Neils

Seems like a fairly normal and unremarkable rate of colony loss (although the method of data collection will affect the outcome of course). For last year's COLOSS survey we set the date to count as 1 May as there can still be losses in April, particularly as the queenless colonies fail or get identified by the beekeeper. I haven't yet lifted any frames so I can't be sure yet.

Of course, I wouldn't use this for anything other than general interest. While I'm now well over 350 colonies, that's hardly representative of the 140k+ registered colonies supposedly in the UK, let alone the others.

I excluded colonies that have gone queenless and where two colonies have been combine from being counted. A loss on these figures is purely where someone's said "I cracked the lid and the bees were dead".

Take the point about timing, I've not looked at all mine yet either, but felt the numbers so far were worth looking at.

I do think these numbers, even taking all that into account, are conservative, I split Nucs and full colonies initially because the nuc losses were obviously affecting the overall picture but I think especially where people only have 1-2 colonies there's a natural reluctance to publicly admit that you lost both hives.

The only other noticeable trait I've come across is the apparent lack of interest in the "natural" communities. Whether as a community or individual Beekeepers. Everywhere else has not only a winter losses thread but multiple "my bees are dead what went wrong? Posts from individuals. Maybe bees in tbhs don't die so no-one need ask but I did find it curious.

>Maybe bees in tbhs don't die so no-one need ask but I did find it curious.

I think you will find that is the elephant in the room. Not so much the fault of the box, as the non varroa treatment baggage which seems to go with it.
The typical routine is a year of preaching followed by bragging in April if the bees survived a winter and then silence after the second winter. I like to follow the posts or blogs of the non treaters and they invariably end the same way. Wipeout within 3 years, usually two. Some people in the US seem to be getting by without treatment, although there is russian genetics in a lot of these bees. The Primorsky bees have had to deal with varroa for something like 150 years.
It's a lot easier to rant about pesticides and the bbka than address why your bees died.
It is a bitter irony that the usual suspects call the bbka the british beekillers association.
It would be great to have the stats on treaters vs non treaters but I don't think you have a mission about getting honest data.
My nuc losses this winter must be skewing your stats but even with that, I have more colonies than this time last year and I sold some as well.
last year I didn't lose any and I was reluctant to post that, as it looks like crowing when others are reporting losses.
I must be happier to identify with the losers.

I don't think that numbers in any detail will be forthcoming, I can only pinpoint one top bar hive in the total figures otherwise there just doesn't seem to be any discussion on winter losses at all.

The initial figures were definitely skewed by the Nuc Numbers, hence me splitting them out, but as the figures have increased it's not having quite the dramatic effect that it did before.

Hi Nellie.
A guy in my bka lost 27/27. (in nationals)
He told me last September he had no varroa and was not going to treat.
He thought it was nosema ceranae but when he brought a sample of dead bees for checking it was riddled with mites and negative for nosema.
He has a single colony left, one in his garden. The others were at out apiaries.
I know another guy had 100% losses but not sure of his exact colony numbers, around 10 or 12.

My dad lost 2 nucs but still has 12 and 2 nucs.

I hardly saw mites last summer either but had one colony drop nearly 1000 after Apiguard.
Another colony dropped a further 100 in December after the Oxalic treatment.

I think varroa and associated virus as well as nosema are the biggest problems for bee health.

Smiths on OMF's 3 years of treating with sublimated OA and thought they were doing OK (5 hives), ended year with 8 new queens and 1 second year. They were fed syrup till they were full and then treated with OA sublimated in October. The second year Q had a very high count 2200bugs, but had maintained full brood and 3 1/2 supers in the year, the others were counts in the low hundreds .
They all were laying well in nice patterns.
Late December with a slight increase in the temperature I treated again though for the first time used the OA trickle method, this gave low double figure counts across the hives and as the weather had been so bad I thought there should be no brood.
Condition so far is 4 total losses 2 with2 frames of bees and tiny patch of eggs/brood, 1 with 3 frames of bees. 1 of which I stole and gave to a queen with 20 bees and a dozen eggs.
The 2nd year queen may be the only colony that remains viable.
Is it coincidence that this is the first time I used trickle method.
Is it likely the remoteness of my queen breeding area has given me poor queens, the combs are clean and there is no obvious sign of disease, no starvation

That sounds like what I got with my nucs this winter and I strongly suspect nosema rather than varroa. I have nor sent my samples for testing yet but I am sure most will come back positive.
Some people have suggested that the Oxalic acid trickle can be the coup de grace for bees already suffering from nosema.
I lost a couple of nucs within a fortnight of the oxalic trickle in a cold spell.
Varroa (and pesticides) get all the press but Nosema is a big problem as well.

I always assumed nosema would show up with fouled frames, is this not the case, apart from some mould on the outside frames they are spotless

I don't think you get the fouling with N Ceranae, just the dwindling.

OK thanks Jon, I'll send a sample off

Jon,

Those are helpful figures. Don't take this the wrong way, but I've been reluctant to take third party accounts into the stats. I want to put them in on the basis that I think it will make the numbers look "better" but equally it highlights the issue with conducting a survey on the basis of publicly disclosed figures.

Nemphlar, thank you, both for raw numbers and a detailed context behind them. Having put this up on several different forums I've been incredibly appreciative with the open-ness and interest that people have treated what I tried to do. I don't have anything to offer in way of suggestion over what Jon's already suggested I'm afraid.

Hi Nellie.
Yep, see what you mean, it would mean the survey was pure heresay or 3rd party gossip, not that I would indulge in any of that!