# Mystery Collapse



## buford (Feb 22, 2005)

I've been keeping bees since 2001. I've been on "Honey Super Cell" for four years. In the winter of '12/'13 I lost all 12 of my colonies. Naturally my local bee inspector said it was from mites.

I disagree. Please bear with me as I list various factors that may or may not have contributed to this problem. I would appreciate advice concerning this.

POSSIBLE FACTORS:

1. All summer long, from 8 to 5, heavy machinery was moving back and forth in front of the hives.

2. Bad goldenrod flow (queens may have stopped laying early).

3. Winter came early. That was the year of Hurricane Sandy and, although I live in the hills of West Virginia, we still had an unusual winter that year.

4. I broke my wrist in December and had to leave the feeding buckets on top of the hives for six weeks.

5. You may roll your eyes at this one, but I should mention it as a possible factor. Once in Autumn, I became frustrated with a smoker that wouldn't light and used some kerosene to get it going.

Every colony had small clusters, but enough food left to make it through winter. I still find it strange that EVERY colony collapsed! 

I had been splitting my colonies for years and re-queening with my own queens, perhaps a small gene pool was a factor. When I lost all the colonies I noticed that there were no feral bees! The maples bloomed... nothing, My apricot tree was pollinated by mason bees and wasps.

I had thought initially that the big problem was the feeding buckets, but my bee inspector didn't see evidence that it was a factor.

I'm sorry this is so long, but one more question. Is Mann Lakes 4.95 small enough to control mites?

P.S. I'm back up to 15 colonies and have started inserting empty frames. I'm VERY pleased with this! However, I fog with Thymol if I see some mites.

Advice and/or encouragement welcome

-buford


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>1. All summer long, from 8 to 5, heavy machinery was moving back and forth in front of the hives.

I've never really had bees in that position, but I have had hives that were not too far from the road and it didn't seem to hurt anything.

>2. Bad goldenrod flow (queens may have stopped laying early).

A failed fall flow is one of the issues I often face here. If you have no fall flow you often don't get that last batch of young "winter" bees to get through the winter. One of the things I try to watch for is exactly that and then I feed pollen and possibly syrup to make sure I get another batch of bees going into fall.

>3. Winter came early. That was the year of Hurricane Sandy and, although I live in the hills of West Virginia, we still had an unusual winter that year.

That's always hard to predict and often that means you didn't get a chance to feed when you intended...

>5. You may roll your eyes at this one, but I should mention it as a possible factor. Once in Autumn, I became frustrated with a smoker that wouldn't light and used some kerosene to get it going.

Probably not good...

>Every colony had small clusters, but enough food left to make it through winter. I still find it strange that EVERY colony collapsed! 

Did you look for dead Varroa on the bottom? Varroa feces in the brood cells? Was it an unusually cold winter?

>I had been splitting my colonies for years and re-queening with my own queens, perhaps a small gene pool was a factor.

It was probably broader than the typical bought queen...

>Is Mann Lakes 4.95 small enough to control mites?

In my experience, yes.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

buford said:


> my local bee inspector said it was from mites.
> 
> I disagree.


Why do you disagree?

Did any show PMS symptoms? What were your mite levels pre-collapse? Did you inspect the inside of the cells to find evidence of varroa deification?

Of the 5 possible factors you listed, how many of them have you encountered in the 12 years prior? I doubt you broke your wrist or left the feed buckets on before, but was the heavy machinery movement abnormal for the area? Have you ever had a bad goldenrod flow before? Has winter ever come early before?

I don't know what happened. But it appears to me the inspector's word should be taken unless proven otherwise. You haven't listed anything that can clearly disprove that mites _weren't_ the cause of the losses, and I don't see how any one of the 5 causes you listed could be the cause. Possible that some of them combined could have caused _some_ losses, but I doubt it would have caused 12 out of 12 deaths. Occam's razor appears to be pointing in the same direction as the inspector (who diagnoses dead-outs for a living).


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

buford said:


> "I've been keeping bees since 2001. I've been on "Honey Super Cell" for four years. In the winter of '12/'13 I lost all 12 of my colonies. Naturally my local bee inspector said it was from mites.
> 
> I disagree."........ this reminds me of my old friend mike's favorite saying.. "my mind is made up don't confuse me with facts"


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I usually contribute small clusters come fall to mites


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

My vote would be mites too. A commercial beekeeper near me has several thousand hives and he uses strips of burlap soaked in used motor oil to fuel his smokers. It smells terrible, but he has done it for years. He has some real nice bees too. While this is not something I would do it appears to not harm his bees.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

If you don't monitor for mites how can you disagree. Fundamental beekeeping IMO


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

buford said:


> 2. Bad goldenrod flow (queens may have stopped laying early). buford


How many times have I seen this. Poor fall flow. Bees raise very little brood. What varroa there are infest what little brood there is. Colony collapses with small cluster. 

IMO, your inspector is correct.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Palmer said:


> IMO, your inspector is correct.


What?! How can you say such a thing. EVERYBODY knows that all of the inspectors are paid by Bayer....or is it Monsanto? And EVERYBODY knows that small cell bees don't have mites. 
Get your facts straight.


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

I will jump on the mite band wagon. A couple of winters ago I had the same thing happen. I lost 7/8 due to small clusters, weak from mites, unable to move to honey within a couple cells distance. We had a especally long cold snap that winter and they starved. However the real issue was the weakness from the mites. The one that made it through was so weak in the spring it could never bounce back.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

beemandan said:


> What?! How can you say such a thing. EVERYBODY knows that all of the inspectors are paid by Bayer....or is it Monsanto? And EVERYBODY knows that small cell bees don't have mites.
> Get your facts straight.


 :thumbsup:


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

specialKayme wrote "......varroa deification?".... definition: one that embodies the qualities of a god....


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Michael Palmer said:


> Poor fall flow. Bees raise very little brood. What varroa there are infest what little brood there is. Colony collapses with small cluster.


No mystery, IMO, mites or the viruses they brought with them.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Cloverdale said:


> specialKayme wrote "......varroa deification?".... definition: one that embodies the qualities of a god....


That spellcheck will getcha every time.


----------



## buford (Feb 22, 2005)

I thank you all for your help. I suppose I had the confidence that natural cell size would solve the problem. I have Micheal Bush's book and I think it's great! In it he mentions that he simply doesn't think about mites anymore. I took that to mean that I wouldn't have to either.

Since you guys don't treat the colonies, what do you do when you see mites becoming a problem? I don't think a sugar dust would do much good at that point.

If my colonies are collapsing on natural cell size, then what is it's advantage? What am I missing here in the way of natural bee-keeping?


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Unfortunately, what works for M. Bush does not work for many other beekeepers and they have elected to treat rather than lose their hives. 
Perhaps others who are successfully treatment free will respond. Natural cell size does not preclude mites and personally I see no advantage.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

buford said:


> If my colonies are collapsing on natural cell size, then what is it's advantage? What am I missing here in the way of natural bee-keeping?


There are problems with looking to be 'natural'. 'Natural' is doing nothing at all. As to what you are missing: where do you source your bees, and do you practice systematic selection for 'survivor' qualities? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

buford said:


> I thank you all for your help. I suppose I had the confidence that natural cell size would solve the problem. I have Micheal Bush's book and I think it's great! In it he mentions that he simply doesn't think about mites anymore. I took that to mean that I wouldn't have to either.
> 
> Since you guys don't treat the colonies, what do you do when you see mites becoming a problem? I don't think a sugar dust would do much good at that point.
> 
> If my colonies are collapsing on natural cell size, then what is it's advantage? What am I missing here in the way of natural bee-keeping?


Take a look at Randy Oliver's site Scientific Beekeeping, he has a wealth of information on there, including a section for new Beekeepers (actually it's for those beeks who bought nucs from him) His suggestion is to try and keep your bees alive through the winters etc. for about three years and gather experience and understanding before attempting treatment free beekeeping. Michael Palmer participates in this forum, too; he is up north in Vermont and has utubes on beekeeping. Look up Sam Comfort on utube, another treatment free beek.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Cloverdale said:


> specialKayme wrote "......varroa deification?".... definition: one that embodies the qualities of a god....





beemandan said:


> That spellcheck will getcha every time.


Why are you so quick to blame spellcheck? How do you know I didn't mean to check inside the cells for varroa embodiments of the qualities of god? Seems to me if you found it, you'd clearly have your culprit.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

buford said:


> I suppose I had the confidence that natural cell size would solve the problem. I have Micheal Bush's book and I think it's great! In it he mentions that he simply doesn't think about mites anymore. I took that to mean that I wouldn't have to either.


Several years ago I took up the same management strategy. Natural combs, didn't treat, minimal feeding, sought out "survivor" stock. Worked out well for me for about 6 or 7 years. Then I had a 100% loss. I don't remember the number, but it was somewhere in the area of 50 hives over the course of 3 months. Lost every single one of them. Then I took out the frames and measured the cells. I was told the bees would regress down from 5.4 mm cells to somewhere around 5.1 mm. Maybe smaller, but it varied based on geographic location (according to Dee Lusby). When I actually measured the cells, I found that after 6 years of regression, the bees were building cells out at an average of 5.7 mm each. When I posted the results, I was told that I didn't know how to read a ruler. When I posted the pictures of it measured out, I was told that was drone comb, not brood comb. When I posted a picture of the 5.7 mm brood comb next to larger drone comb, I got no response. Mr. Bush himself failed to comment on it, and ignored the photos (although I doubt intentionally). 

Using natural comb didn't work for me. The bees did the exact opposite of what all the theories said they would do. No one has yet given me an explanation of why the theory didn't work for me. 

I then tried small cell (4.9 mm foundation). I was told that would work. I wasn't so willing that time, and only tried it on two hives (of the five I purchased to replace my losses). Both hives collapsed from mites within 2 years. Small cell didn't work for me either.

Even though I did _everything_ I was told to do by the "experts" in treatment free, every time I failed I was berated as a bad beekeeper. Every time they would tell me I should have done X and that's why I failed, even though no one had ever mentioned X at any point in the previous 7 years. Or they would say I should have bought queens from Y supplier, not Z, even though a year earlier everyone was saying how well Z's queens were doing treatment free.

Mr. Bush's techniques work well for him. But if you ask him why they work, he has theories, but he genuinely doesn't know why. He doesn't know why you can replicate his methods exactly in another area of the word but the hives still collapse. Not his fault really, the same can be said for most of the Treatment Free advocates.



buford said:


> Since you guys don't treat the colonies, what do you do when you see mites becoming a problem? I don't think a sugar dust would do much good at that point.


If you see mites becoming a problem, you have three choices:
1. Abandon your treatment free status and put some treatments in the hive,
2. Acknowledge that the hive is a gonner and move on to more successful candidates (bond theory, survival of the fittest theory), or
3. Stick your head in the sand and hope for the best.

Every individual falls differently on that spectrum. 



buford said:


> If my colonies are collapsing on natural cell size, then what is it's advantage? What am I missing here in the way of natural bee-keeping?


I don't think you're missing anything. I don't think the benefits of natural cell size, or small cell size, are as evident as some advocates believe. 

Ultimately, advocates of natural cell size (and small cell size) utilize a multitude of different "strategies." Some use minimal feeding, others use brood breaks, others use "natural" treatments (although I believe they are the black sheep of the treatment free arenas), others aggressively split to make up for losses, some claim to have the holy grail of queen stock, while still some others claim to put their hives on geographic "lay lines" that a line the energy of the hive with the natural radiance of the earth's atmosphere (seriously, there's a book about it), more use of propolis, comb rotation, different wood products, different forage, or better management (if you can call it that) of the microorganisms located within the hive. But the advocates don't know which strategy, or strategies, is the reason for their success. Some claim it's all of their strategies, while others don't care what the reason is, as long as it works for them.

But the real problem with that is, without knowing what the reason is, it's nearly impossible to replicate their results (as you clearly have seen).


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> If you see mites becoming a problem, you have three choices:
> [...]
> 2. Acknowledge that the hive is a gonner and move on to more successful candidates (bond theory, survival of the fittest theory), or
> 3. Stick your head in the sand and hope for the best.
> ...


I'm not sure what you mean by 'Bond theory' or 'survival of the fittest theory'... but I am sure of this. If you don't have a systematic selective breeding process that seeks out 'fitness' in an environment of non-treatment, you will, definately, get nowhere. Unless you're blessed with a strong thriving feral population and a lack of treated bees in your locality.

'Survival of the fittest theory' - Natural Selection for the Fittest Strains to give it its proper name - is not a theory but a description of the essential facts of living populations. Husbandrymen understand its principles and importance, and keep living things successfully. If that doesn't describe you, then stick with treatments while you catch up. 

This will be as good a place as any to start you off - a description of why most people fail at 'natural' or non-treatment beekeeping:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/queens-for-pennies/

Mike (UK)


----------



## Brandy (Dec 3, 2005)

Specialkayme, well laid out, well said by someone who took the time to put all the techniques to trial.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

excellent post specialkayme... I hope it is listened to and saves some folks a few years and a bunch of bees.. probably not but there is hope.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by 'Bond theory' or 'survival of the fittest theory'...


The Bond Theory is actually a well known "treatment free" strategy. It's derived from the bond film "Live and Let Die." Several articles have been written, and even a study done on the isolated Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. _See Rosenkranz, P. et al. 2010_ Biology and control of Varroa destructor. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103 (2010) S96-S119. Decribed in Keith S. Deltaplane's _Survivor-stock Beekeeping_ article in the December issue of ABJ, pg. 1323.

Or you can hear about Jamie Oliver's



> Some may make the argument that by treating your bees that you are working against nature by propping up weak stock that should be allowed to die. . . .
> 
> The “be tough or die” approach (Bond Method) of bee breeding certainly works, but is crude, and often selects for bees that have undesirable characteristics—such as small colony size, excessive swarming, and irritability.


Source: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-rules-for-successful-beekeeping/

Whether it works or not, that's the question.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> The Bond Theory is actually a well known "treatment free" strategy.


What you are talking about is John Kefus' approach, 'The Bond Method'. Its a process, not a 'theory'.

It has an longstanding empirical basis in traditional husbandry methods, which are themselves rooted (nowadays) in very basic bio-evolutionary understanding. 

Describing this as 'theory' is way off the mark.



Specialkayme said:


> Or you can hear about Jamie Oliver's


Do you mean Randy Oliver? 

Whether it works or not, that's the question.[/QUOTE]

It works unquestionably. But you have to do it properly - as Randy outlines. 

If you've had a stab at tf beekeeping, and failed, start with the link I supplied to Randy's piece on queen raising, and then start learning about the methods of traditional husbandry through close selective propagation. If you don't select - well - you _will_ fail. Its no mystery.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

Curious to see the news in the local tabloid after you apply the bond method to a pasture full of horses.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

it does make you wonder why we see these yard wide losses after many years without them, > 10 years for buford, and 6 - 7 years for sk.

did the mites just have a banner year? did some novel and especially virulent virus appear on the scene? were there other mitigating factors combining with the mite pressure to push the colonies over the edge? concomitant nosema ceranea? a domino effect as collapsing hives got robbed out and the mites become successively concentrated into the remaining hives? poor fall flow as has been suggested by other posters?

sk, on your 50 dead outs, did your autopsies reveal the typical quanine deposits, diseased brood, evidence of robbing, ect.? were any samples sent to beltsville?

how about you buford, on your 2012/2013 losses? 

not saying mites didn't play a role in these, but when there is a long string of seasons with no problem and then bam!, to me that suggests (as buford was postulating in his op) that there _could_ be more going on than just mites.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Vance G said:


> Curious to see the news in the local tabloid after you apply the bond method to a pasture full of horses.


You run a bee hospice there Vance? What do you charge? I have lots of ageing workers need tlc to see out their last days...

Of course you could refer your tabloid to the actual result of applying the Bond Method to horses - self-sufficient populations of wild mustang.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> not saying mites didn't play a role in these, but when there is a long string of seasons with no problem and then bam!, to me that suggests (as buford was postulating in his op) that there _could_ be more going on than just mites.


Could be that supecedue in what were self-sufficient hives resulting from mating with too many non-resistant drones bought the apiaries to cross the line between self-sufficient and not. Once a critical number fail, and spread their loads to others, there's a domino effect.

Mike (UK)


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> it does make you wonder why we see these yard wide losses after many years without them, > 10 years for buford, and 6 - 7 years for sk.
> 
> did the mites just have a banner year? did some novel and especially virulent virus appear on the scene? were there other mitigating factors combining with the mite pressure to push the colonies over the edge? concomitant nosema ceranea? a domino effect as collapsing hives got robbed out and the mites become successively concentrated into the remaining hives? poor fall flow as has been suggested by other posters?
> 
> ...


Nice post. I would suspect that the mites vectored a virus the bees couldn't handle. Maybe nosema also. But failure to monitor the mites leaves you without real information. Also I would have sent some bees to Beltsville, it's free and you get some information from them. If the OP encounters this again I would suggest sending some bees to Dave Wick for virus analysis.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> What you are talking about is John Kefus' approach, 'The Bond Method'. Its a process, not a 'theory'.


You may be splitting hairs here.

I still view it as a theory in that the practice, or process, alludes to a notion that each party that just lets their bees die that get overrun by varroa will eventually have treatment free stock. If you are starting with 10 hives, the reality of that practice is insignificant, and your likelihood of getting to an end goal is nearly zero. Making it a theory that it will work with small hobby beekeepers, rather than on the population as a whole.

But whatever, call it whatever you want. I don't really care.



mike bispham said:


> If you've had a stab at tf beekeeping, and failed, start with the link I supplied to Randy's piece on queen raising, and then start learning about the methods of traditional husbandry through close selective propagation.


I read the article earlier this year when it was posted in ABJ. Good article. But not really much about selective methods. More about how to breed queens. I'm not new to that game.



mike bispham said:


> If you don't select - well - you _will_ fail. Its no mystery.


I have no grand plans of breeding a super bee or a mite resistant bee. You need a fairly large genetic population to have any form of success. Marla Spivak doesn't think it's possible to breed genetically diverse queens with any less than 100 colonies. That isn't a colony number suggestion on breeding mite resistant bees, but just breeding bees in general and not creating a genetic bottleneck. 

I don't have 100 hives.

I do raise my own queens, while purchasing 50% of my new queens needed from outside sources. The genetic variability helps the gene pool, and works for me. I breed for a selectively better bee. Not a mite resistant or best bee. To anyone with less than 150 hives that thinks they can have a genetic impact through breeding purposes, in my opinion that's a pipe dream. You'd have better success controlling mites with small cell foundation.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

camero7 said:


> I would suspect that the mites vectored a virus the bees couldn't handle. Maybe nosema also.


This is (a suggested) answer to the wrong question. You're looking at the straw that broke the camel's back, and saying that's what killed him. It isn't. The total load killed him. The question to ask is: why was he carrying a load that was too heavy?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> sk, on your 50 dead outs, did your autopsies reveal the typical quanine deposits, diseased brood, evidence of robbing, ect.? were any samples sent to beltsville?


Yes to the quanine deposits. 

By the diseased brood, some showed signs of PMS related symptoms (bees too weak to crawl out of cell, for example). A few hives had EFB earlier in the spring, but went away by mid-summer. No other diseases that I was aware of.

Yes to robbing.

No to samples being sent to beltsville.

The symptoms could best be described as a domino effect. One hive would, for some reason or another, abscond. I've seen it just about every year. They leave behind some brood that eventually dies, little to no stores. This hive gets robbed out, and when finished the robbers move onto the neighbors adding robbing pressure. The neighbors appear too weak to fight back, and eventually get taken over by the robbers, which causes them to abscond. My attempts to stop robbing helped a little, but you know how difficult it is to stop robbing once it's started. This brought my numbers from in the 50's to down in the 20's (although probably 50% of each were nucs). Hives were spread out over two yards. Same thing happened in both yards. This happened in the late fall. The remaining hives appeared weak, and one by one over the next few weeks they each kicked the bucket. By Christmas I had 2 hives. By New Year I had 1. Two weeks later I wasn't a beekeeper. Autopsies showed tell tale signs of PMS and mite collapse. Not saying that was the cause, could have been a contributor. But it was good enough of a reason to end the tf realm for me.

It should be noted that I didn't go 6-7 years with very low losses, then BAM I lost 50 colonies. Years 1 and 2 I had high losses, 60-70%. Years 3, 4 and 5 appeared to level off, going off memory here, but in the 30-40% loss range. I kept splitting to keep the colony numbers, taking from the survivors. Year 6 my losses bumped up again, to the 50-60% range. Then year 7 (can't remember exactly if it was 7 at the moment) it went up to 100% loss.

Everyone says you have low losses years 1 and 2, then by year 3 you start getting heavy losses, but if you stick it out things level off. My losses were always high, although they did level off a little. Only to increase again later. Was year 7 the abnormal year where something went wrong? Or was year 6 the indicator that there was a larger problem? Or were the losses in years 3-5 abnormally low? I don't know. I followed the advice of other treatment free beekeepers of not worrying about the mites. If the hive dies, it's gone. Move on. 

Just didn't work out in the end.

All of this time table and statistics may be wildly inaccurate. I'm going off memory here, and I didn't really take accurate records of that stuff back then anyway.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> You may be splitting hairs here.
> 
> I still view it as a theory in that the practice, or process, alludes to a notion that each party that just lets their bees die that get overrun by varroa will eventually have treatment free stock.


No it doesn't. Its a name for a method - the one used by John Kefus - to arrive at resistant bees. It's characterised by a 'live and let die' approach. Its identical to natural selection for the fittest strains, except that you start by trying to load the apiary with already resistant, or partially resistant bees. 

And it is just a description of the beginning of a longer process, in which you select from the best of the survivors of that stage, and breed from them.

Just taking a few colonies and nit treating tem will get you nowhere fast. You have to become a genetic manager, using the stock that performs best under the regime you want - in this case no mite treatment.



Specialkayme said:


> If you are starting with 10 hives, the reality of that practice is insignificant, and your likelihood of getting to an end goal is nearly zero.


I agree - although if you can get stock with a good measure of resistance to begin with, and are in an area largely free of treated bees, and containing thriving ferals its certainly possible. With 20 colonies, even with non resistant drones to contend with, you proably have a very good chance. 

These are variables - meaning you can't make general statements about the likely outcome. You can however talk about the variables, and how best to approach the project with what you can arrange. 



Specialkayme said:


> Making it a theory that it will work with small hobby beekeepers, rather than on the population as a whole.


Not following you here. But it sounds like THAT theory is not a good one. But that isn't the bond method, or its role in a breeding effort.



Specialkayme said:


> But whatever, call it whatever you want. I don't really care.


If you're careful about how you use words you can say a lot more, more clearly. That's always helpful



Specialkayme said:


> I read the article earlier this year when it was posted in ABJ. Good article. But not really much about selective methods. More about how to breed queens. I'm not new to that game. // I have no grand plans of breeding a super bee or a mite resistant bee.


You and many others. Its a shame you all don't bring your skills to bear on the problem of breeding resistant queens, rather than endlessly producing treatment-dependend queens. They are the main problem.



Specialkayme said:


> You need a fairly large genetic population to have any form of success. Marla Spivak doesn't think it's possible to breed genetically diverse queens with any less than 100 colonies.


Got a reference for that? What has genetic diversity to do with the issue at hand?



Specialkayme said:


> That isn't a colony number suggestion on breeding mite resistant bees, but just breeding bees in general and not creating a genetic bottleneck.


Its almost impossible to create genetic bottenecks in honey bees. They're configured to outbreed rapidly. 



Specialkayme said:


> I breed for a selectively better bee.


What is a 'selectively better bee'?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

mike bispham said:


> No it doesn't. Its a name for a method - the one used by John Kefus - to arrive at resistant bees. It's characterised by a 'live and let die' approach. Its identical to natural selection for the fittest strains, except that you start by trying to load the apiary with already resistant, or partially resistant bees.
> 
> Mike (UK)



When I heard him speak a year back the BOND test was not cutting it in their South American operation. Maybe so in Europe but south of the equator it seemed that TF was still a pipe dream. 

???


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> deleted content


You need to cool your jets. You are way out of line here.

If you want to keep this as a discussion, lets talk. You want to throw insults around? You can talk to empty space. 




mike bispham said:


> I don't mean to be rude


You are being rude.



mike bispham said:


> Got a reference for that? . . . Its almost impossible to create genetic bottenecks in honey bees.


Personal conversation with Marla Spivak at EAS in Burlington, VT in 2012 after her presentation.

I'm telling you what Marla Spivak, one of the greatest breeders of our generation (in my opinion), and a MacArthur Grant recipient, said. If you have an issue with the comment, take it up with her.


----------



## Brandy (Dec 3, 2005)

I just did a hardiness zone search for Toulouse where John Kefuss did some of his "Bond" tests. It's an 8b zone which is much more temperate than those of us that have actual winter situations. Is anyone aware of him taking any of these bees to harsher winter environments to see just how well they survived under less than ideal temperatures??


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Brandy said:


> Is anyone aware of him taking any of these bees to harsher winter environments to see just how well they survived under less than ideal temperatures??


I know about a Swedish test performed in 2010 in post 24. Not by Kefuss though.


----------



## Brandy (Dec 3, 2005)

Thanks Specialkayme, a lot of nonpartisan information.. Can't believe the term Integrated Varroa Management was already in use in 2010!!


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> If you want to keep this as a discussion, lets talk.


I'm happy to talk. Maybe we could start by your responding to one or two of the points I've made in response to your positions.

For example, Randy Oliver, whose opinions on the matter of raising non-treatment both of us appear to respect, lays out very clearly why simply not treating what he labels 'domesticated' bees is bound to fail. 

That scenario may provide a simple explanation for Buford's experience and your own.

The proposition has particular force, when you understand the principles of genetic husbandry. Those principles enable you to say: any non-treating operation that fails to properly manage health by genetic/selective means will _always_ fail.

What are your thoughts?

Can I respectfully ask you to bear in mind: this is the treatment free forum. Unreferenced opinions as to the futility of non-treatment beekeeping are rude here. They amount to calling all those who successfully keep bees without treatments here liars. There is extensive evidence for the development of resistant strains, good scientific understanding of many of the mechanisms, and lots of people here practice the art of keeping bees without treatment. Most can recognise an amateur at the game pretty fast. You need to adopt the attitude that you're here to learn - not to tell us that we can't do what we already do. 50 years of raising queens doesn't amount to a hill of beans here. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Maybe we could start by your responding to one or two of the points I've made in response to your positions.


If you would like to rephrase your post into one or two questions you'd like to discuss in a non-insulting way, I'd be happy to consider them and would be a great place to start, although I think it is well beyond the OP. I'm not interested in wading through insults to try and pick out questions you've asked.



mike bispham said:


> What are your thoughts?


I don't believe you invited a response. You merely laid out your own conclusions. Anything other than "I agree" or "I disagree" is likely to spark a disagreement of conclusions, not facts.

I don't know what you are expecting me to say in response.



mike bispham said:


> Unreferenced opinions as to the futility of non-treatment beekeeping are rude here.


I never said treatment free was futile. I said it is possible, but the methods proposed by advocates of treatment free aren't fully understood why they work, and often their exact replication is difficult if not impossible. I think if some of the best breeders of our generation with hundreds of hives and decades of experience are having a hard time, if not haven't found at all, resistant stock, the odds are against the backyard beekeeper with 3 hives and 4 years of experience achieving success. Not that it isn't possible. Beginner beekeepers should understand that. If someone starting out tries Mr. Bush's methods, or Sol Parker's methods, or Moses Quimby's methods, even if repeating them exactly, if they put them in a different environment without understanding why the method worked for the original proponent, they can't expect the exact same result. And if they get a different result, you can't get upset with the end result if you blindly followed the direction of someone else.



mike bispham said:


> 50 years of raising queens doesn't amount to a hill of beans here.


This isn't Narnia. 

I don't spend alot of time on the TF forum, not because I disagree with the methods or the goal. I think it's realizable in large scale over progressive years. I don't think it's realizable by people who don't understand why they've hit success, and I think it's a dis-service to fellow beekeepers to advocate the methods when you don't know why it's successful. But ultimately, I don't spend alot of time on the TF forum because when you express these facts and opinions, you don't get thought provoking responses back. You get insults. As your posts indicate.

I don't know how long you've been TF Mike, and I don't care. I was TF for longer than your average TF forum poster currently is, and I've been to the other side of the tunnel. It wasn't pretty. The Original Poster can attest to that. If someone wants to go through the slaughter, I'm not going to stop them. I just want to make them aware of what's on the other side. To silence that because you view someone else's failure as an insult to me would be short sighted.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> Can I respectfully ask you to bear in mind: this is the treatment free forum.


And here we have even Mike promoting _TREATING _his bees, with a thread he started in the _treatment-free_ forum! :lpf:



mike bispham said:


> BTW I won't be letting any collapse. If they're showing signs of runaway mite infection I'll dig out any drone brood,[HIGHLIGHT] treat [/HIGHLIGHT]and requeen. Or treat then break up and queen.


:gh:


... perhaps Mike will grace us with another version of his {T1} and {T2} treatments scheme, where if you cross your fingers and _wiggle your nose_ correctly, treating isn't really treating. :scratch::no:



(click the blue arrow in the quote box to see the original post/thread)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

I think Raider lost his calling as a librarian, or national archive historian. The man can pull up old quotes like no one's business.


----------



## Charlie B (May 20, 2011)

Rader is a former Californian which explains his high level of expertise!:thumbsup:


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Sk,

Thanks for posting your story. I certainly appreciate a firsthand accounting of how things played out for you!

A couple of questions:

Did you ever make any mites assessments, e.g., sticky, sugar roll, other? If so, what numbers were you seeing? 

Also, in another thread, I recall you talking about difficulties with the lack of summer and fall flows and the resulting robbing. What role do you think this had on the 100% loss that you observed? My guess is that it had a significant role in the overall health of your colonies ( constant stress at a critical time, plus constant infusion of mites from robber bees). The question is: would your results have been different without these added pressures. BTW, I pretty much agree with your assessments, just want to see what you think about these other issues.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

AstroBee said:


> Did you ever make any mites assessments, e.g., sticky, sugar roll, other?


I didn't periodically check for mite levels. I was told it wasn't necessary.

I do remember doing a sugar roll at one point in time and got 8 mites for 300 bees. I do not remember what time of year, or what year it was done in. The level indicated that mite counts were present and somewhat high, but not so high that the bees were not doing something about the mites.

It's my belief that this data is meaningless though.



AstroBee said:


> Also, in another thread, I recall you talking about difficulties with the lack of summer and fall flows and the resulting robbing. What role do you think this had on the 100% loss that you observed?


It couldn't have made it easier, that's for certain. I'm sure it contributed to losses. Whether it turned what would have been a 10% loss to a 100% loss, or whether I would have had a 100% loss anyway I don't know. What my losses would have been if I hadn't had these issues I can only speculate.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Does the OP have numerous alfalfa field in the area?

crazy Roland


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> If you would like to rephrase your post into one or two questions you'd like to discuss in a non-insulting way, I'd be happy to consider them and would be a great place to start,


Why don't we try starting over with this post: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?305678-Mystery-Collapse&p=1193450#post1193450

This is where I link to Randy Oliver's analysis of the reasons why many beekeepers fail when they attempt treatment-free beekeeping. I put this forward as an explanation of the OP's experience, and I suggested it might also cover your own. It would be useful for all of us if you could tell me what you agree with or disagree with about Randy's main point. That might give us a start to some constuctive discussion of the OP's questions.

We've had a long line of failed TF beekeepers here in the TF section telling us what will happen if we try to go tf. The problem is their experience is different to ours, they generally have a poor understanding of things like natural selection and co-evolution, and their explanations of what went wrong fail to take into account some basic principles of husbandry. They have tended not to respond to points made against their (fixed) positions - to have failed to engage in constructive discussion. Forgive me for seeing you as yet another experienced beekeeper who's failed at a poorly executed attempt to go tf, and doesn't want to listen to alternatives to his own analysis. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> This is where I link to Randy Oliver's analysis of the reasons why many beekeepers fail when they attempt treatment-free beekeeping. I put this forward as an explanation of the OP's experience, and I suggested it might also cover your own.


I suspect you aren't interested in having a discussion, but rather you are interested in explaining to me how I did something wrong. Just like everyone else. It doesn't matter that I followed the advice to the "T". If I failed, it couldn't have been the method. It must have been me. To get to that conclusion, you make assumptions. You assume that I don't know anything about natural selection, genetics, or breeding. You assume I took a package and failed to treat.

I have a doctorate. Not in genetics or biology. So maybe I don't know everything about genetics or breeding. But I can promise you I know way more than the average TF member of this forum, and I'd wager that I know more than some of the so called expert tf people.

But whatever.

Randy Oliver assumes, and you keep latching onto the idea that if you take domesticated stock you can't just stop treating and expect success. However, this exact point is made by several proponents on the TF forum. So much so, that Mr. Bush convinced the OP just not to worry about mites. Mr. Bush doesn't so you shouldn't either. Mr. Bush didn't say you need special genetics. 

But back to the point. I don't know if Randy Oliver is right or not. I would suspect he is. But I didn't start with domesticated stock. I was beekeeping for several years before I went TF. I realized I couldn't just stop treating my normal hives that I acquired from packages and nucs and think it would work. So I found a guy in TN, about 7 hours away from me, that had kept bees for a while. About 5 years earlier, he became disinterested in beekeeping, so he stopped caring for them. Stopped treating, harvesting honey, anything. The hives sat there, and five years later he had 5 hives that survived. I purchased those 5 hives from him. That was the groundwork of my starting genetic pool. I split from those that could afford it, and each year I reared queens from the two best producing and disease free queens. Sometimes they would make swarm cells and I'd utilize those too. But as genetics change as they adapt to new areas and intermix with local stock, I didn't want to limit myself to the 5 hives I purchased. So I added to that swarms that were caught from areas not known for heavy domesticated stock. Presumably they were feral swarms, but there is no way to be certain. Whenever I hived a swarm, I would keep it segregated for breeding purposes until it hit two years. I also made sure to include into the mix other queens from "survivor" stock. I got some VSH queens that the breeder indicated hadn't been treated for years, some MH stock that showed mite resistance, and some commercial stock that advertised mite resistance as well. Each year, I included no more than 25% of the new increases from these new sources (including swarms) to help broaden the mite resistant gene pool. My emphasis was on the original 5 hive's genetics. They were proven survivors. The rest were merely to help me find other sources to add to that.

So no. I didn't start with domesticated stocks. I started with survivor stock.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> 50 years of raising queens doesn't amount to a hill of beans here.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Really. Guess anyone can have an opinion, regardless how stupid it is.

How many hives you got left now Mike?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I suspect you aren't interested in having a discussion, but rather you are interested in explaining to me how I did something wrong.


I'm interested in learning. I'm interested in not making the mistakes other people made. I'm interested in understanding the issues, the mechanisms in play. Sure I'm interested in what you did wrong. I'd be a fool if I wasn't.

If that entails discovering that you could have done better if you'd done things differently, that shouldn't bother you. No-one knows everything - especially in this game.



Specialkayme said:


> Randy Oliver assumes, and you keep latching onto the idea that if you take domesticated stock you can't just stop treating and expect success.


'Latching on' seems to be some sort of criticism. Is it wrong to take what appears to be a highly relevant essay and try to use it as a
starting point for discussion?



Specialkayme said:


> But back to the point. I don't know if Randy Oliver is right or not. I would suspect he is.


With a better understanding of genetic flows in populations, of 'husbandry' in its fullest sense, you would _know_ he is right. Right on the nail. 



Specialkayme said:


> But I didn't start with domesticated stock.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I started with survivor stock.


Well, maybe. Survivor stock of an unsubstantiated kind. Those orginal 5 hives might have been 1st year swarms from local treating beekeepers, might they not? Those queens you added in, what sort guarentee did you have that they'd perform as advertised? When was this - it seems likely that resistance has been building in feral populations, meaning the same actions now might well stand a better chance of success. 

I'd need to know quite about more about just what you did before offering any thoughts as to what might have gone wrong. If we worked though your history it might help the OP with his/her question. 

Mike (UK)

PS I've learned through hard experience that it isn't worth responding to Radar, Old Timer or Bernhard. I don't even open their posts. They follow me around like a pack of little trolls with nothing better to do than spoil constructive dialog. Its something we just have to live with.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> With a better understanding of genetic flows in populations, of 'husbandry' in its fullest sense, you would _know_ he is right.
> . . .
> They follow me around like a pack of little trolls with nothing better to do than spoil constructive dialog.


Last warning Mike. I don't come here to be insulted, or to contribute to other's insults.

If it happens again you can finish the conversation with yourself.



mike bispham said:


> PS I've learned through hard experience that it isn't worth responding to Radar, Old Timer or Bernhard.


That's really a shame. Oldtimer has a boat load of experience, and has been very helpful to me and several other members on this forum. I've learned alot from him. Radar can be a little difficult to deal with, but not based on his personality, but because he holds you to your own words. Can't fault him for that, can only fault yourself. 

But you can choose who to listen to or not.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> If that entails discovering that you could have done better if you'd done things differently, that shouldn't bother you.


It's a two pronged approach Mike. In order to learn more and do better, you need to look at how some have failed and look at how _and why_ others have succeeded. 

But that's where most members of this section get it wrong. If someone has failed, you grill them endlessly until you find some fault on the beekeeper (lack of knowledge, failure to have the right queens, used natural cell, used small cell, whatever). You grill them endlessly believing they somehow lied. But you don't spend the time to understand why those that have succeeded did. You take their word as gospel. Mike Bush, Sol Parker, countless others say they just stopped treated, and that's that. Why? They don't know, they don't care. Some use small cell, some use natural cell, others use normal foundation (the Weavers, for example). Some claim their success to genetics (Parker) others claim that the genetics are meaningless and it was all a result of microbes (in part, Mike Bush). Even though they directly contradict each other, you listen to them and say "yup, makes sense." 

Ask me the questions you want (without insults). I have nothing to hide, I followed the advice I was given to the "T". I was told it would work. It didn't. When it didn't, the advice changed. Retroactively.

Learn from my mistakes. Learn from others too. Learn from the success of others, and I mean actually LEARN. Grill them to find out why they were successful as much as you grill the failures.



mike bispham said:


> Survivor stock of an unsubstantiated kind. Those orginal 5 hives might have been 1st year swarms from local treating beekeepers, might they not?


You could say that about every form of stock ever acquired from a third party. 



mike bispham said:


> Those queens you added in, what sort guarentee did you have that they'd perform as advertised?


As much of a guarantee as you'll get from any other queen breeder. Does Mike Palmer of Webster guarantee that the queens will perform without treatments in your hives the same they did in their own? Of course not.



mike bispham said:


> When was this


Original hives acquired in early (January or February) 2005 (although it may have been 2006 . . . I don't fully remember). In 2007 I found a similar story of "survivor" genetics and acquired a few hives of those too (I think it was 3, but don't remember). Please keep in mind I wasn't keeping a log book or a journal of this stuff. Didn't know I'd need to. I didn't know it would be important. I read that I could just stop treating and everything would be ok. Others did the same thing with the same result. Why would I need to do a study to verify it? Winter of 2011-2012 is when I had the 100% loss. 

The genetic feral population _could_ have changed significantly between 2005 and 2011. I doubt it, but possible. I highly doubt the genetic feral population has shifted _so much_ between 2010 and today that while it wasn't possible to accomplish what you are trying in 2010, it is today.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/wha...fference-between-domesticated-and-feral-bees/

Scroll down to Figure 4. It shows the difference between genetic composition of feral vs. commercial stock as analyzed in 2008. The difference between the two isn't that shocking. What is, though, is that the feral population has a very high percentage of German Black Bee (AMM) in it, even though the Commercial stock shows very little. AMM hasn't been imported into the US since the 1920's, and even then it hasn't been a preferred stock in the states since the mid 1800's. He also found a high (10%) genetic make up of Middle Eastern genetics, which is not even found (at all) in commercial stock.

The feral population maintains it's genetics fairly well, despite the best efforts of commercial individuals selecting against, and attempting to breed out, AMM and Middle Eastern genetics. While possible, I find it highly unlikely that the feral genetics in my area shifted so much between 2005 and 2011 to be the cause of my issues, and yet the Middle Eastern genetics (representing 10% of ferals) and AMM (representing 7%) continue to be found in the states almost ninety years after their potential importation, and more than TWO HUNDRED YEARS after their mass and likely importation.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> It's a two pronged approach Mike. In order to learn more and do better, you need to look at how some have failed and look at how _and why_ others have succeeded.


Of course. Do you think I _only_ quiz failures? That that's the sum of my investigative efforts?



Specialkayme said:


> But that's where most members of this section get it wrong. If someone has failed, you grill them endlessly until you find some fault on the beekeeper (lack of knowledge, failure to have the right queens, used natural cell, used small cell, whatever). You grill them endlessly believing they somehow lied.


I only bother those who assert that because they failed everyone else is bound to. I quiz them to discover what the differences are between what they did and what the succeeders do.



Specialkayme said:


> But you don't spend the time to understand why those that have succeeded did. You take their word as gospel. Mike Bush, Sol Parker, countless others say they just stopped treated, and that's that. Why? They don't know, they don't care.


All too often, yes (especially in the past) some have assumed that they understand what the critical measure they took was, and have been mistaken. Prime example: Dee Lusby has long advocated small cell/regression. What she has not emphasised to nearly such a degree is the fact that her and her followers are careful to take their losses, never treat, and propagate only from their best. In my view - and I'm not alone on this - its her systematic genetic husbandry that primarily accounts for her success. Small cell/regression may help, but alone I think its been shown to be almost completely useless.

In my view often some have got lucky breaks from their feral settings, and not recognised it sufficiently. 



Specialkayme said:


> Some use small cell, some use natural cell, others use normal foundation (the Weavers, for example). Some claim their success to genetics (Parker) others claim that the genetics are meaningless and it was all a result of microbes (in part, Mike Bush). Even though they directly contradict each other, you listen to them and say "yup, makes sense."


I do? I didn't think I did. I thought I listened to everybody, critically, read lots, tried to sift deeper causes from surface ones, tried to understand the principles at work, and tried to build a picture in which everything I'd experienced and heard and read somehow added up. 



Specialkayme said:


> I followed the advice I was given to the "T". I was told it would work. It didn't.


Shall we let that stuff go, and focus on what we can learn about what works and why?



Specialkayme said:


> Learn from my mistakes. Learn from others too. Learn from the success of others, and I mean actually LEARN. Grill them to find out why they were successful as much as you grill the failures.


That's what I do. 



Specialkayme said:


> You could say that about every form of stock ever acquired from a third party.


Yep. but we have to try to rate these things don't we? When I collect a swarm next to a longstanding nest, or do a cut out, I grill anyone I can about how long they've been there, whether they had clearly overwintered and so on. If they're over the fence from a beehive I generally assume they are domesticated stock. And I give them all their chance, and keep records, and rate them to the best of my knowledge and ability. 



Specialkayme said:


> As much of a guarantee as you'll get from any other queen breeder. Does Mike Palmer of Webster guarantee that the queens will perform without treatments in your hives the same they did in their own? Of course not.


Again, its good to try to rate them. And to perform your own specific assays, and make increase strongly from the top few. 

What I'm trying to say is: just because you failed doesn't mean it can't be done. Let's focus on the ways to get it right - and yes, wrong. Then we'll all understand the issues a bit better. And that has to be a good thing, doesn't it?



Specialkayme said:


> The genetic feral population _could_ have changed significantly between 2005 and 2011. I doubt it, but possible. I highly doubt the genetic feral population has shifted _so much_ between 2010 and today that while it wasn't possible to accomplish what you are trying in 2010, it is today.


Forgive me here: the way you are using these key terms makes me think this is an area unfamiliar to you (What is a 'genetic feral population'? I know what you mean, but anyone conversant with population husbandry wouldn't say it that way. It just isn't English.)

The evidence is that in the US two genetically distinct populations can be identified. The domesticated and the feral. Now, given that there is a feral population at all is an indication that bees have adapted by natural selection to the presence of mites. That is a) utterly predictable, (and was predicted by some people), and b) evidence that contradicts your opinion above. There has been a significant adaptation to mites, and this has allowed a feral population to rebuild. 

That in turn supports the proposition that what was hard to do in 2005 (find resistant ferals and make resistant apiaries from them) is much easier now. Look again at your summary of Oliver's report. it supports my proposition, not yours... 



Specialkayme said:


> While possible, I find it highly unlikely that the feral genetics in my area shifted so much between 2005 and 2011 to be the cause of my issues...


I'm not suggesting it was the 'cause of your issues'... I'm suggesting that what was difficult in 2005 might be much easier now. Therefore, to say that because you failed (in 2005-11) is not a good reason to say everyone else will fail in 2014. 



Specialkayme said:


> ...and yet the Middle Eastern genetics (representing 10% of ferals) and AMM (representing 7%) continue to be found in the states almost ninety years after their potential importation, and more than TWO HUNDRED YEARS after their mass and likely importation.


In natural populations those genes that tend to impart fitness tend to remain in the population. 

We can see what works best in the US (and in different parts of the US) by looking at the ferals. They've done the melting pot stuff, and what has emerged is what works best.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Brandy (Dec 3, 2005)

SK and BH, great posts. Your first hand and shared experience is the key, hopefully you've given/provided enough warning flags that others will enter this area with caution. It's not that we all don't search/strive for TF colonies, but there's a very harsh reality in the endeavor and beginning beekeepers need to know it's not easy. No harm comes to the beekeeper for these ideals, but the bees certainly pay a price.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> What I'm trying to say is: just because you failed doesn't mean it can't be done.


I never said it couldn't be done.

Your putting words in my mouth.



mike bispham said:


> That is a) utterly predictable, (and was predicted by some people), and b) evidence that contradicts your opinion above.
> 
> . . .
> 
> it supports my proposition, not yours...


What "opinion" and "proposition" are you referring to?

You keep telling me that it's my opinion that I don't think treatment free is possible, but I keep telling you that I never said that.

You seem bent on proving to me that treatment free is possible. I don't doubt it, never did. That Webster is living off his bees without treatments, that the Weavers haven't used chemicals since 2001, even that Mr. Bush operates treatment free, I don't doubt in the least. I doubt, vigorously, the accuracy of the advice that is given to new and small scale beekeepers that they too can achieve success by simply "not treating." It doesn't work that way. It may have worked for a few, but it doesn't work on a large scale for everyone.

I also do not believe that the average hobby beekeeper has the genetics in his backyard to select from to create a treatment free lineage of bees. The MH line of bees required thousands of colonies of bees to initially select from. And even then, it wasn't a proven "mite proof" bee, only showed some resistance. How many colonies did the USDA in Baton Rouge, LA select from when they researched resistant colonies in Russia, only to find out the strains they are developing aren't producing the success they expected, or saw in Russia. How many colonies did the Purdue team select from in creating their "Ankle bitter" line?

These are specific examples of individuals that are much smarter than you or I, that have specific training in honey bee genetics and breedings, that are seeking out specific examples of mite resistant qualities and traits. And they have not become wildly successful at it yet, after over a decade of work. I think they will eventually become successful. Maybe in 2 years, maybe in 50. I don't know. But I do not believe that where they failed the backyard beekeeper with three hives can succeed. I do not believe that where Dr. Rinderer with thousands of colonies failed, Ralph the Truckdriver from Nebraska with 3 hives will succeed. I do not believe that those 3 hives he has, or the feral population around him, contains the "magic bullet" against varroa. The knowledge, the experience, the science, and the statistics say you're more likely to be struck by lightning.

If you disagree with me, fine, that is your right. But if that's the case I don't think this discussion has much further to go.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> I'm suggesting that what was difficult in 2005 might be much easier now.


To that, I strongly disagree. 

Seeing how little the gene pool of the feral population changed in the 300 years since the bee's introduction to the states (keeping in mind no new genetics have been introduced, other than the USDA-ARS line and the NWC drone sperm since the 1920's), shows to me that it is extremely unlikely that the feral population would have changed drastically between 2005 and 2014, absent an extreme event. 



mike bispham said:


> Therefore, to say that because you failed (in 2005-11) is not a good reason to say everyone else will fail in 2014.


Once again, I never said that.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I never said it couldn't be done.


You seem very down on the idea that it can be done on a 'small scale'. What I'm trying to do is unpick that assertion - what is 'small scale', is that constraint identical for all circumstances, and so on.

Let's consider some quotes from Marla Spivak:


" Fortunately, the hygienic trait is found in all races and stocks of bees."

New Direction for the Minnesota Hygienic Line of Bees, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter
http://www.extension.umn.edu/honeybees/components/pdfs/Spivak_Reuter_12-08_ABJ.pdf

"Any race or line of bees can be bred for hygienic behavior. "

The Hygiene Queen, Marla Spivak and Gary S. Reuter
http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/hygiene_queen.htm



Specialkayme said:


> What "opinion" and "proposition" are you referring to?


My proposition that the OP's experience might be most simply accounted for by Randy Oliver's analysis of what often goes wrong. And perhaps yours too. 



Specialkayme said:


> You seem bent on proving to me that treatment free is possible. I don't doubt it, never did. That Webster is living off his bees without treatments, that the Weavers haven't used chemicals since 2001, even that Mr. Bush operates treatment free, I don't doubt in the least. I doubt, vigorously, the accuracy of the advice that is given to new and small scale beekeepers that they too can achieve success by simply "not treating." It doesn't work that way. It may have worked for a few, but it doesn't work on a large scale for everyone.


I agree with that. That's what Randy Oliver's piece, which I've been directing you to, says, even more forcefully than you've put it. 



Specialkayme said:


> I also do not believe that the average hobby beekeeper has the genetics in his backyard to select from to create a treatment free lineage of bees.


I don't know how many colonies the average hobby beekeeper has, but I do know that whether he or she succeeds will depend not just on that number, but on the initial genetics, the local genetics, and the skill bought to bear in improving those genetics. 



Specialkayme said:


> These are specific examples of individuals that are much smarter than you or I, that have specific training in honey bee genetics and breedings, that are seeking out specific examples of mite resistant qualities and traits. And they have not become wildly successful at it yet, after over a decade of work. I think they will eventually become successful. Maybe in 2 years, maybe in 50. I don't know. But I do not believe that where they failed the backyard beekeeper with three hives can succeed. I do not believe that where Dr. Rinderer with thousands of colonies failed, Ralph the Truckdriver from Nebraska with 3 hives will succeed. I do not believe that those 3 hives he has, or the feral population around him, contains the "magic bullet" against varroa. The knowledge, the experience, the science, and the statistics say you're more likely to be struck by lightning.


We have to square your opinion with the testimony often offered here and elsewhere to the effect that many beekeepers are keeping flourishing bees without treatments or jiggery-pokery. And that in many places ferals are not just surviving but thriving. Can you cite these statistics by the way? 

I don't think Ralph the truckdriver will succeed either - unless he's lucky enough to live someplace where ferals are thriving, (and there are no treaters nearby), in which he has every chance. And I believe that anyone with sufficient knowledge of the arts and sciences of breeding and a suitable place and access to suitable bees also has a good chance of success.

That's what it comes down to. Understanding how and why genetics makes a difference, and how to manage it properly. That's what Randy Oliver's 'wave of the future' understands. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> To that, I strongly disagree.
> 
> Seeing how little the gene pool of the feral population changed in the 300 years since the bee's introduction to the states (keeping in mind no new genetics have been introduced, other than the USDA-ARS line and the NWC drone sperm since the 1920's), shows to me that it is extremely unlikely that the feral population would have changed drastically between 2005 and 2014, absent an extreme event. .


Here's the thing: the underlying genetics don't have to change _at all_ in order to gain mite resistance. All that needs to happen is that those alleles conferring resistance, which are present in all populations, come to the fore. 

What has happened in the US feral populations is that ... those alleles conferring resistance have come to the fore. Those alleles conferring broad hygienic behaviours, vhs, and other known, suspected, and probably unknown useful traits, have moved, by natural selection, from being present only in a small fraction of the population to appearing in a large proportion of the population.

Do you see? Same underlying genetics, different alleles dominating.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Can you cite these statistics by the way?


What statistics?

Your nitpicking here.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> What statistics?
> 
> Your nitpicking here.


You said: " The knowledge, the experience, the science, and the statistics say you're more likely to be struck by lightning."

Asking someone to substantiate their assertions isn't nitpicking. Its part of the process of separating facts from opinions.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Same underlying genetics, different alleles dominating.


But if an event occurred large enough to cause a change in the alleles that are expressed, it would have created a change in the genes themselves. The two are different, but your "cause" that creates the "effect" that you hypothesize would have effected much more than the alleles. 

If you had a population of 100 people in a closed environment, and you infected them with a virus, and in the end 3 people survived (showed resistance or immunity to the virus), you would have changed the genetic pool of that closed environment _AS WELL AS_ changing the expression of the alleles. The 3 people that survived the episode do not contain all of the different genes and alleles that the 100 people originally held. You've lost some genes. Forever.

And that's exactly what you are alluding to. The feral population in North Carolina declined by 99.9% after the introduction of Varroa, according to Dr. Tarpy. Some genes, at least _some_, would have been lost in that process. The alleles may have changed, but the genes did too. 

But Randy Oliver points to evidence showing that the genes have changed very little over the course of 300 years. Genes that were not introduced in over 100 years, that were intentionally selected against, still existed in the feral population. 

If the feral population hasn't changed much over the past 200 years, despite heavy selective pressure, rapid changes to the environment, the introduction of new diseases (EFB, AFB, chalkbrood, for example) and new parasites (SHB, varroa, wax moths, to name a few), and a massive reduction in their population in the past 30 years, the odds that the feral population's genetics, or alleles, has significantly changed in the last 3 years is astronomical.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Asking someone to substantiate their assertions isn't nitpicking. Its part of the process of separating facts from opinions.


I'll take a page out of the TF book.

I've declared it as fact. Prove me wrong. Do the statistics to prove it isn't fact.

I'm not taking the time to do the trivial statistics on something that is meaningless to the point, only so you can bicker over something.


----------



## buford (Feb 22, 2005)

Wow! I only have time to visit this forum for about 30 minutes a day and I am very thankful for everybody here who is trying to help. I had no idea that this little thread would last this long!

When I posted in this forum, I expected to find several people here happily treatment-free, helping to replenish the feral population with their "natural" sized bees. Perhaps the golden age of the '70's really is gone for good!

In response to a VERY early post, if my memory serves me correctly, Varroa deification begins somewhere around 3.5 mm.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Opinions may vary, but it seems that "varroa _deification_" is best referred to as "varroa _defecation_". 

Those two terms have very different implications.:lookout: More details back around posts #12 & #14.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

I stand by my statement Rader. You can quote me on it later if you like


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, SK, as long as you are __consistent_ _there will no need for me to later dig up one of your old conflicting quotes.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Fair enough.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Pointless argument. How do I know? I had exactly the same experience as Specialkayme when I reported the failure of my own treatment free attempt. Sympathy and kind words from most here.

But - Bispham did not like to hear it so right on my case, doggedly following me around like a little troll, accusing me of lying, twisting my words, calling me names, implying I am dim witted and a poor beekeeper. Tried to run me off the forum and actually said that.

None of which changed the facts, but was a very ugly time for me. He failed to run me off but I still see his posts as possibly one percent useful information, some as unsubstantiated theory and some as outright wrong. 

My sympathies SK. Sometimes it's just not worth casting pearls before swine. What happened to you happened and you clearly reported it fully and honestly. Your beekeeping was no different from those who claim treatment free success. Despite someone from the other side of the world who is not getting great results themselves, attempting to find a way to say you were wrong somehow.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Even being a genetics major, my eyes gloss over sometimes... All the alleles are present..... perhaps in a population, but not in every queen heading a colony in NA or anywhere else. To blindly assert hobbyist can achieve resistance by bringing the alleles to the forefront is very misleading to me. According to MB, there's thousands of people out there with TF colonies, so mites should be a thing of the past any time now.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> so mites should be a thing of the past any time now.


 Fat chance. 

This is purely observational so don't ask me to quote sources or somehow "prove" what I say is correct.

I am seeing significant levels of tolerance in feral colonies, but it is often based on halting brood rearing and intense spring swarming. These traits contribute to mite tolerance, but they don't make beekeepers very happy.

The average beekeeper will have very little effect on the genetics of the bees they keep. More important, because of the way bees mate and reproduce, they are highly resistant to any major changes in genetic makeup. Varroa mites represent the most intense form of selection pressure possible. Any colony that is not resistant is dead sans intervention by a beekeeper with chemicals. What I think will happen and can see evidence is in progress is that multiple small effect genes are gradually combining to produce bees that have better mite tolerance than the lines they came from. This process will take decades to achieve the level of tolerance needed for long term survival.

Meantime, I can keep working with the bees I have, selecting for the best combination of honey production and mite tolerance, distributing stock to local beginners, and spreading the genes in the feral population.

I am now officially into my 11th year treatment free!


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Fusion_power said:


> Fat chance.
> 
> This is purely observational so don't ask me to quote sources or somehow "prove" what I say is correct.


I won't. 
Although how do you go about "seeing significant levels of tolerance in feral colonies, but it is often based on halting brood rearing and intense spring swarming." 
And "can see evidence is in progress is that multiple small effect genes are gradually combining to produce bees that have better mite tolerance than the lines they came from."
Please explain how you observe such things happening.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I was being sarcastic Fusion, but I know, hard to feel context on a forum post. I agree with you, some have achieved the pipedream some how, I guess everyone else is just jealous or too stupid to figure it out.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> too stupid to figure it out


I'd like to tackle this one because I don't think anyone is reading here in the TF area unless they are interested in getting treatment free. IMO, there is nothing "stupid" about taking on a task as serious as eliminating mite treatments from your bees. Even failing is part of the learning process.

There are factors out of your control. In CA, the sheer number of treated bees will limit where bees can be kept without treatments. Getting tolerant genetics to start with is going to be a hurdle. Figuring out how to manage bees without treatments is another problem area. Preventing swarming is arguably the toughest problem I currently face.

So in my view, it is not being "stupid", maybe it is just dumb luck. I was lucky enough to find a highly tolerant queen in a swarm several years ago. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where it is possible to saturate the feral population with mite tolerant genetics. I've been conservative enough to maintain my bees without bringing in susceptible genetics.


Clyde, I catch as many feral swarms as I can get. Most in this area are somewhat mite tolerant. I watch them for a season to see how they are making it without treatments. If they stop brood rearing in July and stay brood free for 6 to 8 weeks in the middle of the summer, I know that the mite tolerance is based heavily on brood breaks. If they have reduced numbers of hive beetles, they are exhibiting a form of grooming behavior. If they uncap and remove infested bees, I know they are actively seeking out foundress mites and removing them from the cells. If the mite counts stay low all year long with no seasonal fall buildup, I know they are using brood breaks to limit mite buildup. But the winner is when I see a colony that has low numbers of hive beetles, removes infested larvae, and has no seasonal increase in mites. That colony is showing multiple tolerance traits.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> But if an event occurred large enough to cause a change in the alleles that are expressed, it would have created a change in the genes themselves.


Such an 'event' doesn't have to be dramatic (although in this case it was - wherever varroa has become endemic it has reduced populations to a rump, except where beekeepers have treated.) In the wild that rump has located the genes that best allow it to control and live with - and thrive with - varroa. And its composed of those gene-sets which its history, its ancestry, has found to be most useful.




Specialkayme said:


> The two are different, but your "cause" that creates the "effect" that you hypothesize would have effected much more than the alleles.


Actually, it can't. A honeybee population has certaian amount of genetc variation, and carries multiple alleles for some purposes, but if doesn't often magic new genes out of nowhere (by mutation). All it can do is shuffle them, endlessly. And it does just that, in every generation.



Specialkayme said:


> If you had a population of 100 people in a closed environment, and you infected them with a virus, and in the end 3 people survived (showed resistance or immunity to the virus), you would have changed the genetic pool of that closed environment _AS WELL AS_ changing the expression of the alleles. The 3 people that survived the episode do not contain all of the different genes and alleles that the 100 people originally held. You've lost some genes. Forever.


You may have lost a few, but that's an incredibly dramatic example. You are assuming that the 3 survivors go on to populate a world alone - without mating with other survivor groups. But in reality that's what happened - hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of feral populations were reduced to a survivor rump, then rebuilt by mating with adjactent survivor rumps, using those alleles that allow them flourish alongside varroa (and storing in the population the alternates that will replace them as and when varroa is no longer a problem).



Specialkayme said:


> And that's exactly what you are alluding to. The feral population in North Carolina declined by 99.9% after the introduction of Varroa, according to Dr. Tarpy. Some genes, at least _some_, would have been lost in that process. The alleles may have changed, but the genes did too.


So where did the genes come from that the bees are built from now?

I think we have a problem here in trying to have a close discussion without a proper appreciation of the limited functionality of our key terms. Things are more complicated than just broad 'genes' and alleles (which are themselves bundles of genes), and 'survivor rumps' allow. 



Specialkayme said:


> But Randy Oliver points to evidence showing that the genes have changed very little over the course of 300 years. Genes that were not introduced in over 100 years, that were intentionally selected against, still existed in the feral population.


Its you who has a problem with that, not me. The genes have shifted very little; the alleles required have come to the fore. That's a rough and ready way of talking perhaps, but it represents the realities. It accounts for the facts that you yourself report. 



Specialkayme said:


> If the feral population hasn't changed much over the past 200 years, despite heavy selective pressure, rapid changes to the environment, the introduction of new diseases (EFB, AFB, chalkbrood, for example) and new parasites (SHB, varroa, wax moths, to name a few), and a massive reduction in their population in the past 30 years, the odds that the feral population's genetics, or alleles, has significantly changed in the last 3 years is astronomical.


If the alleles hadn't changed each and any of those pests would have wiped out the ferals. The ferals have adapted by shuffling their alleles, and by simply reproducing in greater number from those genetioc combinations that do best. That's what natural populations do. That's what natural selection for the fittest strains is, means. 

Do you see yet - and I'm not being rude here - you have some catching up to do. Despite your doctoral training you're making leaps of reasoning from fragments of poorly understood material. You need to read up on natural selection and understand how it governs and shapes the flow of genes through multiple generations of genetic willowing. 

The genes are like a pack of cards: they don't change, few are ever lost. But those that get dealt, and do well, appear more often in the next pack, while those that don't get dealt are stored for future use in odd places in the population. When different races meet different alternatives are thrown in, the packs combined. Then what does best emerges from the process of multiple, serial, winnowing. In the US the best suited genes (Amm) that had emerged from this process before varroa struck are evidently still largely the best suited. But the bees have moved mite-management alleles from low in the population to high in the population. That's just nothing more than normal and expected to someone with a bit of understanding of bio-evolutionary mechanisms.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JRG13 said:


> Even being a genetics major, my eyes gloss over sometimes... All the alleles are present..... perhaps in a population, but not in every queen heading a colony in NA or anywhere else.


Yes. 



JRG13 said:


> To blindly assert hobbyist can achieve resistance by bringing the alleles to the forefront is very misleading to me.


Who is asserting that? And what is a 'hobbyist'? Specify. 

One of the things I'm being careful to point out here is that anyone approaching this objective needs (unless they are very lucky to be in the right place) a sound understanding of the mechanisms involved, and of the various influences that affect the chances of success.



JRG13 said:


> According to MB, there's thousands of people out there with TF colonies, so mites should be a thing of the past any time now.


That's your reasoning not mine. I understand there is good progress in building resistance in bees, coming from several key areas. Professional breeders, hobby breeders, and feral bees are probably tops.

And I've pointed out several times that just stopping treating of domesticated bees is probably going to fail.

But look guys, this is the non-treatment forum, where those who want discuss ways of increasing resistance have a space to do so. Its a given here that time spent trying and learning isn't wasted. 

As for mites being a thing of the past: mites and bees would be co-existing in apiaries now, just as they are in some thriving feral populations, if beekeepers hadn't systematically treated. That systematic treatment is the only thing that stops them gaining resistance. And its very powerful - bees are set up to dump the specialist various hygienic alleles fast (by configuring many of them them as reccessive genes) because they are energy wasting if not needed. That's the key fact that is represented in my signiture line.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

buford said:


> Wow! I only have time to visit this forum for about 30 minutes a day and I am very thankful for everybody here who is trying to help. I had no idea that this little thread would last this long!
> 
> When I posted in this forum, I expected to find several people here happily treatment-free, helping to replenish the feral population with their "natural" sized bees. Perhaps the golden age of the '70's really is gone for good!
> 
> In response to a VERY early post, if my memory serves me correctly, Varroa deification begins somewhere around 3.5 mm.


It's probably obvious by now; but in my opinion you should pay much more attention to genetics Buford, and dump the notion that simply going small cell/'regressing' is going to get you anywhere. Bees either have the genetically-conferred abilities and behaviours they need to manage mites themselves, or they don't. 

Some people who are succeeding in tf beekeeping say that they find small cell helps - but as far as I'm aware all also breed carefully. Small cell might be helpful, but its insufficient alone.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> Do you see yet - and I'm not being rude here - you have some catching up to do. Despite your doctoral training you're making leaps of reasoning from fragments of poorly understood material.


Done. Last insult I'm willing to take.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Done. Last insult I'm willing to take.


Its an observation, not an insult, though I can see why you find it offensive. If we all took all necessary steps to avoid being offensive Beesource would rapidly grind to a halt. Or maybe it would improve. Certainly if I took offence at everthing aimed at me I'd be dead by now. 

Constructive dialogue is a process whereby the facts are discovered through critiques of each other's contributions. There's no need to take that personally. Its how all science works.

Again, I'd have thought a phd ought to know that. What is your field?

Mike (UK)

PS
Wrong tone Barry? Is that a rule that only applies to me, or are you planning to apply it across the board?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> I don't think anyone is reading here in the TF area unless they are interested in getting treatment free. 

That has not been my experience...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

A question Buford, you appeared to disagree with the inspectors diagnosis of mites, on the basis of the other possible causes you mentioned.

However I've been following the relevant parts of the thread, & did not see you mention anything to say it was *not* mites. Did you have any thing in particular that rules mites out?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

And...adding to Oldtimer's question.....did the inspector point out anything in particular to support his contention that it was mites?


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> Done. Last insult I'm willing to take.


The Ignore List can be the path to tranquility.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

That was done thirty seconds after that post.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

The intracicies of bee breeding system gets lost in a lot of this talk.... bees are good at gene hoarding, but not on a fully reproductive scale and it was somewhat bottlenecked in recent history.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Specialkayme said:


> I didn't periodically check for mite levels. I was told it wasn't necessary.
> 
> I do remember doing a sugar roll at one point in time and got 8 mites for 300 bees. I do not remember what time of year, or what year it was done in. The level indicated that mite counts were present and somewhat high, but not so high that the bees were not doing something about the mites.
> 
> It's my belief that this data is meaningless though.


Thanks. Curious as to why you believe that the data is meaningless? There has been a lot of effort placed into coming up with reasonable economic mite thresholds. Given that, I not a firm believer in some magical fixed number that will definitely predict the outcome of a colony - there are simply too many factors present to make such a prediction based upon a single data point during a season. However, I do believe that trends throughout the season and year to year are meaningful. I also believe that crazy high mite numbers (> 100 mites/ 300 bees) in mid- to late summer are almost certain to result in any colony's demise. And for the TF fans, just because you track a number doesn't mean you need to act upon it. Its data that you can share to help others better understand the what they might experience in their journey, and this was the reason I asked if you had made such measurements. Please understand, I'm not advocating TF, nor am I trying to be critical of your methods - just hoping that you had data to share with others embarking on this journey. For myself, I am running the bulk of my operation TF, but if I find a colony that needs treatment I will treat and then requeen. Also, as I've said elsewhere, I do not follow much of what the TF community suggests. I particularly reject the whole cell size theory. However, I do heavily depend upon genetics and breeding to make progress each season. I think the whole cell size (natural cells) debate has done a huge disservice to our progress towards healthier bees.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

AstroBee said:


> Curious as to why you believe that the data is meaningless?


Because I don't know what time of year it was taken (big difference), what year, what hive, if all in the apiary were at the same level or just that one, or if I did the sugar roll correctly (I know how to do them now, don't know if I did it right then). I don't know if this was done right before the crash, or in the two years that I had acceptable losses. I also don't have a reference point to know if the mite levels were going down, increasing, stabilizing, ect. I just don't know.

To know there were 8 mites per 300 bees at one point in time is relevant. To not know the rest of the puzzle makes the data meaningless from my standpoint.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

astrobee, what is your economic threshold (and at what time of year) for determining that a colony can no longer remain off treatments?


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

squarepeg said:


> astrobee, what is your economic threshold (and at what time of year) for determining that a colony can no longer remain off treatments?


My basic answer is that my number is still evolving as I consider each colony based upon its unique conditions. Some of my colonies are 7 years with zero treatments. History has proven that these colonies can sustain around 35-40 mites per 300 bees obtained with a sugar roll. This number is taken mid-September on a big booming double deep colony that has produced spring and summer crops. That's a serious bit more than the 13-15 that you typically hear quoted for the Southeast. BTW, I do have the records to prove it. I need to be clear though that only one or two of my 50-60 colonies will hit that mark. Currently anything above 50 mites in Fall is considered for treatment. This past Fall, 2 out of my 58 colonies exceeded my threshold. One was a 2nd year package queen (experiment), which was heavily split in May, and the other was a daughter of a long term survivor queen. This daughter was not split and produced 200 lbs of honey this season and showed no signs of stress from mites. I treated the package queen and let the other ride. The package colony will be requeened next spring with my VSH stock. My total apiary average fall counts are much lower (< 7 mites/300). Also, these colonies are very productive, as I do not tolerate low performing colonies. I'd say the long term survivors are a bit hotter than your typical bee, but very workable with proper technique. I also don't tolerate nasty bees. Of course this works for me in my area using my management techniques.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

fascinating ab, many thanks. i sampled a few colonies this fall which ended up at around 10% that i believe are going to overwinter successfully. i'm guessing that those counts are likely representative of all of the hives in my yard. these were taken toward the end of october after the fall brooding was pretty much completed, so most of the mites were phoretic by then. 

one question often raised regarding bees surviving off treatments is whether the bees are successfully ridding themselves of mites vs. have they instead they developed mechansims to cope with them. i am thinking it's probably some of both, but the fact that your bees and mine are able to survive these loads which are well above what is reported as economic threshold elsewhere suggests that the latter is very likely in play. 

does your management include leaving enough honey for the bees and avoiding artificial feeds? can you describe other management techniques that you are using that you feel contribute to your success?


----------



## Brandy (Dec 3, 2005)

Astro, are you using any of the varroa infertility sampling or mostly ether rolls?? Curious if you've found any correlations etc....


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

AstroBee said:


> I particularly reject the whole cell size theory. However, I do heavily depend upon genetics and breeding to make progress each season. I think the whole cell size (natural cells) debate has done a huge disservice to our progress towards healthier bees.


AB, I'm with you as regards 'regression', although I do acknowledge that some have found it helpful. However I'm curious as to why you would regard natural comb in the same way. Is that really what you are saying?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> one question often raised regarding bees surviving off treatments is whether the bees are successfully ridding themselves of mites vs. have they instead they developed mechansims to cope with them. i am thinking it's probably some of both, but the fact that your bees and mine are able to survive these loads which are well above what is reported as economic threshold elsewhere suggests that the latter is very likely in play.


I wonder what 'economic threshold' really means in this context. Economic to who - the bees? The Beekeeper? Isn't it really just a proportion that's somehow been arrived at at which its judged the bees are not coping sufficiently well alone, and something should be done. Is this judgement one made by people advocating treatment when this level is reached, or by people advocating requeening, or both?

I suspect that if and when I go down this sort of path I'll simply regard those with the lowest readings as candidates for increase, and those with highest reading as candidates for replacement. But I'll be balancing the data against other factors. Some people report that at higher infection levels the mite-managing behaviours 'kick in' - something which the 'economic' threshold approach would mask. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

squarepeg said:


> does your management include leaving enough honey for the bees and avoiding artificial feeds? can you describe other management techniques that you are using that you feel contribute to your success?


I do not avoid feeding sugar when needed. I consider myself a serious sideline beekeeper and I'm doing my best to maximize profits. Therefore, I harvest as much as my experience suggests and still allow the colonies to survive. I have no issues with throwing on hive top feeders and bulking up colonies post harvest. I use cane sugar as the food source. 

My secrets of success? Genetics and selective breeding. I raise a lot of queens each season. I've tried a lot of different bees over the past decade plus and found many that simply cannot handle mites and die (if not treated) within two to three years. I've also bought some that thrived despite carrying high mite loads. I've also captured some swarms that survived. I bought into VSH pretty early when Glenn was still selling. I have significantly invested in VSH in the last two years to bring in more proven mite resistance. The VSH stock carries very low numbers of mites and are very productive. In my experience, early Glenn stock suffered from lack of production. Current VSH does not seem to suffer the same problems. I have also invested in the equipment to preform II and gotten the necessary training. My plans are to leverage II much more in the coming years.

I also consider my location very favorable. We generally have pretty mild winters, which permits me to get away with mite loads that might not be possible elsewhere. We do get a natural brood break, but its usually not more than 6 weeks, often less. We also get two distinct flows (sometimes three), which I also believe helps. Perhaps there's some luck involved too.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Brandy said:


> Astro, are you using any of the varroa infertility sampling or mostly ether rolls?? Curious if you've found any correlations etc....


Hi Brandy,

No, I haven't done the infertility sampling yet. Seems like something very valuable for selection, but it also seems time consuming. At this point I've only read about it.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

mike bispham said:


> AB, I'm with you as regards 'regression', although I do acknowledge that some have found it helpful. However I'm curious as to why you would regard natural comb in the same way. Is that really what you are saying?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Mike,

I have no issues with using natural comb. I've tried it and really have not seen a big difference. 90+ % of my colonies are on large cell foundation. From my perspective, natural comb certainly does no harm, but the problem I have is that some seem to suggest that there are attributes that will solve all problems regardless of genetics and management. I believe that the OP fell victim to this hype.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

mike bispham said:


> I suspect that if and when I go down this sort of path I'll simply regard those with the lowest readings as candidates for increase, and those with highest reading as candidates for replacement. But I'll be balancing the data against other factors.
> 
> Mike (UK)


That's consistent with my usage of mite counts.



mike bispham said:


> Some people report that at higher infection levels the mite-managing behaviours 'kick in' - something which the 'economic' threshold approach would mask.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I've seen that discussed before and not sure if there is really any truth to it. I find that my VSH colonies always maintain low mite counts, which to me suggests that the behavior is always 'on'. On these same colonies, brood inspections throughout the season show hygienic behavior at all times.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

AstroBee said:


> Mike,
> 
> From my perspective, natural comb certainly does no harm, but the problem I have is that some seem to suggest that there are attributes that will solve all problems regardless of genetics and management. I believe that the OP fell victim to this hype.


I agree with that. I use it on the basis that I want to rule out fixed cells and perhaps corresponding bee size being a part of the problem. I let them do what they want, as the ferals can. Some of my bees are definately considerably smaller than others, and I want to be able to see whether this can be corrollated over time with other features. Just one of many little experiments running in parallel. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

AstroBee said:


> I find that my VSH colonies always maintain low mite counts, which to me suggests that the behavior is always 'on'. On these same colonies, brood inspections throughout the season show hygienic behavior at all times.


I don't look all that closely. I'm focused on building numbers and bringing in likely genetic material, so as to get in a position to breed more effectively. What exactly are you seeing here?

I've mentioned before, one thing that seems common to some of my best is a sharp midsummer brood break. 

BTW did you see the piece on another thread yesterday about time-restricted mating? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

many thanks for the replies astrobee and kudos for your successes so far.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

mike bispham said:


> What exactly are you seeing here?


Classic uncapping behavior. Sometimes brood is actually being pulled out and others its just uncapped (mostly purple eyed stage). I honestly don't know if they are recapping it. Perhaps this season I'll look more closely at that behavior. However, when you compare the VSH colonies to non-hygienic at the same point in the season you'll see a significant difference in brood patterns. 




mike bispham said:


> BTW did you see the piece on another thread yesterday about time-restricted mating?
> 
> Mike (UK)


No I did not. Can you provide a link?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

AstroBee said:


> Classic uncapping behavior. Sometimes brood is actually being pulled out and others its just uncapped (mostly purple eyed stage). I honestly don't know if they are recapping it. Perhaps this season I'll look more closely at that behavior. However, when you compare the VSH colonies to non-hygienic at the same point in the season you'll see a significant difference in brood patterns.


Just more open cells?



AstroBee said:


> No I did not. Can you provide a link?


http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-bees-and-hybridization&p=1193675#post1193675

Mike (UK)


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

mike bispham said:


> Just more open cells?


Yes. However, there is still lots of undisturbed brood. This is a bit of a guess, as I've never really counted, but I'd say somewhere around 1% - 2% uncapping on a typical VSH colony.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

AstroBee said:


> Yes. However, there is still lots of undisturbed brood. This is a bit of a guess, as I've never really counted, but I'd say somewhere around 1% - 2% uncapping on a typical VSH colony.


Isn't it said that vsh causes bees to uncap cells of a particular age? Given that the queen usually lays in spirals I wonder if looking for circular patterns of opened brood would be a way to spot it quickly? 

Just a thought

Mike (UK)


----------

