscorpions (Chelifer cancroides) have also been observed to attack Varroa mites ; there's room for hope of a biological "fix"...unlike Cane Toads !
.
Rottnest Island , just off-shore from Fremantle , is famous for its unique, calm, and productive honey bee genetics, and several Australian breeders continue to sell mated queens and nucleus colonies (nucs) derived from these "Rottnest Island Daughter Queens," though availability depends on the breeder and season, with many selling out quickly. These bees are sought after for their excellent foraging, hygienic behaviour, and reduced tendency to swarm, making them a popular choice for Australian beekeepers. Rottnest acts as a natural quarantine, protecting WA's bee genetics from exotic diseases, including Varroa.
Not Naturally Resistant (Yet): Since Varroa hasn't been established in Australia, there's no widespread natural resistance; the focus is on preventing its entry and breeding for traits that help bees live with the mite.....and.....the island's controlled environment makes it an ideal location to trial and develop mite-tolerant bee lines for the mainland, ensuring bee health if Varroa arrives.
.
Yes Hannah , honey bees and honey production has even moved BACK INTO MODERN CITIES !
While beekeeping has ALWAYS occurred in towns , it has , of late , been mainly a rural activity !
Honey production in cities is a growing practice called urban beekeeping, where hives on rooftops or in gardens produce unique, diverse-flavoured honey, often thriving due to rich floral variety, though it requires navigating local regulations and ensuring water/wind protection for the bees. Bees in cities benefit from diverse, untreated flowers, sometimes outperforming rural bees, and this practice supports local pollination, food security, and reconnects people with food systems. It's great watching the bees and wasps come to the bird-baths for water and buzzing around the flowers and recently-watered garden beds in the warm weather. Friendly and food-producing.....what more could you want ! Honey is great as a "rooting hormone replacement" too Regards , Trevor.
Thank you, Hannah. I've enjoyed your Substack posts quite a lot over the last couple years, and I'm happy you chose to address bee data. I posted a comment below already, so I'll just share in addition that, as a science teacher and small scale local beekeeper, I write a lot about the intersection of bees and science. I wrote an article about the question of "Who should we care about more? Honeybees, or native bees?" https://briang.substack.com/p/wondering-wednesday-q-and-a-24.
Your data matches my conclusions pretty exactly. We must have concern about both. We can't be cavalier about the need for stable food production, but we must be clear-eyed about the way we abuse animals, including bees, cows, chickens etc, to maximize production. I am reminded of the book "The Shepherds Life" by James Rebanks, in which he voices a well-informed opinion, as a 4th generation shepherd, that we must do both (ensure steady food production, while increasingly welcoming wild spaces and corridors back into and around all of our farms). His basic argument is that industrial agriculture is actually dependent on those wild spaces, and on those farmers who work at the margins raising animals and crops in ancient and more balanced ways. His perspective is helpful to me, as it reminds us that we must think of the farmers in our analysis as well. As I understand it, large scale beekeepers, like large scale farmers, are much more likely to "die from despair" (suicide or other self harming behavior) due to the pressures of razor thin margins and ever increasing production goals.
Sadly that's not my kiwi experience - although that was the case decades ago. On the upside, in NZ our wild bees are not so negatively impacted by farmed honey bees because they visit different flowers.
Yes and no. By comparison with the UK and Europe, probably. By comparison with the summers of my childhood 50 years ago, no. Even compared to 20 years ago, no.
As always thank you for your work. When you have a moment, can you address the anti-environment claims of the otherwise fine Landman? My only experience with insect armageddon is driving from montreal to boston in 1970s and 80s and having to stop 2 or 3 times to wipe windshield. Now i can drive 1000 miles with nary an insect gut to be found. I wondered if theyve designed better windshields but it’s not that. What do the data show?
Here's a study from the UK based on citizen reporting. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360514998_The_Bugs_Matter_Citizen_Science_Survey_counting_insect_'splats'_on_vehicle_number_plates_reveals_a_585_reduction_in_the_abundance_of_actively_flying_insects_in_the_UK_between_2004_and_2021
Hi Jonathan ! "To draw robust conclusions about long-term trends in insect populations in the UK, scientists require data from multiple years, over long time periods, and over large spatial scales-the Bugs Matter citizen science survey has demonstrated that it has the potential to generate such data."....or not !
"Citizen scientists" is a derogatory term to start with ! And it is hardly scientific !
"Scientific experiments and the hypotheses they test must be falsifiable"
This principle, famously advocated by philosopher Karl Popper, states that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be capable of being proven false through observation or experimentation. .........Insect "splats" are hardly that !
One swarm of bees intercepted .....or one day of grasshoppers on the move .....and you get more "splats" than you can count !.....Hearsay , rumour and gossip at best !
Thanks for sharing, Trevor.
U think NZ could somehow be a distinction?
Idk! But ritchie can figure it out!
Since we've ditched the lawn and put our yard into natives plants I've been amazed at the variety of bees and insects in general that we see now. Yes, a few are mildly problematic but manageable. It's really opened my eyes to how many different bees there are out there that suburbs and farm fields don't seem to support.
Andy, I support your approach 100%. Saves water, too!
I never had a lawn on my 5 acres of mixed forest and meadows in the Pacific Northwest. But I remove non-native plants, especially invasive ones. I also create occasional areas of bare soil because some wild bees need bare soil to make their nests.
Many native plants, especially bulbs, have been patiently waiting for decades for protection from deer browse and removal of the competing non-natives.
I still have remnants of the previous garden near my house because some of the plants are really special for me, such as a dwarf fragrant daphne, Daphne cneorum, that is over six feet across and a small Japanese maple, as well as a dwarf lavender that volunteers in the gravely areas. And wooly thyme and Corsican mint that also volunteer and are less than an inch tall. Trying for a fire wise landscape overall.
Janet.......good for you !
I do hope that you have left some "weeds" like the milkweed for any Monarch Butterflies to lay their eggs on !
I have a friend who "feeds sugar nectar" to migrating hummingbirds to assist them on their journey as nectar and insects become harder to find en-route , as the seasons change.....Your floral contribution would probably not go unnoticed and be appreciated by the migrating rufous hummimgbirds on their journeys !
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Rufous_Hummingbird/maps-range#:~:text=BreedingMigrationNonbreeding-,Migration,at%20Birds%20of%20the%20World
I wish that Monarchs visited my island in Western Washington, just south of Canada. Apparently Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon , and Idaho are important habitats for Monarchs:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/plantmaterials/idpmctn13560.pdf#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20the%20Pacific%20Northwest%2C,butterflies%20back%20to%20California%20for%20the%20winter.
See:
PACIFIC NORTHWEST (PNW) MONARCH BUTTERFLY
WILDLIFE HABITAT EVAULATION GUIDE (WHEG)
Lots of hummingbirds visit here, though!
They are living miracles!
Thank you!
This is is a really good lesson on how it is important to look more closely at what is really being represented in graphs and by statistics.
It also highlights causation vs correlation.
Domesticated bee farms may actually also be thriving and growing because of struggling wild bee populations since farmers will sometimes rent bees during crop flowering seasons to make sure pollination occurs. I assume this was not as often the case in the past when wild bees were doing well.
Thus, there may actually be a statistical relationship between bee farming increases and wild be demise.
Statistics are always objective. However, the messages some may try to portray with them may not be accurate.
Some politicians like to pretend that the numbers themselves are false. However, this is not actually the case. It is how stats are being presented to paint a certain picture which people need to look more closely at and watch out for.
In your example you point out that one might assume that bee populations are fine if one does not look more closely at what the stats are really showing. One who is wanting to paint a false picture for political reasons (big donor insecticide company) might suggest exactly that and that pretend the graph shows that all bee populations are fine. Bees are also susceptible to diseases and some politician my not want to fund that research that is needed to keep them thriving and may misrepresent this information.
So, always look closely when someone is using data and a graph to support a narrative. Sometimes the graph and stats are good supporting evidence, sometimes they are not.
I enjoyed the clear-eyed analysis. I have a quick question as a non-bee person - are honeybees also wild bees? In the sense that we have lots of birds come to our birdfeeder, but I still think of them as wild birds. They come and go as they please and can decide to stop using the feeder if they want. But maybe I misunderstand beekeeping so the analogy may be wrong. And a short comment - I studied amphibian populations for a long time and did a global analysis of amphibian populations in the early2000's (found they were declining). But it is clear that most natural populations of living things fluctuate dramatically from year-to-year and so short term trends can appear alarming if interpreted as long-term trends. And most academic and citizen science is done in areas where people live - usually in fairly high densities (at least that was true for amphibians). And so might not be representative of 'global' trends. These were caveats we had to consider in our week. And, in my mind, emphasized the need for large-scale (over time and space) monitoring if we were going to be reasonably confident in our trend estimates.
I appreciate these subtleties of how to get good data. Wendell Berry invokes the declining numbers of people living in rural places as a factor that likely makes us less in touch and in tune with what nature is doing. He calls this the "eyes to acres ratio," and I find this helpful to think about what you are invoking here. More and more of our human eyes are focused in urban locations As a small scale local beekeeper in a semi-urban, I balance time creating forage for my honeybees (by planting trees and native perennials), and for all bees, as I do tending my hives. As for wildness, most bee scientists say that a beehive living without a beekeeper (for example, in a tree hollow) is "feral" rather than "wild". Honeybees have been a domesticated insect for as far back into history as we can look (and also have always created feral colonies when there are enough nice hollows to support them). It's very mysterious question as to just how, way back when, humans and honeybees struck up a partnership.
I agree broadly with the post but I disagree that the number of farmed animals increasing consistently and to massive numbers is at all positive, even just for food production.
It is actively detracting from the vast number of people we could feed if that land were instead used for efficient arable agriculture, it is a massive threat in terms of disease and antibiotic resistance, and it is a major source of emissions, deforestation, soil degradation and inefficient water and land usage.
Broadly agree with your posts and appreciate the time spent researching them but you completely missed the mark there, the only coherent and consistent environmentalist view cannot be lauding farmed animals as a great thing.
I fear this is a misreading of what Hannah wrote. I couldn't find anywhere in the text where she makes the point that farmed animals are a great thing, or even a positive thing. She even added a footnote to point out that it's not good for the animals.
If we've reached the point where stating clear, objective facts becomes partisan, then we're in trouble.
We reached that point long ago with politics I am afraid.
I’m positive Hannah did not miss the mark to be honest. At no point in her writing did she, or ever has, lauded farmed animals as a great thing.
It was being used as a tool to show how data can show a positive but it doesn’t mean that it is.
It really is not the point of the article.
Yeah, I'm about 99% sure Ms Ritchie is fully agreed here (as am I). It was a statement of fact, the problem is that as soon as you start discussing how awful factory farming is people get defensive and ignore whatever other points one is trying to make (in this case about bees).
Brilliant clarification. The livestock analogy for managed honeybees is perfect, especially the chicken example. I've seen that exact chart weaponized to dismiss biodiversity concerns more times than I can count. The irony that thriving honeybee populations might actually threaten wild bees through competition and pathogen spread is something I hadnt fully considered. Data literacy matters not just in readng numbers but understanding what populations those numbers actaully represent.
Hannah , much as I love your work and your concern for 'nature' , I think that ONE SPECIES of humans is at far greater risk than the THOUSANDS OF SPECIES of bees !
There have been bees on planet earth for more than 100 million years. Mankind learned to harvest honey almost 8,000 years ago, and bees, the critical role they play in agriculture, and their gifts to us — the honey, pollen, and wax we harvest from their hives – have been integral to our species ever since. [ Bruce Rutter and Ella Scott ]https://bestbees.com/bee-facts/#:~:text=There%20have%20been%20bees%20on,certain%20you'll%20find%20fascinating.
.
Worldwide there are over 200,000 different species of pollinators, including not just bees,
birds, and butterflies, but bats, beetles, flies, moths, small mammals, and wasps.
Australia hosts over 2,000 known species of native bees, with of hundreds more awaiting scientific description.........and there are more than 4,000 species of native bees in the U.S. alone.
.
Varroa Destructor Mite is the greatest threat to bees in Australia....the main establishment in Australia occurred in New South Wales.....that originated at the Port of Newcastle, New South Wales, in June 2022, likely spread through human activity and the movement of commercial bee hives. Our honey bees are susceptible to these mites which eventually destroy the larvae and the hive. They lay their eggs in the hives and overwhelm the developing larvae. Varroa mites weaken honey bees by feeding on their vital fat body tissue, impairing immunity, growth, and energy, while also transmitting deadly viruses like Deformed Wing Virus (DWV); this dual attack leads to crippled bees, reduced flight, poor foraging, and eventual colony collapse, making infestations a primary threat to bee health. They attach to adult bees, feeding and spreading viruses, then move to new brood to continue the cycle.
https://beeaware.org.au/archive-pest/varroa-mites/#ad-image-0
CSIRO scientists have noted that the mite will likely cause 90–100% loss of feral colonies.
Breeding for Resistance: CSIRO scientists are investigating Varroa-resistant genetics from imported bees and working to track this protective DNA to help breed bees that can better handle infestations.....but.......With eradication no longer considered feasible as of late 2023, the focus has shifted to managing the mites in established areas.
There is a predatory mite , Stratiolaelaps scimitus (formerly known as Hypoaspis miles and often sold under this name) which is a predatory soil mite that has been investigated as a biocontrol agent against Varroa destructor. It is known to hunt and feed on Varroa mites, and research suggests it may help reduce Varroa populations without harming the bees. Sadly , while laboratory tests showed promising predation, field studies have generally found that S. scimitus is ineffective at controlling Varroa populations within honey bee colonies. The mites , soil-dwellers , do not readily attack Varroa mites while they are attached to bees (phoretic phase), but instead, they attack them after they have fallen to the bottom of the hive.
Hopefully , some biological solution can be found ! Interestingly , although the thought of mites might make your skin crawl : almost everyone has Demodex mites (tiny, microscopic arachnids) living in their eyelash follicles, feeding on dead skin cells and oils; they are a normal part of our body's microbiome, usually harmless, keeping your follicles from blocking-up , but their numbers increase with age, and too many may cause eyelid inflammation (blepharitis) or irritation.
Demodex mites are harmless: a natural resident, like bacteria on your skin, cleaning up debris.
.
Other Potential VARROA MITE Predators: Pseudoscorpions (Chelifer cancroides) have also been observed to attack Varroa mites ; there's room for hope of a biological "fix"...unlike Cane Toads !
.
Rottnest Island , just off-shore from Fremantle , is famous for its unique, calm, and productive honey bee genetics, and several Australian breeders continue to sell mated queens and nucleus colonies (nucs) derived from these "Rottnest Island Daughter Queens," though availability depends on the breeder and season, with many selling out quickly. These bees are sought after for their excellent foraging, hygienic behaviour, and reduced tendency to swarm, making them a popular choice for Australian beekeepers. Rottnest acts as a natural quarantine, protecting WA's bee genetics from exotic diseases, including Varroa.
Not Naturally Resistant (Yet): Since Varroa hasn't been established in Australia, there's no widespread natural resistance; the focus is on preventing its entry and breeding for traits that help bees live with the mite.....and.....the island's controlled environment makes it an ideal location to trial and develop mite-tolerant bee lines for the mainland, ensuring bee health if Varroa arrives.
.
Yes Hannah , honey bees and honey production has even moved BACK INTO MODERN CITIES !
While beekeeping has ALWAYS occurred in towns , it has , of late , been mainly a rural activity !
Honey production in cities is a growing practice called urban beekeeping, where hives on rooftops or in gardens produce unique, diverse-flavoured honey, often thriving due to rich floral variety, though it requires navigating local regulations and ensuring water/wind protection for the bees. Bees in cities benefit from diverse, untreated flowers, sometimes outperforming rural bees, and this practice supports local pollination, food security, and reconnects people with food systems. It's great watching the bees and wasps come to the bird-baths for water and buzzing around the flowers and recently-watered garden beds in the warm weather. Friendly and food-producing.....what more could you want ! Honey is great as a "rooting hormone replacement" too Regards , Trevor.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Honey+production+in+the+city+!&rlz=1C1VDKB_en-GBAU1181AU1184&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgCEEUYOxjCAzIJCAAQRRg7GMIDMgkIARBFGDsYwgMyCQgCEEUYOxjCAzIJCAMQRRg7GMIDMgkIBBBFGDsYwgMyCQgFEEUYOxjCAzIJCAYQRRg7GMIDMgkIBxBFGDsYwgPSAQkzOTkxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBfhRstJVPdQX&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:6f22360d,vid:ARwYI-vz2js,st:0
Thank you, Hannah. I've enjoyed your Substack posts quite a lot over the last couple years, and I'm happy you chose to address bee data. I posted a comment below already, so I'll just share in addition that, as a science teacher and small scale local beekeeper, I write a lot about the intersection of bees and science. I wrote an article about the question of "Who should we care about more? Honeybees, or native bees?" https://briang.substack.com/p/wondering-wednesday-q-and-a-24.
Your data matches my conclusions pretty exactly. We must have concern about both. We can't be cavalier about the need for stable food production, but we must be clear-eyed about the way we abuse animals, including bees, cows, chickens etc, to maximize production. I am reminded of the book "The Shepherds Life" by James Rebanks, in which he voices a well-informed opinion, as a 4th generation shepherd, that we must do both (ensure steady food production, while increasingly welcoming wild spaces and corridors back into and around all of our farms). His basic argument is that industrial agriculture is actually dependent on those wild spaces, and on those farmers who work at the margins raising animals and crops in ancient and more balanced ways. His perspective is helpful to me, as it reminds us that we must think of the farmers in our analysis as well. As I understand it, large scale beekeepers, like large scale farmers, are much more likely to "die from despair" (suicide or other self harming behavior) due to the pressures of razor thin margins and ever increasing production goals.
Thank you, Hannah.
Oh btw, daughter in New Zealand says tons of bug guts on windhield.
Sadly that's not my kiwi experience - although that was the case decades ago. On the upside, in NZ our wild bees are not so negatively impacted by farmed honey bees because they visit different flowers.
Yes and no. By comparison with the UK and Europe, probably. By comparison with the summers of my childhood 50 years ago, no. Even compared to 20 years ago, no.
Daughter in New Zealand says plenty of bug guts on windshield there.