# survival of individual colonies



## Colobee

Peter - Do you have a link? I'm out on a remote loc, with shared satellite link, and connection is super slow/intermittent, so tracking is tedious, at best...


----------



## peterloringborst

Colobee said:


> Peter - Do you have a link?


This and other articles are open access at:

http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/JAR-53-2-2014


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

What is the definition for individual colony? The queen? The hive?


----------



## peterloringborst

BernhardHeuvel said:


> What is the definition for individual colony? The queen? The hive?


I don't know if this is a serious question. On the outside chance it is, I will respond. 



> The colonies were started as package bees or nuclei and initially treated against V. destructor, ensuring uniform starting conditions in terms of strength and infestation level of all colonies within each location. Queens were produced either by the partner institutes or commercial partners and delivered by hand or express mail to the allocated partners. Queen introduction was completed on 1 October 2009 which was therefore defined as starting date for the survival test.
> 
> The colonies were managed by the partner institutes according to a standardised common protocol until 31 March 2012 and were not further treated with chemical substances for the control of V. destructor or other diseases. Colony and queen survival were recorded at least three times a year (in spring, summer and autumn) together with other traits and parameters.
> 
> When colonies collapsed, the presumed cause of death was noted and classified based on analysis of previously collected samples and / or easily detectable symptoms. The classes were: varroa, nosema, queen causes (queenlessness, drone laying queen, swarming without successful queen replacement, etc.), other (like American foulbrood, weakness, starvation, winter loss, robbing, apitechnical reasons), and unknown.


----------



## Colobee

(Thank you, Peter) 

more from the abstract - 'not sure I can DL the PDF ( dang it - no)

" The survival duration was strongly affected by environmental factors (apiary effects) and, to a lesser degree, by the genotypes and origin of queens. Varroa was identified as a main cause of losses (38.4%), followed by queen problems (16.9%) and Nosema infection (7.3%). On average, colonies with queens from local origin survived 83 days longer compared to non-local origins (p < 0.001). This result demonstrates strong genotype by environment interactions. Consequently, the conservation of bee diversity and the support of local breeding activities must be prioritised in order to prevent colony losses, to optimize a sustainable productivity and to enable a continuous adaptation to environmental changes."


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

peterloringborst said:


> One of the things that concerns me with the so called treatment free beekeepers is the lack of interest in tracking survival of individual colonies.


Why is the survival of an individual colony (however the word colony is defined) a _treatment free_ issue? If counting/tracking individual colony survival is important for treatment free beekeeping, isn't counting/tracking individual colony survival equally as important for those who treat?


----------



## peterloringborst

Rader Sidetrack said:


> If counting/tracking individual colony survival is important for treatment free beekeeping, isn't counting/tracking individual colony survival equally as important for those who treat?


Sure, why not?


----------



## peterloringborst

What I think is interesting is that I have seen almost the same rate. In 2011 I had 8 colonies, one survived the winter. Then I divided and had 8 colonies again. Of those, six went into winter and one survived, barely (16%). I couldn't divide it so I bought some bees and divided them. Back to ten colonies. So if you look at my summer numbers, I am gaining. This is with no treatments except drone brood removal and resistant stock.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Sure this was a serious question. If I requeen all of my hives (or near so) on a yearly basis, that means a 100 % loss if a colony is defined as a certain queen. If a colony is just a box of bees and that hive swarms every year, doubling the number of hives and loosing half of the hives a little later - does this really mean zero losses? It is difficult to define, what the hive is. For a queen breeder it is the queen. For a honey producer all that matters is that there are enough bees in that box. If it comes to longevity...what is it, that really matters? How do you measure it?


----------



## peterloringborst

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Sure this was a serious question.


Then ... did you read my reply? I think I answered the question already. Colony established in hive, no treatment, no requeening, monitor till it fails. Simple.


----------



## JWChesnut

In my work on occurrences of rare plants, demography (survival of individuals) is a preliminary, but requisite, first step to understanding whole populations. 

The same is true of honeybees, but the discussion tends short-circuit at estimates of cold-winter overwintering fraction. Solomon Parker and Sam Comfort, for all their uncompromising fierceness, have a key understanding in the concept of "Expansion Model Beekeeping". 

The survival data shows that colony death occurs relatively linearly. (Delete) The colonies were tracked from April 1, so the plateau in mortality was winter, and peak death was during the summer-fall transition. Corrected: Paper tracks survival from October 1. So peak death rates are in very late winter. (Now, obsolete) I observe this very same pattern in my untreated experiment -- Varroa (and its associated diseases) peak in September.


Constantly rolling forward demographic recruitment (whether it is by purchase of Georgia packages, capturing swarms, a full queen rearing option or walk-away splits) is a population-level maintenance component. The economic cost or "sustainability" of the various strategies can be compared to some degree. The "overwintering fraction" obviously is a key component as it robs potential value production (due to replacement demands). Its shorthand, but not the full picture.

In agricultural practice, dollar-and-cents economic budgeting measures the cost of replacement. The intangible costs and benefits of practices has been subsumed into measures of "sustainability". Sustainability has the weakness that quantification is undefined and results are incomparable. Attempt to quantify "sustainability" practices are subject to enormous ideological biases in valuation.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Constantly rolling forward demographic recruitment (whether it is by purchase of Georgia packages, capturing swarms, a full queen rearing option or walk-away splits) is a population-level maintenance component.


This is a confusing statement, but I gather you are saying that one must constantly be acquiring new colonies if one wants to stay at a certain level. This has been known for centuries, establishes nothing new. I already described this in my post, where I rebounded from 85% loss by splitting the remaining bees. However, this is not a model for profit. Especially if the cost of replacement exceeds the income from honey sales, etc. 

However, if one is favorably situated to collect swarms, it's a perfect way to stay in business. In my area in upstate NY swarm calls are not frequent. I caught two last year with bait hives but one was so small it fizzled out. The rest of the bees died over the brutal winter. I manage another yard which I treated for mites and the winter loss was the reverse, only lost about 15%.


----------



## squarepeg

i've been keeping careful notes on my colonies and i do consider queen failure a loss when it comes to documenting longevity. 

i have two of the four original colonies that i began with in 2010 that have survived four winters now. other colonies in my home yard range from 1 to 3 winter's survival, and i have a couple that were started this year.

i recently pinched the queen in two colonies that have survived three winters because they were consistently non-productive and swarmy.

my four year winter loss average is 13.1%. i ended up with eight colonies this year that have been dedicated to honey production, and at this point it's looking like i'll average about 120 lbs. harvest per hive. the harvest from colonies that i was successful at swarm prevention with will be closer to 200 lbs., and vice versa.

in addition to not using treatments, i also do no use supplemental feeding. the bees are locally adapted hybrids.


----------



## JWChesnut

Peter,
No, I am not saying anything new, but I am reiterating a point that is often lost in the hocus-pocus of TF rhetoric.
Where do these colonies that must constantly be acquired come from, and what are costs of appropriating these. Are the global costs of a particular TF colony flow greater, sustainable or less than alternative models.
My point is the various methods of increase can be compared for tangible and intangible costs, and that comparison is useful for demystifying much of the TF mythology.
I find, locally in my area, that many of the "treatment free" apiaries make increase by sub-economic methods (one reason these enterprises tend to come and go with predictable velocity).


----------



## peterloringborst

> No, I am not saying anything new, but I am reiterating a point that is often lost in the hocus-pocus of TF rhetoric.


Hey, that's exactly the point I have been trying to make.

Beekeepers generally don't track individual colonies and keep replacing them as needed. That's traditional beekeeping, nothing unique about it. But as you say, TF seem disingenuous about the losses and the cost of replacement. 

In the Imperial Valley beekeepers have been losing 50% or more of their hives every summer due to the extreme heat. And it is a pretty simple matter to double your numbers in spring, in time for a summer flow. That is cost effective. 

However, to lose 80%, to build them back up during a three month season we have, and hope to make some income, that's what we face here. It's doable but requires a pretty high level of skill


----------



## JWChesnut

If you recalibrate survival at the second spring (see photoshopped image below with local/non-local curve offset) much of the papers reported detected differences in survival significance vanish. 

This both supports a repeated anecdote on TF apiary management --- TF goes through an winnowing period, and subsequently normalizes. The death rate in the 2nd season is steeper than the first season (not surprising), but post first -year selection; survival has converged on similar trajectories across categories.


----------



## peterloringborst

JWChesnut said:


> This both supports a repeated anecdote on TF apiary management --- TF goes through an winnowing period, and subsequently normalizes.


But the experiment was ended, in this case. They were down to 15% of the original 600. For a ten hive beekeeper, that's 1 1/2 hives. And the chances are at least one of those will die the following winter, meaning SOL. So this is not a leveling off, it's a dropping off the map. Unless one is bringing on new colonies all the time. The notion of breeding from survivors entails having survivors ...


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> But the experiment was ended, in this case. They were down to 15% of the original 600. For a ten hive beekeeper, that's 1 1/2 hives. And the chances are at least one of those will die the following winter, meaning SOL. So this is not a leveling off, it's a dropping off the map. Unless one is bringing on new colonies all the time. The notion of breeding from survivors entails having survivors ...


I would not call myself a TF beekeeper, if I had to collect swarms or buy bees. That would be misleading.


----------



## Erik

Juhani Lunden said:


> I would not call myself a TF beekeeper, if I had to collect swarms or buy bees. That would be misleading.


I would think TF is about how you manage your managed hives, regardless of origin.


----------



## Erik

I'm confused by something in post #5 where it cites the study saying, "The colonies were started as package bees or nuclei and initially treated against V. destructor, ensuring uniform starting conditions in terms of strength and infestation level of all colonies within each location"

What does it mean when it says they were treated? If they were treated with an insecticide how is it a valid study of TF beekeeping?

I know things are different for people in different regions. For instance in post #16 there's mention of the greatest losses occuring due to heat. I don't think mite treatments would help, so would treating vs not-treating matter for heat related deaths?


----------



## peterloringborst

> What does it mean when it says they were treated? If they were treated with an insecticide how is it a valid study of TF beekeeping?


In a valid study, you need to have a reasonable base line. All hives were treated for mites at the start and then allowed to go treatment free for almost three years. The effect of most mite treatments is very short term, especially the organic acids.

You have to have a starting point. For example, if you were to do an endurance test with people climbing a hill, you couldn't have some people carrying 90 pound packs and others with no packs at all. The same is true with mite loads, they have to be close to equal at the start.

Anyone can find flaws with any study, the point is: these people did the work. You may compare it to other studies, but you can't compare it to the study that _you didn't do_, or some speculation on _what if._


----------



## Daniel Y

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Sure this was a serious question. If I requeen all of my hives (or near so) on a yearly basis, that means a 100 % loss if a colony is defined as a certain queen. If a colony is just a box of bees and that hive swarms every year, doubling the number of hives and loosing half of the hives a little later - does this really mean zero losses? It is difficult to define, what the hive is. For a queen breeder it is the queen. For a honey producer all that matters is that there are enough bees in that box. If it comes to longevity...what is it, that really matters? How do you measure it?


A queen with no bees cannot survive. So she alone cannot qualify as a colony. bees without a queen cannot survive so they also cannot be considered a colony on their own. Only at the point a colony has a complete sustainable unit can it be considered a colony. This would require a mated queen with the bees to support all function of a complete colony. Foraging, housekeeping, nursing rearing brood, wax making comb building, and making winter stores.

Once a colony has attained colon status it remains a colony. even in the event it where to loose one or more of the components of a complete colony. it is capable of restoring that component. most commonly the loss of the queen. it is capable or rearing a new queen and continuing to survive.

I have 30 nucs with mated queens. as of yesterday I found 5 of them had lost their queens most likely due to robbing. I consider all of them a lost colony although they where never larger than 3 frames of bees. We also made 6 other nucs queenless. I do not consider these lost colonies because they have the ability although slim to rear new queens.


----------



## JWChesnut

The survival graph is consistent (even optimistic) with the experience reported on this forum by Bush. He reports an approximately 20% winter loss, and makes increase by mid-summer splits. He says he had to consume several years rebuilding after being away, so he appears to be at the upper limit of effective splitting.

I've illustrated the demography chart with a idealized version of the Bush colony trajectory --- 20% winter loss, rebuilding by summer splits to the apiary limit.


As forum reader's may be aware, I have conducted a long-term experiment on an isolated TF yard populated with trapped bees. I don't have the granularity of data in the European study, but if I scale my results to the a seasonal May start (my swarm month), the data is nearly identical. (My hives "graduate" from TF when DWV becomes severe).


----------



## peterloringborst

> 20% winter loss, rebuilding by summer splits to the apiary limit.


Of course, but the thread is about individual colonies. The average life span of an untreated colony is less than three years, that's the point. The constant splitting and/or buying bees masks this fact


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> Of course, but the thread is about individual colonies. The average life span of an untreated colony is less than three years, that's the point. The constant splitting and/or buying bees masks this fact


Do you think spitting alone is what is needed to be TF? Why are there not more TF beekeepers, if splitting is enough to make it work? 20% losses are sometimes very normal for treating beekeepers.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Do you think spitting alone is what is needed to be TF?


Maybe. I am not opposed to buying queens. The queens I bought were from treatment free hives so I suppose that's OK. Although I have no way of knowing if they really are ; )

PS. I am talking about treatment as a technique, not a dogma.


----------



## JWChesnut

peterloringborst said:


> Of course, but the thread is about individual colonies. The average life span of an untreated colony is less than three years ....


Peter, I am not disagreeing. I am placing the data in context with the (scantily) reported experience of Bush. His apiary has a ~~20% winter replacement rate from halving summer colonies. This implies something greater than 50% of the apiary is not yielding honey (donor split, new split, summer loss). This is consistent with the Google Earth images that show a majority of the hives are small summer stacks. 

The apiary is non-competitive with different management models; but since the economics are subsidiary to the proof-of-concept, this is not critical. The problems with the prescription come into focus when others try to adopt it on a commercial scale, as has transpired in my county.

The study is not "flawed", as the loss rate reported is better than that experienced by Bush, the preeminent TF practitioner.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> Maybe. .


If varroa increases 10 fold in a year (someone say it is much more) doesn´t that mean that you have to split each hive each year in 10 nucs to stop rising varroa infestation levels?


----------



## peterloringborst

JWChesnut said:


> Peter, I am not disagreeing.


I realize that. I think we are having an interesting conversation. My tone comes across as adversarial at times, but that's not really how I am. I just don't have a lot of time to type out more elegant prose. Anyway, I deeply mistrust the unsubstantiated, undocumented claims of the true believers. I don't think they sufficiently understand what it means to analyze. It's all "don't worry, be happy" beekeeping. We all want that, but some are at work trying to figure stuff out. Hope you get some rain there in Morro Bay! We have been getting tons...


----------



## Solomon Parker

peterloringborst said:


> This is with no treatments except drone brood removal and resistant stock.


Perhaps you could try leaving the drones, since removal doesn't work. Also, if they're dying in such numbers, I'd say you don't have resistant stock, whatever that means.




peterloringborst said:


> TF seem disingenuous about the losses and the cost of replacement.


I have been completely transparent with my losses and cost of replacement, even though I have not replaced anything by buying bees in five or so years.



Erik said:


> What does it mean when it says they were treated? If they were treated with an insecticide how is it a valid study of TF beekeeping?


No doubt, especially if there is any sort of residual effect (which we know there is).




peterloringborst said:


> The constant splitting and/or buying bees masks this fact


And? I had a colony survive treatment-free for ten and a half years. But so what? That's not how beekeeping is done. That's not how TF is done. That's not how agriculture as a whole is done. Every cow goes to the hamburger factory eventually.




Juhani Lunden said:


> Do you think spitting alone is what is needed to be TF?


That's what I do. You also need to be a good beekeeper, which I have been told I must be since I've been doing this for 11 years.




Juhani Lunden said:


> Why are there not more TF beekeepers, if splitting is enough to make it work?


Most that I've seen simply won't follow a successful model. I can't explain it better than that. They try to cheat, they justify, they leave out things. I did this by following a successful model, Dee Lusby's. I did everything she did even if the individual parts didn't make sense. And I'm not saying all of them do. But I found a successful model, followed it, succeeded, then created my own model. It's public information in case anyone is interested, website in my signature.




Juhani Lunden said:


> 20% losses are sometimes very normal for treating beekeepers.


Yes, yes they are. And with no splitting, the best treating beekeeper will end up with 0 bees before long.





Juhani Lunden said:


> If varroa increases 10 fold in a year (someone say it is much more) doesn´t that mean that you have to split each hive each year in 10 nucs to stop rising varroa infestation levels?


Splitting in this way is another way to combat the mites on the human end rather than letting the bees deal with them in a natural, permanent, and sustainable way. If you leave your bees alone and they die wholesale, you haven't succeeded. That's my view.


----------



## peterloringborst

> No doubt, especially if there is any sort of residual effect (which we know there is).


I disagree. No residue of formic acid, oxalic acid, etc. These occur naturally in honey, BTW. If I buy a treated package, any "treated bees" are all dead in six weeks anyway. Try to loosen up a little. _People want to avoid treatments but not have it be like a religion._ It isn't like AA where you can be off alcohol for 30 years and you still have to call yourself an alcoholic.


----------



## JWChesnut

peterloringborst said:


> ...across as adversarial at times.....Hope you get some rain there in Morro Bay!


Even my jokes are interpreted as 'grumpy'. There is a cultural divide between those that are part of the academic milieu where unsupported statements are challenged for citation, and the forum world where citation is something you get for running a red light, and asking for one is considered impolite or downright crazy.

As for rain, Morro Bay has NO rain from April to October. It remarkable that there are any summer flowers at all.


----------



## Solomon Parker

peterloringborst said:


> _People want to avoid treatments but not have it be like a religion._


Those people are not TF. I'm not a fan of religion, but there's something to be said for dogma sometimes. I keep trying to tell people how to be successful at this, and they just won't do it. I can't help that.


----------



## nschomer

Juhani Lunden said:


> If varroa increases 10 fold in a year (someone say it is much more) doesn´t that mean that you have to split each hive each year in 10 nucs to stop rising varroa infestation levels?


That's not how splitting reduces varroa, as the "per capita" varroa level is what is important, and if all splitting did were to spread it out, it wouldn't be effective in the slightest. The artificial brood break is what reduces varroa levels in a split.


----------



## JWChesnut

Something weird and troubling in the data is the coordinated nature of the mortality events. The curves at independent apiaries everywhere in Europe exhibit identical "mortality steps". This is not how mortality in even closely situated apiaries occurs for me. Why would apiaries scattered the length of Europe all decide to have a 2% mortality event the 2nd week of May, and then all simultaneously return to a similar lower rate. The data as presented is unrealistically identical.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Perhaps you could try leaving the drones, since removal doesn't work. Also, if they're dying in such numbers, I'd say you don't have resistant stock, whatever that means.


I already learned the hard way that cutting out drones won't prevent re-infestation late in summer. The numbers here go way up in August. When I say resistant, I mean mite resistant. The bees didn't die from mites. They may not be "winter resistant."


----------



## D Semple

Wouldn't say I'm religious about Tf because I could care less how anybody else chooses to keep bees, but I will say that following Dee and Michael's model has worked well enough for me. I don't hardly every do a split, but do catch some swarms and do some removals to make up my yearly losses. I have about 40 hives, 5 of which have survived for 4 years now (by Peter's definition) and have never bought a bee.


Don


----------



## grozzie2

JWChesnut said:


> Why would apiaries scattered the length of Europe all decide to have a 2% mortality event the 2nd week of May, and then all simultaneously return to a similar lower rate. The data as presented is unrealistically identical.


One of the mortality events mentioned earlier was 'failed to requeen after swarm'. I would expect that one to be strongly biased to the May timeframe, and virtually non-existant for the rest of the year. It's a logical explanation of what you are questioning.


----------



## peterloringborst

> 5 of which have survived for 4 years now (by Peter's definition)


5 out of how many? That might be impressive unless it is 5 out of 100 acquired. Also, did you ever add brood to them or some other remedial action?


----------



## JWChesnut

grozzie2 said:


> One of the mortality events mentioned earlier was 'failed to requeen after swarm'. I would expect that one to be strongly biased to the May timeframe, and virtually non-existant for the rest of the year. It's a logical explanation of what you are questioning.


But look at the pattern of the curves in the referenced post. They are entirely parallel for months at time, even the slightest blip is reproduced accross all of Europe. Random events in broadly scattered yards (with relatively few individual numbers) will not reproduce the pattern shown. Something is way too consistent with the curves.


----------



## D Semple

peterloringborst said:


> 5 out of how many? That might be impressive unless it is 5 out of 100 acquired. Also, did you ever add brood to them or some other remedial action?


5 out of the 16 that went into winter my 1st year. No, remedial actions taken except flunking swarm management year two in which 10 of the 12 hives I had survive their 1st winter swarmed on me the next spring. (There are no original queens left now because of swarms or supercedures in those original 5 hives, so by Bernhard's definition they are not.) But, I may still may have a couple of those old original queens because I did manage to catch all those swarms and have most of them in different hives. 


Peter, Dr. Seeley was here this last weekend and one of the experiments he mentioned with the Arnot Forrest bees (paraphrasing) was to ascertain the importance of drift with respect to varroa population growth. Basically by using different colored drones between hives he showed that hives spread out I believe he said 70 meters apart showed no drone drift between hives. And those hives spread out that far apart showed no late summer/fall varroa population spike. 

There may be more to it than that but you may have been envolved with this experiment, or know of it and would care to elaborate?

Thanks. ....Don


----------



## peterloringborst

D Semple said:


> There are no original queens left now because of swarms or supercedures in those original 5 hives, so by Bernhard's definition they are not.
> 
> There may be more to it than that but you may have been envolved with this experiment, or know of it and would care to elaborate?


By definition, those colonies would be the same colonies, so long as they requeened themselves successfully. Adding brood to save a queenless colony or requeening would not be the same colony. This is the definition used in the study cited.

The Arnot Forest is about 9 miles from my house as the crow flies. A lot of people refer to Tom's Arnot Forest study who don't know anything about it. He has taken survivor stock from there and brought them into contact with cosmopolitan town bees. They catch varroa mites and die. That's why his thinking has moved toward the idea that isolation and non-intervention are key. 

Currently he has a bunch of one story hives scattered about the county in the woods. He told me the failure rate is about 30% a year. That would have most of them dead in three years, same as we have been saying. Of course, in nature, hives are dividing every season so if thirty percent dies, but the remaining 70% double every season, the number of colonies would increase over time. 

Interestingly, told me his managed hives lose about the same number each winter, so the management does not seem to be a major factor in the success or failure of the hives.


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> Anyway, I deeply mistrust the unsubstantiated, undocumented claims of the true believers. I don't think they sufficiently understand what it means to analyze. _*It's all "don't worry, be happy" beekeeping. We all want that, but some are at work trying to figure stuff out.*_


no offense peter, but methinks you paint with too broad a brush. 

i was prepared to adopt methods for mite control when i first started beekeeping, and i still am prepared to do that should the need arise. luckily it hasn't so far.

since losses are fairly similar between treated and untreated colonies according to the bee informed survey, the replacement consideration is pretty much the same for both groups as has already been pointed out by other posters.

i believe that locations which are supporting unmanaged (feral) populations of bees have the best chance of allowing a beekeeper to achieve managing bees off treatments. these locations will likely have exceptionally good natural forage (i.e significant floral biodiversity). my sense is that the viruses vectored by the mites are less of a problem when the bees' natural immunity is supported by the nutrients available in quality forage. this is my main reason for avoiding artificial feeds.

the other obvious plus for areas that support unmanaged colonies is the genetic contribution of 'survivor' drones to the apiary during mating season.

i've never tested my bees for the hygienic removal of frozen brood, but i do frequently observe allogrooming on the landing board. i was only able to find one mite this spring after breaking into dozens of capped drone cells in 15+ hives.

on the other hand, i found an over 100% mite infestation by alcohol wash in a colony that dwindled on me two winters ago. i took it away, shook it out, and froze the frames before it could get robbed out. i suspect that most of my losses have been from mites, although queen failure is another common cause but is likely related to mites. i've been careful not to let the mites be spread by robbing, and those colonies which succumbed are no longer contributing to the gene pool. 

the splitting has actually been a nice boost to my sideline operation. it's easy enough to make extra colonies to replace the few winter losses i have and the surplus bees sell quickly.

i am happy to make my apiary and my journals available to anyone working at 'trying to figure this stuff out'. i was fortunate to obtain stock that was derived from feral cut outs eighteen years ago and have been perpetuated off treatments ever since. they consistently perform that way for a fair number of beekeepers in our area, but i'm not sure how they would do in other parts of the country.


----------



## StevenG

"so called treatment free beekeepers" in the opening statement... wonder what is meant by that? Several of us, myself included, are treatment free, and have been successfully so. Do you apply the same criteria to survivability studies of treated bees? Treat, but no requeening and no splits? How long do those colonies last? let's compare apples to apples. 

I apply the same conscientious management techniques now that I did back in the 1970's and '80's - split for increase, requeen to maintain apiary vigor and minimize supercedure (sp?) and emergency queen cells. 

Back before Solomon Parker started this Treatment Free section of the forum, I reported regularly in my blog on the "good, the bad, and the ugly" of my treatment free beekeeping. I have used B. Weaver, Russian, MnHyg, Purvis, and a couple of other types of treatment free bees to find the ones that work well for me. My average annual losses over 9 years has been 18%. And those were related to small hive beetles, ppm, queen failure, and starvation (this past winter was especially brutal.) How many "treatment" beekeepers average 18% losses over 9 years?

As I've said (and others have also) again and again, you cannot take a treated colony, remove treatments, and expect the colony to survive. I have colonies 8 years old. ah, but they don't qualify, because I've split them for increase, and/or requeened them using good management techniques.

Regards,
Steven


----------



## Juhani Lunden

nschomer said:


> That's not how splitting reduces varroa, as the "per capita" varroa level is what is important, and if all splitting did were to spread it out, it wouldn't be effective in the slightest. The artificial brood break is what reduces varroa levels in a split.


I think making nucs is not enough to control varroa.

If an artifical brood break lasts for a month (in my apiaries it lasts about 3 days, nucs are made with laying queens) that reduces varroa infestation in half ? (varroa doubles in numbers in a month) That means you have to make only 5 nucs per hive, which is impossible in a long run.


----------



## peterloringborst

> "so called treatment free beekeepers" in the opening statement... wonder what is meant by that? Several of us, myself included, are treatment free, and have been successfully so. Do you apply the same criteria to survivability studies of treated bees?


By _so called _I simply meant, they call themselves that. I am trying to keep bees without chemicals but I just call it beekeeping. Also, opinions vary on what a _treatment_ is. Is sugar a treatment? How about giving water? What if you move the bees to a better location? Etc

The discussion isn't about the survivability of treated bees. That is supposed to be off topic according to the rules of this forum, so I haven't discussed it. In the beekeeping literature you frequently find the statement that _untreated colonies will die within three years_. 

My experience has been exactly that. Obviously, if you split your hives whenever possible you can keep the numbers up, so long as you have enough survivors to split. Equally obvious is that if you lose up to half the colonies each year and do not acquire new bees somehow, you will soon reach zero. 

I have asked the question about survival of individual colonies on many occasions and no one seems to have a handle on it, other than to provide anecdotes. That's what made the study referenced of interest. They did the work, collected the data, showed that the survival curve is very steep downward.


----------



## squarepeg

steveng,

nice to see you back, hope all is well in your new location.

peter,

do those frequent reports in the literature compare colony longevity between treated vs. untreated? (the forum rules allow for a response to this question) perhaps the sustainability of the meta-organism (apiary) is the more relevant consideration.

regarding the use of organic acids, (which is what i would use if i were compelled to use anything), while they do indeed occur naturally in honey, one has to wonder how disrupting the normal microbial flora (beneficials) in the hive might induce unwanted side effects.


----------



## peterloringborst

> do those frequent reports in the literature compare colony longevity between treated vs. untreated?


Of course. Everyone knows colonies can be kept alive for decades by applying modern management techniques. This is not about that.


----------



## squarepeg

i didn't know that peter. decades without requeening? wow.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

StevenG said:


> I have colonies 8 years old. ah, but they don't qualify, because I've split them for increase, and/or requeened them using good management techniques.


LOL

It is just for academic intrests to think about survival of individual untreated beehive. And according to thread starter, discussion about the survival of treated hives is not proper, which is funny. Isn´t that just the right comparison? The more so because we cannot even decide what is treatment, queen change? For the last 3 years my losses have been about twice the average of whole Finland. 

If treating beekeeper does not make nucs, he will end up losing all. No matter how good practises he has. Nothing diffrent compared to TF.

For the beekeeper, for the one who is doing something, not just thinking and whining about how things are bad, net income is what matters.


----------



## peterloringborst

> i didn't know that peter. decades without requeening? wow.


I didn't say that. Just the opposite. I said with modern management which includes requeening of course.


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> By definition, those colonies would be the same colonies, so long as they requeened themselves successfully. Adding brood to save a queenless colony or requeening would not be the same colony. This is the definition used in the study cited.


sorry peter, i thought we were using this definition for the sake of this discussion.


----------



## D Semple

peterloringborst said:


> He has taken survivor stock from there and brought them into contact with cosmopolitan town bees. They catch varroa mites and die. That's why his thinking has moved toward the idea that isolation and non-intervention are key.


I'm intrigued with the preventing drift by Isolation aspect of the equation. And that 70 meters was enough distance between hives to eliminate drift amongst drones, which I would think are more apt to drift to begin with.


----------



## peterloringborst

> sorry peter, i thought we were using this definition for the sake of this discussion.


No worry. The discussion has been jumping around. I have tried to keep to the spirit of the forum and not discuss non-nontreatment options. Modern beekeeping includes any and all options (there, I said it). A non-chemical approach (which is what I call it) could involve requeening, especially if one is attempting to propagate survivor stock. 

But tracking individual colonies is a special question, one which I don't think has been studied adequately. We know that "store bought" queens are apt to fail quickly (not sure why, probably has to do with chemicals). But if you get survivor stock and it self requeens, it tends to become diluted by whatever is in the neighborhood, which could be any random stock brought in from hell and beyond.

By the way, I am not attempting to make any sort of point or statement here, other than here is a question which not a lot of people have looked at. Maybe they don't care, so long as they can keep their numbers up. But to me, the longevity of the colony is a very interesting metric, and one by which we might gauge the health of the colony long term. 

Colonies should live a long time, I think. Restocking with swarms, though, is perfectly natural. That's what happens in nature, empty nests get repopulated by swarms (obviously).


----------



## peterloringborst

> And that 70 meters was enough distance between hives to eliminate drift amongst drones, which I would think are more apt to drift to begin with.


Well, there's also the fact that the forest is very dense, hilly and with large trees. As opposed to a prairie, for example.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> By the way, I am not attempting to make any sort of point or statement here, other than here is a question which not a lot of people have looked at. Maybe they don't care, so long as they can keep their numbers up. But to me, the longevity of the colony is a very interesting metric, and one by which we might gauge the health of the colony long term.


It could be a new metric, but breeder chooses breeding stock and very seldom hive gets a queen of its own. Requeening with new stock makes it a new colony. Therefore I have max 3 (4) year old hives. Most of them live 1 or 2 years. That is, they have been requeened with new queens mated in isolation mating apiary.


----------



## squarepeg

i like the metric of longevity and use it as one of the important selection criteria for my breeder queens.


----------



## StevenG

Squarepeg, good to be back to an almost normal life after the move and relocating (and neglecting) my bees for nearly three years. 

Over the years several of us treatment free beekeepers have reported on the longevity of our hives. Most of my colonies last longer than three years. Sometimes I requeen after two years, sometimes they swarm and requeen themselves. Sometimes I requeen after three years... depends on cash flow, health of the colony, their honey production, etc etc etc. My annual losses have been as low as 6% to as high as 33%. This past winter I lost 33% due to starvation and weather issues. Whereas some treating beekeepers here in this county lost 60% as they have reported at recent meetings. 

I wonder how many treating beekeepers would pay to have only an 18% average loss over a period of 9 years? And for the life of me I don't understand why folks are surprised that a colony dies, if they take bees that have been treated and stop treating because they want to be treatment free! Many of us have pointed out this simply will not work. You have to START with treatment free bees from a breeder who DOES NOT TREAT. I made the mistake of buying some MnHyg queens from a breeder, because they were supposed to be good.... as I was leaving he told me to treat once a year for mites.... :scratch: I wasted my money. 

Studies are good, studies are necessary, but sometimes studies do not necessarily reflect real world experience. Several of us on the forum going back 8-9 years have real world experience regarding treatment free bees for the varroa mite. fwiw

Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

very well said steven.

close to 100% of my colonies requeen themselves every year either by swarming or by supercedure. i don't mark queens so i can't say how old my oldest queen is. most colonies i have lost were by queen failure between late fall and early spring, when there is no chance to get a new queen mated. i'm seeing less of that as time goes on, so hopefully the survivors and their drones are moving toward better vigor. there were more losses around here this past winter compared to the previous one, but i lost less than the year before.

very nice to hear from you.


----------



## StevenG

Thanks squarepeg. Now that I'm "back in the saddle" I hope to get my losses back down to around 10% a year. I plan to look for additional sources of queens so I can mix genetics and hopefully increase vigor, as I plan to start raising my own queens next year, and want a mix of different drones available. And after that I figure if I bring in 5-10 "store bought" queens a year, that ought to maintain the vigor. But then, I'm just a poor schmuck, did lousy in science and biology in college...  Hoping to hit 30-35 colonies next year.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst

> And for the life of me I don't understand why folks are surprised that a colony dies, if they take bees that have been treated and stop treating because they want to be treatment free! Many of us have pointed out this simply will not work.


Maybe you could explain this. Are you saying that you need to purchase resistant stock or that once bees are exposed to chemicals they can never live without them? Because the first makes sense, and the second doesn't.


----------



## squarepeg

from what i can gather from some of the discussion on the forum the purchasing of queens from 'resistant stock' has produced mixed results.

not all of the colonies that i have propagated from my own stock have ended up resistant enough to survive.

one's chances for success are best if purchasing overwintered nucs from a supplier that does not treat. another option (although more labor intensive) is to locate unmanaged colonies, verify that they have survived a winter or two, and collect them.

as i stated in an earlier post, sustaining an apiary off treatments is more likely to be successful when there is an adequate availability of feral colonies nearby, (indicating favorable habitat and allowing for survivor drone contribution).


----------



## peterloringborst

> locate unmanaged colonies, verify that they have survived a winter or two, and collect them.


Been there, done that. It didn't work. However, I think it is much harder to keep bees going in our geographic region. Only the best hives can make it through a six month winter.


----------



## StevenG

Hi Peter,
To answer your question in post #62 above, I have no knowledge or experience of "once bees exposed to chemicals they cannot live without them." 
What I have discovered is that when I buy bees from breeders who treat, either packages or queens, treatments must continue or they will die. I have preferred to let the breeder take the losses to get his bees to the treatment free stage, where they can survive without treatments. See the B. Weaver story, for one of the best examples of this. I have purchased some packages, a couple of nucs, but mainly queens of the following strains: B. Weaver, MnHyg, Purvis (when they were selling them), Russians, and Russell (before his operation went south). As previously reported by me, I was told by the MnHyg breeder that those bees needed some treatment after all. Of these bees, the ONLY ones that have consistently survived and produced a good honey harvest for me have been the B. Weaver and Purvis bees. 

My average losses have been lower than other beekeepers around me, and my honey harvests are typically above the state averages. I am not in a big agricultural area, very little clover and alfalfa. Last year two of my 5 "in town, backyard" hives (B. Weaver) produced 174 and 152 pounds each surplus honey. I have never treated for mites. I do use the beetle jail traps because shb are a problem. When necessary I will feed sugar syrup to prevent starvation or to stimulate brood rearing and comb building when making splits and/or doing walk-away splits to make increase.

But my point has always been, let the breeder take the losses to get the bees to treatment free status. Several have, and they have produced some real good honey bees. And I think, if someone up north can figure out a way to get to a treatment free bee, he'll be sitting on a gold mine to sell to other beekeepers. I'm not sure how I would go about getting, for example, some B. Weaver packages or queens up into your neck of the woods and seeing if they would acclimate, but sooner or later someone will try, and eventually succeed, in getting some northern treatment free bees.

Hope this makes sense.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## JWChesnut

peterloringborst said:


> Are you saying that you need to purchase resistant stock or that once bees are exposed to chemicals they can never live without them? Because the first makes sense, and the second doesn't.


TF-ers assume that microbial ecology of the hive is persistent, unique and fragile. Treatment is assumed to disrupt the microbes leading to unbalance. Unbalance leads to epidemic conditions. They can cite some research that shows unique microbial signatures and with persistence in hives. They choose to ignore the research that show microbes are rapidly renewing and heavily contingent on the specifics of local forage, or simply exogenous to the bees. 

Fumagilin is patently a broad spectrum anti-microbial. The competitive promotion of virulent N. ceranae vs. N. apis subsequent to disruptive treatment has been studied and cited.

Beyond that, the agency and import of particular microbial communities on colony health seems under-described. I have difficulty understanding the linkage between a particular lactic acid bacteria and the critical viral epidemics. It seems a simple titer of DWV in never-treated vs. sometime-treated hives would demonstrate or refute the assumption.

The post-treatment survival of the European test colonies was better than that reported by Bush on his never-treated colonies, so the idea that prophylactic treatment of purchased colonies precludes a TF apiary model is unsupported. Do it like Bush, and you can resupply the colony count as the colonies die, regardless of the origin, genetics, frame-width or shape of the hive.

If Bush or other TF advocate want to argue for a differential survival of never-treated colonies, they need to run the experiment (in valid numbers) to do that. The difficulty with TF anecdotal accounts is the widely known "survivor effect" in Cancer trials. Only the survivors present their stories -- and the reasons they present for their remission may or may not represent the underlying mechanism.


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> Been there, done that. It didn't work. However, I think it is much harder to keep bees going in our geographic region. Only the best hives can make it through a six month winter.


understood peter.


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> ..... the agency and import of particular microbial communities on colony health seems under-described.


all too true jwc, we just don't know either way.

and your point: "the research that show microbes are rapidly renewing and heavily contingent on the specifics of local forage, or simply exogenous to the bees" (although i think you meant 'endogenous') is why i believe that suitable habitat and avoiding artificial feeds rank among the common denominators amongst those having success off treatments.


----------



## JWChesnut

No, exogenous -- the microbes come from floral nectar unmodified, or are ubiquitous in the larger environment.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I'm not sure how I would go about getting, for example, some B. Weaver packages or queens up into your neck of the woods and seeing if they would acclimate, but sooner or later someone will try, and eventually succeed, in getting some northern treatment free bees.

That's exactly what I and a couple of others are doing. Last winter all my Weaver bees died, but one. I bought 2104 queens and so it resumes. I am running them side by side with ordinary stock, however, to try to calibrate the differences.


----------



## squarepeg

sorry, misunderstood your statement. have you been able to determine longevity on any of the feral colonies you observe?


----------



## peterloringborst

I have never had a colony go past the third year without mite treatment. Some die quicker than that.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Fumagilin is patently a broad spectrum anti-microbial.


I don't think this stuff should even be on the market. It is toxic and doesn't control nosema effectively anyway. On the other hand, honey bees collect and produce a variety of anti-microbial substances so simply being anti-microbial is not a bad thing. Bees don't want pathogens any more than we do


----------



## peterloringborst

> If Bush or other TF advocate want to argue for a differential survival of never-treated colonies, they need to run the experiment (in valid numbers) to do that. The difficulty with TF anecdotal accounts is the widely known "survivor effect" in Cancer trials.


Exactly. I have stated this repeatedly. With anecdotal evidence you have choices: believe they are telling something like the truth, or figure they are just like everybody else -- exaggerating and fudging the facts. I don't believe anybody, I want to see corroboration.


----------



## JWChesnut

The difficulty with the triumphalist TF position ("I changed to small-cell, and instantly Varroa vanished") is that the documented, statistically valid outcome is (predominantly) apiary extinction, dramatically illustrated by the local Craigslist ad I collected today:









Now, a 40 or 200 hive operation can recover from a 60% loss by energetic, time and resource consuming radical increase tactics, the trajectory for the backyard hobbyist is more dire, and typically results in the something similar to the captured image.


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> Exactly. I have stated this repeatedly. With anecdotal evidence you have choices: believe they are telling something like the truth, or figure they are just like everybody else -- exaggerating and fudging the facts. I don't believe anybody, I want to see corroboration.


corroboration? published in a scientific journal? like dr. lu's most recent corroboration that neonics are the 'likley culprit' for ccd?

anecdotal doesn't necessarily mean not true, no more than a scientific paper can be relied on as cold hard facts.

the truth can be obscure sometimes. i try to not let prejudices get in my way of getting to it. i belong to no camp in particular, i have no agenda, and i'm guided most by my own observations and experiences.

i just had an interesting conversation with the bee inspector from a neighboring state. he shared that the bee trees he was called in for by the timber companies went from being found frequently pre-varroa to almost non-existant post-varroa, but he reports they have been making a nice come back in recent years.

none of my post secondary credentials are in entomology, so i won't speculate on the why and how, but it appears that our bees are adapting fairly quickly to the mites. how to capitalize on that as beekeepers is the subject for a lot of....... discussion.


----------



## StevenG

Peter, I think my earlier posting in reply to your question about chemicals and bees did not quite answer you. From what I've read in the literature, all appearances are that bees which have been chemically treated are unable to survive without further treatments. Having never treated, I cannot speak to that issue. But all indications are that bees and queens bought from breeders who treat, cannot go treatment free, because they do not have the genetic disposition to do so. Weaver and others lost massive amounts of colonies and bred from the survivors. They kept experiencing losses and breeding the survivors without treatments, thus developing a "treatment free bee." 

JWChestnut, yes, there are triumphalist treatment free advocates, but the more level-headed amongst us (Sol Parker, Squarepeg, myself, and a few others) are more analytical and do not proclaim such a "magic bullet" solution as you've mentioned. Some years ago I was invited on this forum to do a controlled study. But I am not a scientist, or even scientifically inclined. Not in my make-up. I did post about my experiences, and the resulting discussion led to the moderator to institute this section of the forum under the moderation of Solomon Parker (who I think has done an admirable job). I for one have stated that my bees have varroa. While I do not do mite counts, I have seen the mites when I've inspected drone brood in my colonies. I KNOW my bees have varroa, but they control it. For me, any magic bullet resides in the honey bee itself, and it's genetics. 

I suspect that you can determine from the beekeepers I've mentioned that TF is successful...but as you've indicated, it is a bit of a matter of trust. Do you trust us to actually report the truth, the facts, the realities in our apiaries. And I don't blame you for being skeptical. But several of us, from our experiences, are providing documented success of treatment free beekeeping over many years. Long past the three years expected for our apiaries to crash.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG

peterloringborst said:


> > I'm not sure how I would go about getting, for example, some B. Weaver packages or queens up into your neck of the woods and seeing if they would acclimate, but sooner or later someone will try, and eventually succeed, in getting some northern treatment free bees.
> 
> That's exactly what I and a couple of others are doing. Last winter all my Weaver bees died, but one. I bought 2104 queens and so it resumes. I am running them side by side with ordinary stock, however, to try to calibrate the differences.


That is wonderful news! And I am being sincere in my compliment to you. We had long-time experienced beekeepers here in Missouri lose 60% of their colonies this past winter. I myself experienced the worst losses of my life - 33%. My post-mortems indicated several causes, primary among them was a long warm spell broken by a week long hard freeze which trapped the clusters on brood separated from honey, and they starved. I understand your climate is much more difficult, but do you have any indication what caused the demise of your Weaver bees? And how is the one survivor doing? 

As analytical as you are (I read you regularly in the ABJ), would it be helpful for the larger community for you to start a thread here describing your experiences with TF B. Weaver bees in New York State? I see two key issues - 1. The ability of "southern" bees to overwinter "way up north." And 2. The survivability of TF B. Weaver bees with normal management techniques (eliminating mite treatments) in New York State. 

Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst

> I understand your climate is much more difficult, but do you have any indication what caused the demise of your Weaver bees? And how is the one survivor doing?


The bees were the best I've had going into winter, but they started to go down around January. I think I didn't leave enough honey. It might have been enough for an average winter but this winter was much worse than we have had in a long time. Many of my friends lost most of their colonies. Ironically, I have another yard that I manage for our club and they did perfectly fine, despite the hard winter and basically the same management except I applied MAQs in August to knock down the mites.

The one survivor was down to a fist full of bees and a queen. I made a nuc and put her with it. My home yard has ten hives, half Weaver and half some stuff I got from a neighbor who made ab bunch of nucs in Florida. WHat I did was to take five nucs and split them to ten. The bees in the nucs will have died off in another month or so and the difference in the queens should begin to become evident. My chief difficulty with Weaver bees is how ornery they are. I am used to working bees in a T shirt. I don't mind getting stung a bit but at a certain point it finally gets annoying.


----------



## StevenG

:lpf: understand about annoying! I have never, in all my years of beekeeping, going back to Starline hybrids, never been able to work bees in a t shirt. My meanest hive was back in 1975, and only once since have I had a B.Weaver colony come close to that one. While I wear long sleeved shirt and veil, I rarely wear gloves. A couple years ago I had a fist full of bees and a queen, and danged if those girls didn't outproduce the other colonies!

It will be interesting to hear how your nucs are doing.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Juhani Lunden

StevenG said:


> I for one have stated that my bees have varroa. While I do not do mite counts, I have seen the mites when I've inspected drone brood in my colonies. I KNOW my bees have varroa, but they control it. For me, any magic bullet resides in the honey bee itself, and it's genetics.
> 
> I suspect that you can determine from the beekeepers I've mentioned that TF is successful...but as you've indicated, it is a bit of a matter of trust. Do you trust us to actually report the truth, the facts, the realities in our apiaries. And I don't blame you for being skeptical. But several of us, from our experiences, are providing documented success of treatment free beekeeping over many years. Long past the three years expected for our apiaries to crash.





peterloringborst said:


> Exactly. I have stated this repeatedly. With anecdotal evidence you have choices: believe they are telling something like the truth, or figure they are just like everybody else -- exaggerating and fudging the facts. I don't believe anybody, I want to see corroboration.




It is not easy to make a large valid scientific study. It is expensive, many scientists don´t believe in verroa resistance, bee imports are forbidden, etc. I have written this earlier. In Finland we have no money, in Germany they do reseach only with pure races, in Sweden you cannot import bees etc. What can I do? I just continue breeding work. But it is not the breeders fault that there is no study of his bees. Like StevenG said some of us are more level-headed and have published in Internet what we are doing.


----------



## squarepeg

well said juhani. it's interesting how those that have tried and failed are quick to discount the successes of others as contrived and worse. for me it was pure dumb luck to be in the right place and get the right bees to start with. i'm not sure how much energy and resources i would be willing to invest trying to get it to work, especially after a failure or two, especially since standard methodology is basically reliable for now. but if i was really intent on replicating the successes of others i think i would spend more time trying to figure out the how's and why's of what was working and less time being critical. mike bush deserves some credit, not only for his contribution to beekeeping, but for showing restraint in light of the off handed comments directed at him in this and other threads.


----------



## StevenG

And the European study cited by Peter Loring Borst started with bees that had been treated for mites, to get the colonies on a level playing field. My question is, if the bees were treated, and needed to be treated, how in the world could they be considered treatment free bees? :scratch: Ergo is that study not in fact irrelevant to the discussion of the survivability of treatment free bees? So why is that study given more credence than the experiences of beeks such as Sol Parker, Mike Bush, squarepeg, and me? to name a few that I trust.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg

it's true (as jwc points out) that there are many new beekeepers who aquire commercially produced bees and apply treatment free methods only to end up losing them (and oftentimes their interest in beekeeping).

i'm not sure that all areas are capable of supporting treatment free bees. not having a healthy presence of unmanaged colonies living in the nearby woods suggests to me that the habitat may be lacking in some way and/or the bees that used to live there failed to develop resistance.

i agree with steven that the best approach is to find someone in your area that is already successful, get your bees from them, and learn their methods. unfortunately for many beginners that's not possible. an alternative would be to locate unmanaged colonies that have made it through at least one winter, collect them, and start winnowing. (fusion power was successful with this approach)

the forum has been and continues to be very helpful to me with the learning curve. i'm thankful for the valuable assistance i've received from all of the experienced folks here treaters and tf'ers alike. i agree with the point that has been made by many others that it all begins with sound basic beekeeping skills. add to that a good location, some hearty bees, a little bit of luck, and the knowledge that it is possible.


----------



## peterloringborst

StevenG said:


> And the European study cited by Peter Loring Borst started with bees that had been treated for mites, to get the colonies on a level playing field. My question is, if the bees were treated, and needed to be treated, how in the world could they be considered treatment free bees? :scratch: Ergo is that study not in fact irrelevant to the discussion of the survivability of treatment free bees? So why is that study given more credence than the experiences of beeks such as Sol Parker, Mike Bush, squarepeg, and me? to name a few that I trust.
> Regards,
> Steven


The study just came out, so there is no way to measure the credence given to it. Secondly, I already explained that the bees were treated for mites to create a baseline from which to start. Does this somehow invalidate the results? I hardly think so. If a person says they are a vegetarian, do you insist that _they can't be if they ever ate meat?_ This is an another example of extremist thinking. The turnover in the hive is very quick, so that most of the treated bees would be dead in two months. 

But that is utterly beside the point. The study was not about treatment free beekeeping at all. It was about the difference between locally adapted bees and imported bees. The authors of the study chose to follow a strict regimen of no treatments (after the initial one), no requeening or intervention. The longevity of the 600 colonies was tracked; the lifespan ranges from less than three months to almost three years.

By far the most significant factor is _geographic location._ Colonies lived much longer in the Mediterranean region than in the far north. Big surprise! The main reason I posted the study was to show an example of how a real world study would be conducted and it also happened that the bees were not treated during the duration. I suggest that anyone who wants to observe the difference between stocks would follow this methodology. 

If someone wants to finance a study using a few hundred colonies of treatment free bees (from treatment free sources) vs ordinary run of the mill stock, I will conduct it. At this point I don't have the resources to do anything beyond what I am doing. My study involves using treatment free queens vs ordinary queens, five of each. The bees themselves were purchased from somebody else, but I never asked him about what he does about mites.

PLB

P.S. I don't "trust" anybody. Make your claim and then prove it. If you can't prove it, go preach to the gullible.


----------



## StevenG

Points well made and clarified, Peter, thanks.
Re your P.S., personally I made my claim in 2005 and 2006 and have been proving it since. 9 years treatment free, no crashes.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Juhani Lunden

One study was made in Kroatia, in(on?) the island of Unije.

Büchler, R., Berg, S., Kezic, N., Pechhacker, H., van Praagh, J., Bubalo, D., Ritter, W., Bienefeld, K. (2002). "Survival test without treatment against varroatosis - the island project in Croatia." Apidologie 33: 2.

I havent got the magazine, and did not find it in Internet. The method was similar to this threads main topic. From memory I recall, that they set up about 250 hives in an island near the Kroatian border. Then they just waited. Pretty much the same what Ingemar Fries did in Gotland the year before.

Unije experiment was conducted by the German bee institutes, but because the winner bee was a hybrid bee it was never spoken about so much. The same happened with Primorski bees. They are the base material for the most of the resistant bees in Europe (Buckfast breeders) but these same institutes made some studies and came to the conclusion, that Primorsky bees should not be used at all, because they swarm and sting. (I never saw any swarming, and stinging was easily bred away) 

Obviously they were a bit worried about the wider use of new material. The use of hybrids, some of which turn nasty, is a bit risky business in densely populated areas such as Central Europe.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Also the institutes advocate and recommend the Carnica bee since the 1930s and can't change that quickly without loosing reputation. They also still recommend an old hive system that is more than outdated...for the same reasons I guess.

New beekeepers usually start with Buckfast bees straight away. Due to the efforts of Paul Jungels and others the Buckfast bee has a good potential to cope with varroa.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Due to the efforts of Paul Jungels and others the Buckfast bee has a good potential to cope with varroa.


Exactly. But Bernhard, how are we going to get the folks over the Atlantic realize that here is some marvellous work done too. Paul and I have similar starting points: Primorski 2001, VSH 2012. Paul has put some anatolica in, I have something from South -America. Interesting to compare the end results. The last time we were writing, in March 2014, he wrote that my bees are among the best he has. I can now tell the same of his bees.

It is absolutely crusial, that more breeders get into this work! We need more variation in the material.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Bees from Gotland Project of Ingemar Fries might qualify to the terms of this thread. He started a survival test on the island of Gotland year 2000 (or 2001?). 150hives, form various sources in Sweden were brought in several apiaries. They made effords to capture swarms, but otherwise nothing, exept winter feeding, was done. (Wirter feeding is necessary in our climate). There are still survivors left. Individual colonies might not be, but swarms and swarms from swarms are. They are offspring of the original bees. 

The ability to withstand mites has also been studied and found to be true.


----------



## peterloringborst

The first year of the study in Croatia, all the bees died:



> Island project in Croatia: test of European honeybee strains for Varroa tolerance
> 
> Thirteen European honeybee origins were tested over a 2-year period for their capacity to survive under high infection pressure by Varroa destructor, development of their colony and development of mite infestation, and for the existence of potential tolerance mechanisms. In both years the colonies were established using artificial swarms (average 1.6 kg) during the months May/June. In 1999, a total number of 189 colonies was established. All colonies received approximately 150 V. destructor mites to start the infection. A continuous reduction in colony strength was observed. In October 1999, the average colony strength was 3600 bees/colony. By December 1999, the total loss of all colonies was observed, obviously due to substantial mite transfer from dying colonies.


In 2000, the results were different:



> Out of 117 artificially infested swarms established in May 2000, 20 colonies survived until February 2002.
> 
> All tested tolerance parameters showed a negative, but
> insignificant correlation with the mite infestation of
> the colonies (number of infertile brood mites:
> n = 114, r = –0.355, P = 0.059; amount of dead
> brood removed by hygienic behaviour: n = 114,
> r = –0.104, P = 0.358; number of damaged mites:
> n = 114, r = –0.061, P = 0.673).


The second part is telling: the colonies that had low levels of mites did not exhibit characters that correlated to low mite counts, which is the same as saying some were luckier than others. I have long felt that chance is a very significant factor in honey bee colony survival, and of course -- this cannot be heritable. You can't breed lucky bees.


----------



## peterloringborst

> the Gotland population (Fries et al., 2006) was isolated, thus favouring the
> development of host-parasite balance and removing possible
> reinfestation with mites from neighbouring apiaries.


Journal of Apicultural Research 53(2): 205-214 (2014) © IBRA 2014


----------



## Juhani Lunden

peterloringborst said:


> The second part is telling: the colonies that had low levels of mites did not exhibit characters that correlated to low mite counts, which is the same as saying some were luckier than others. I have long felt that chance is a very significant factor in honey bee colony survival, and of course -- this cannot be heritable. You can't breed lucky bees.


I haven´t heard anything about the survivors in Croatia, I guess they were no good. Nothing to breed from. I cannot even imagine how much taxpayers money wasted in there...


----------



## squarepeg

deleted by squarepeg


----------



## deknow

More to the point....if I wanted to do a study regarding the over wintering of nucs, would I hire/fund someone who claims not to have been able to overwinter nucs, or do you look for Mike palmer?


----------



## squarepeg

deleted by squarepeg


----------



## squarepeg

deleted by squarepeg


----------



## deknow

If Peter wants to talk about personal attacks, I can come up with all kinds of examples.....with the common denominator being peter, not beesource....some aimed at harming sales of our book...which had not read.


----------



## squarepeg

deleted by squarepeg


----------



## clyderoad

squarepeg said:


> if someone wants to finance a such a study it seems unlikely that a lab manager from cornell lacking the appropriate post secondary credentials would conduct it, but even so....
> 
> such a study would be very limited in what if any conclusions could be drawn from it.
> 
> can we concede that there are just too many variables when it comes to honeybee outcomes to make any study including the ones cited above relevant across the universe of managed and unmanaged colonies?
> 
> jwc and others have made a very compelling case that even our best efforts at propagating genetics are futile at best because of polyandry and open mating.
> 
> the best money is on maximum hybridization between subspecies (as happens in nature) which allows for the effective combining of survival traits at the super-organism level. That view is bolstered by the observation in certain locations where the 'hybrid swarm' is (re)establishing a foothold in the wild.
> 
> a better use of resources imho would be to analyze the surviving bees and the methods being used that are proving themselves year by year, looking for common denominators and attempt to reproduce those results in other locations.
> 
> planting survivor colonies and allow them to swarm seems like a reasonable approach toward helping a local meta-population become (re)established.
> 
> honeybees are a case where real world truths trump lab data, it's just that way. (and that's coming from one with master's and doctoral degrees)
> 
> forgive me for saying so peter, but from my side of the screen it appears that your obsession with 'science' is getting in your way of your 'trying to figure stuff out'.
> 
> i am sure that most of the folks reporting their observations here including myself couldn't care less whether you trust what they are reporting or not, just as i am sure that most of them including myself would be happy to have you come visit and see for yourself that we have somehow beaten the odds and ended up with beekeeper friendly survivor mutts that do not need mite treatments.


Your Masters and Doctorate in what discipline(s)?


----------



## squarepeg

deleted by squarepeg


----------



## clyderoad

squarepeg said:


> b.s. and m.s. in neurophysiology, the doctorate is a clinical degree. now those degrees do not advance any causes when it comes to my beekeeping, and i didn't disclose that info to toot my own horn. i added that for perspective coming from someone with a scientific background when making my point that real world truth trumps lab data when it comes to bees.


thank you for the clarification.
By your account, what difference does it make what the credentials of the researcher are if " such a study would be very limited in what if any conclusions could be drawn from it" ? 
And am I expected to blindly give credence to various accounts of TF bees when my real world truth plays out the polar opposite of these accounts?


----------



## squarepeg

deleted by squarepeg


----------



## clyderoad

just as i suspected.


----------



## squarepeg

deleted by squarepeg


----------



## Gypsi

I think good weather might help too


----------



## Daniel Y

As usual those that think they have ti figured out because it is rational. are entirely wrong.

I personally have been approached about aiding with research on Nosema in Honey bees. By the lab Manager of a top level Medical school. And trust me the credentials of that 'Manager" would make some here look like wannabes. You don't get put in charge of labs like that just because you know which end of a microscope to look into.

As for the why. Well it is not always about the bees and certainly is not about you. It is about teaching Doctors to be Doctors and is funded by those interested in that pursuit. IN the interest of meeting that requirement this lab is always looking for projects that create genuine research needs. In order to teach students how to conduct accurate research.

So much for rational assumptions. I can think of dozens of labs on our campus alone that would have similar interest in genuine research material for exactly the same reason. Get out of the apiary once in a while. there is a whole world going on out there.


----------



## StevenG

hmmmm where to start? 

Research is crucial, and deliberate scientific research is important, but there are usually limitations to each study. Limitations related to funding, to the criteria used to set up the study, to the time length of the study. We do need scientific studies done for the survivability of TF bees, if for nothing else than to lay to rest the canard that such beekeeping is impossible. Just because one or two beekeepers in New York state cannot do it, does not mean others in New York state cannot do it. And just because one or two beekeepers in NY state cannot do it does not mean that other beekeepers elsewhere who say they have done it are lying. 

Which is precisely what Peter Loring Borst and others have implied. 

In this thread the real world and the lab intersect. I for one like to think that my 9 years of TF beekeeping has been a study all along. Certainly not credentialed, but definitely verifiable. Would my results be accepted for publication in a scientific journal? Not a chance. And that's ok by me. But to debunk what I and others like me are doing just because we do not adhere to a strict definition of a scientifically controlled experiment is as wrong-headed as those who debunk lab work. 

There are a lot of variables in beekeeping, TF or otherwise. Location, climate, bee genetics being among the most crucial. In my many years on this forum I have seen, and experienced, many personal attacks. Some direct and obvious, others subtle and indirect. One is as bad as the other. Mr. Borst began this thread with a subtle slam... "so called treatment free..." Most of us ignored that insult, but that is what it was. Why can he not keep bees treatment free? Maybe it is his management techniques. Maybe it is his location. I do not know, and do not care. I DO care that he apparently keeps trying, based on his own posts here, and I respect him for that. 

What I do care about is those who do not keep bees TF and call those of us who do, liars. Or at the least, insinuate that we are dishonest. Same thing. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## peterloringborst

> beekeepers elsewhere who say they have done it are lying. Which is precisely what Peter Loring Borst and others have implied.
> 
> Mr. Borst began this thread with a subtle slam... "so called treatment free..." Most of us ignored that insult, but that is what it was.


This is the last post from me. I suggested that some folks may be exaggerating their success, and soft pedaling their failures. Some may be making stuff up, too. How do we know? Testimonials? I was taught in fifth grade to doubt everything people say. 

As for "so-called" being an insult, I already clarified that. 1) What is a treatment, anyway? 2) I may be TF but I don't call it that. I call it chemical free. I feed sugar syrup and some fanatics may regard that as a treatment of some sort. I don't.

Anyway, try to take it easy. Bye!


----------



## StevenG

Some of you will recall Mr. Borst bailed out on the Beesource Forum like this a few years back.


----------



## camero7

Because of all the bs


----------



## StevenG

That was certainly part of it. But there is also the reality that while he was free with his criticism, much of it justified, some was not. And when called on it... 
history repeats itself.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

The longevity of an individual colony is interesting if you are allowing the bees to change their queens. But for me a supersedure queen is worth nothing. I don´t know if they are that bad, but this way to work comes from the principals of (bee)breeding: we must know both the female and male side of the genome as well as possible. A supersedure queen has mated with unknown drones, so it is worthless, in my eyes, in making comparisons with other hives. Supersedure queens are not allowed, they are replaced.

We have serious AFB problem in Finland. The longevity of individual colony is strongly dependent how long they can avoid getting contamination, or how well a beekeeper is rotating the combs.

BUT: One interesting observation from this summer: A colony with 3 year old queen is very strong and I make a powder sugar dusting test to get a mite count. It is very low (6). But this colony has AFB! It is possible that some part, maybe a lot of the mites have rottend with dronebrood in the 2 inces free space on my hive bottom! It is interesting to follow this hive if AFB can have a positive effect on varroa resistance, if the colony can resist AFB somehow.

Usually it is the other way round. Varroa, chalk brood, other brood diseases and viruses come together and kill the hive.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Juhani Lunden said:


> It is interesting to follow this hive if AFB can have a positive effect on varroa resistance, if the colony can resist AFB somehow.


Some observations are currently discussed in Germany: some varroa resistent (more resistent) strains have been found to have viruses. Especially the Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV). It is not really a correlation but it has been observed and is discussed now. Just a hint.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting. i called and asked my supplier what he was observing in terms of colony survival as defined by continous years of the same queenline) with his treatment free apiary.

he replied that of the five colonies that he and his father collected from trees back in 1996, three have now survived the eighteen years without having been requeened and without being treated.

i nearly fainted. not because the well above average longevity, but because the last twelve queen cells i placed (11 of which got mated and are laying) were grafted from one of these three 18 year survivors. 

nice surprise. 

disclaimor: i take my supplier at his word and find his accounts to be reliable, but hey, this isn't supposed to be ripley's believe it or not, it's beesource.


----------



## Gypsi

I am very fond of the Varroa Sensitive Hygenic Queens I got from a man in East Texas. Unfortunately he had horrible luck with queens this year, lost 59 breeding nucs out of 60 to fire ants, so I only have one of his queens now. I generally get between the queen and the daughter, a lot of great gentle varroa scarce bees and a decent honey, comb and propolis production. Very gluey bees. Without the EFB I suspect I would not have had to buy queens this year, and I only got one that survived introduction (all though the non-survivor's daughter just came back)


----------



## squarepeg

interesting, gluey is good. i've correlated my gluiest hives to being the strongest and most productive.


----------



## StevenG

Congratulations on your good fortune with the queens, squarepeg! It will be interesting to hear how they track over the next couple of years.


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks steven. i was excited to hear that the supplier had three colonies still going strong without having been requeened for 18 years. He has been using these for honey production all along and claims they produce really well. We're talking about the possibility of aquiring an incubator and making grafted queen cells available from these next year. it's likely that part of the success is because the area is somewhat saturated with these genetics after years of swarming, so there would be a substantial drone contribution from the unmanaged colonies that are out in the wild. so far though, i and the others in the area that have been using these bees are getting better than average survival rates despite not treating for mites. (believe it or not,  )


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Good to hear ! It is amazing how sometimes the mitelevels go down from spring to autumn in normal colonies with laying queens. I got no explanations, what is happening. Would be interesting to know could they survive the winter here.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks juhani. i am also interested to see how these might do in other locations. i intend to request that some of the funds our government is allocating toward protecting the pollinators might be used to locate some of these bees in other areas, most likely starting with the surrounding states. it would also be interesting to perform genetic testing and analyze pollen and wax samples from them.


----------



## ForrestB

clyderoad said:


> And am I expected to blindly give credence to various accounts of TF bees when my real world truth plays out the polar opposite of these accounts?


No one expects you to do anything. I am pretty sure you are free to never open the TF forum again if you so choose. 

I keep bees without treating them and sometimes I come here to share info/experience, ask advice, etc.... If that upsets you, don't read threads in the TF forum. Problem solved.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The average life span of an untreated colony is less than three years, that's the point. The constant splitting and/or buying bees masks this fact



Is that a statistic born of something like: the average length of a study is 3 years? 

Also, is it a statistic raised from agricultural bred bees? 

Both those questions need to be answered appropriately before any conclusions about the ability of feral derived bees to thrive sans treatments or manipulations can be drawn.

Its an essential part of a selective propagation system to avoid any actions that mask problems. I take great care to... just leave them alone, and make great efforts to compare only like with like.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> (Squarepeg)"jwc and others have made a very compelling case that even our best efforts at propagating genetics are futile at best because of polyandry and open mating."


That case isn't nearly as compelling when you look at the facts from the persective of simple evolutionary biology. Open mating is normal in nature; neither that nor polyandry makes any difference whatsoever to the ability of the mechanism of natural selection for the fittest strains to bring the best suited genes to the fore. 

For breeders the drawbacks of open mating can be overcome through concentration on both maternal and paternal sides. 

JWC has never answered this statement of simple facts. The simple fundamentals of evolutionary biology are prior to any other arguments. The genes supplying best adapted bees make more copies of themselves than the gens supplying their alternative alleles, period. 

In nature, and under the hand of any breeder with more than a handful of hives. 

If population husbandry was futile in bees all breeders' claims about desirable characteristics would be mistaken. All bees must be alike. Think about it.

JWC sounds good but his is an attempt at a logical argument that falls easily on such contradictions. It his theory, nothing more; and its inconsistent with deeply established evolutionary biology.

Mike (UK)


----------



## franktrujillo

I'm a TF keeper,i would have to say it doesn't matter that being TF or treating your hives with medications or sugar syrup bees die you will have losses of hives. by being TF is your honey is not contaminated in any way in your apiary at least not intentionally by the keeper.of course you can't control the bees on to where they forage as far as numbers go i went into winter with 12 hives came out with 10 to me that's acceptable winter losses made up that number wit the 2 splits i did.also bought 6 packages 2 of them pure Russians 2 Carniolan and 2 Italian for genetic diversity/I also have new world carniolan,Yugo,and a few others that i removed from walls and swarms i caught threw the years.all in all i have no problems.out of the 2 that died one was queen failed in late fall the other unknown


----------



## squarepeg

thanks for concurring mike. i guess i was mostly peeved at the innuendo regarding the contriving and exaggerating of experiences. where i come from that would be considered very bad form and likely lead to fisticuffs. 

regarding breeding and jwc's points about polyandry, i'm leaning toward the view that without a significant presence of unmanaged colonies surviving in the nearby woods it would difficult to make progress at the apiary level for resistance.


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> thanks for concurring mike. i guess i was mostly peeved at the innuendo regarding the contriving and exaggerating of experiences. where i come from that would be considered very bad form and likely lead to fisticuffs. ]


SP, I think people are quite right to ask for details of methods in an attempt to critique claims of tf success, but - as recently revealed - some will not believe anything unless its a properly supervised study or the result of their own experience. That's their right, but naysaying doesn't amount to a valid argument against the validity of the sucessful tf experiences of others. Nor does buying packages agricultural bees and watching them die. 

We'd all be better off if they made polite enquiries as to just what we're doing and how we come by our data, and put foward arguments as to why they think our claims might be weak.



squarepeg said:


> regarding breeding and jwc's points about polyandry, i'm leaning toward the view that without a significant presence of unmanaged colonies surviving in the nearby woods it would difficult to make progress at the apiary level for resistance.


You're right. If and when a beekeeper is surrounded by artificially maintained stock he or she will have to put up quite a fight. I've bought in pehaps 50 or 60 swarms and cutouts gleaned from a wideish area over the past few years, which has I think concentrated useful genes to sufficient extent. Some have thrived, others not; some have been queenless, or had dud queens. I've made increase from the best on the maternal side and permitted the strongest to raise their drone numbers with unlimited nests, and I think those two things amount to the invisible magic that is bee breeding for resistance. (I've been thinking lately that its the invisibility of this process that make it hard for some people to get a grip on.) I also have them make their own brood comb.

The chances of success are very much conditioned by the local genetics in terms of artificially maintained stock times the amount of resistance you can put up in terms of drones from tolerant stock. But resistance behaviours like other traits are heritable. To most people that's all you need to know - the rest is obvious.

In a nutshell: get good genes; keep them good. Yes, difficult someplaces, happens all on its own elsewhere. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> interesting, gluey is good. i've correlated my gluiest hives to being the strongest and most productive.


Hmm, I have found mostly the opposite. All beekeeping is local.


----------



## Oldtimer

Quote - "One of Tom Seeley's current lines of research is to look at how beekeepers might achieve a sustainable control of varroa mite populations, and how beekeeping practice might help or hinder mite transmission. One hypothesis is that apiary crowding facilitates transmission of the parasite.

In each of the last three years he set up two groups of apiaries, 12 equalised hives either placed within one metre of each other, or distributed 30-80m apart. The research monitored the amount of drift, the dynamics of the mite population, and the colony mortality. The amount of drifting in the crowded apiary was surprising; about half the bees entering a colony did not emerge in the colony, whereas 99% of the bee entering the dispersed colonies originated there. In addition, in crowded colonies the mite populations exploded when neighbouring colonies crashed. This phenomenon did not occur in the distributed colonies. The colonies were not treated for varroa. After two years none of the crowded colonies survived; five out of the twelve dispersed colonies survived (40%).

The paper describing the study has not yet been published but has been submitted to Apidologie and should be out by the end of the year. Apart from the obvious conclusion that side-line beekeepers might set practicality aside in favour of more benign varroa control, it also tells us something about the survivability of feral colonies. Feral colonies are widely dispersed, in the order of 10 per kmsq (one for every ten hectares) while the density of a typical apiary is more like 100 to a hectare. Suddenly wild 'survivor' colonies seem less surprising.
ecology. Apidologie
The article citation is "*Seeley, TD., and Smith, ML., (2014) A major transition in how humans exploit honey bees has strongly affected their disease*". I will try and remember to post the link to it when I see it published". End Quote

Quote taken from http://www.nzbees.net/forum/threads/drifting-and-varroa.4493/


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Very interesting and it surely helps to understand why there seems to be quite a high step to get tf beekeeping going. As I have written (3.7.2012) in my diary www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.html (a slightly changed url address!) even if you have 50% of your hives varroa resistant, you might still end up in deep trouble.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Apart from the obvious conclusion that side-line beekeepers might set practicality aside in favour of more benign varroa control, it also tells us something about the survivability of feral colonies. Feral colonies are widely dispersed, in the order of 10 per kmsq (one for every ten hectares) while the density of a typical apiary is more like 100 to a hectare. Suddenly wild 'survivor' colonies seem less surprising.


I'ts not uncommon for colonies to move into empty hives right by occupied ones. Tom Seeley's density figures might be telling us something else about wild/feral bees - something about the average distribution of suitable nesting sites for example.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a reluctance to move close to another colony might be a trait enabling strains carrying it to do better during epidemics. It might equally be that during epidemics closer hives die off and that trait consequently rises in the population. In either case it doesn't tell us anything about how dense natural populations might be under non-epidemic conditions. 

On (perhaps) a different topic; one of my best hives this year is a fly-in from last year (right next to a number of other hives). I've been wondering if it is something about that origin that has enabled it to perform so well. 

Back to the study: I imagine these were package bees? No surprise then that casualty rates were so high. I do wish someone would make a comparison of package vs remotely sourced ferals in the same scenario. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Tyson Kaiser

So the current hoops to jump through to convince PLB and JW that treatment free beekeeping is sustainable are: 1) track TF survival rates like treatment bees rarely are, 2) make up losses using only non-TF/survivor bees and make them magically TF, 3) do it while maintaining a profitable honey enterprise, 4) splits, requeens and combinations don't count and 4) 80% of colonies must survive for 3 years. The results should be published as a 3 year study and peer-reviewed, and then we can start talking about TF being potentially legitimate. Did I miss anything and where can I sign up?


----------



## JWChesnut

Tyson Kaiser said:


> Did I miss anything and where can I sign up?


Tyson, I have maintained a TF test apiary since 2002 when I returned from Costa Rica. I stock it with feral swarms. Some of these swarms are from geography I believe will encourage local selection pressure (islands, "oasis", and the Los Padres wilderness). I maintain records for this test site, some of the management is conformist to the "Bushian orthordoxy" and some is idiosyncratic. The particulars of management -- eg. is comb new virgin foundationless, or recycled from an earlier draw don't seem to matter one whit. The apiary is adjacent to a very large state park, and is about 3/4 mile from a treated, but similiary situated comparison group. The hives are spread out along a mountain track about 5 meters apart -- so in that sense they are not following the recently disclosed "Seeley" prescription. 

The bottom line is feral colonies managed in a test apiary in Morro Bay get mites explosively in September regardless of the TF juju sprinkled on the hives.


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> The bottom line is feral colonies managed in a test apiary in Morro Bay get mites explosively in September regardless of the TF juju sprinkled on the hives.


Mine don't. Maybe the simple explanation is: you're just not very good at this JW? 

You seem to spend a lot of time thinking up ways of explaining why it doesn't work. Perhaps if you spent more time talking to people who make it work...?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Tyson Kaiser

JWChesnut said:


> The bottom line is feral colonies managed in a test apiary in Morro Bay get mites explosively in September regardless of the TF juju sprinkled on the hives.


It seems to me that you are already sure of your conclusion, I don't see why anyone would want to volunteer their time to prove you incorrect. I personally have better things to do then spend time trying to change detractors' minds when they have little interest in it. It appears that MB is of equal mind.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

Mr. Bispham, do you understand why a colony may have a sudden and large increase in it's varroa population late in the season?


----------



## squarepeg

let's assume like i do that everyone is accurately reporting their observations here, isn't the more relevant question why the differences?

one thought that comes to mind jwc is that your tf and treated yards being proximally situated that near each other are hybridizing and so you are really only dealing with one gene pool instead of two.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Mine don't. Maybe the simple explanation is: you're just not very good at this JW?


I had exactly the same thing said to me when my TF hives eventually suffered 100% loss.

People could only make such a statement if they do not understand that beekeeping is local.


----------



## mike bispham

AR Beekeeper said:


> Mr. Bispham, do you understand why a colony may have a sudden and large increase in it's varroa population late in the season?


Mr. A.R. Beekeeper, 

I would postulate that its because the colony is unable to manage its mite population well.

It could also be due not to that, but to an ingress of bees from a nearby collapsing colony. 

In which case, the genes making those colonies that can sort out such circumstances better than others will, under natural conditions, rise, ceteris patribus, in the populations.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> let's assume like i do that everyone is accurately reporting their observations here, isn't the more relevant question why the differences?
> 
> one thought that comes to mind jwc is that your tf and treated yards being proximally situated that near each other are hybridizing and so you are really only dealing with one gene pool instead of two.


What I want to know is where are these 'feral' bees of JW's coming from, if they all die reliably each September? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

JWChesnut said:


> The bottom line is feral colonies managed in a test apiary in Morro Bay get mites explosively in September regardless of the TF juju sprinkled on the hives.


Because September is when mite populations peak, annually.


----------



## Daniel Y

mike bispham said:


> What I want to know is where are these 'feral' bees of JW's coming from, if they all die reliably each September?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Wouldn't those be the survivors? The fittest that you would be interested in gathering?


----------



## Michael Bush

>some of the management is conformist to the "Bushian orthordoxy" 

I'd be curious to hear what that is... since I present a large variety of choices to people, just what of the myriad combination of those choices is "Bushian orthordoxy [_sic erat scriptum_]"?

>...the TF juju sprinkled on the hives.

Are they treatment free or are they sprinkling "juju"... I think sprinkling "juju" (or anything at all) would be considered a "treatment" by anyone who understands what the word "treatment" means.


----------



## JWChesnut

Michael,
In preface, let me say I aspire to be able to present a TF prescription applicable to coastal California. As for most beekeepers, a reliable and effective TF regime remains the holy grail. But after witnessing the collapse of TF enterprises locally (to the tune of hundred of thousands of dollars in losses), a TF prescription must be rigorously proofed and predictably successful.

My understanding of Nebraska prescription has shifted a bit over the years, in its current iteration:

1. Start with local feral (or TF lineage) stock.
2. Hive on small cell or foundationless frames
3. Use a top entrance (?)
4. Use medium frames (?)
5. Spilt in the summer, have bee raise their own queens
6. Feed with pH adjusted syrup in 5:3 concentration

3 & 4 seem to relate to personal management style more than Varroa, but they seem a central focus to those who manage à la Bush.


----------



## rhaldridge

peterloringborst said:


> The study just came out, so there is no way to measure the credence given to it. Secondly, I already explained that the bees were treated for mites to create a baseline from which to start. Does this somehow invalidate the results?


Well, yes.

One of the assumptions made by treatment free beekeepers is that treatment damages bees. Therefore by treating initially, you are starting from a baseline that already involves damaged stock. If you are going to fairly study these assumptions, then you have to do so wholeheartedly, or your conclusions are suspect.


----------



## CtyAcres

JWC- I started keeping bees in WY 4years ago and didn't know you had to treat, then moved to central Nebraska.
Here is my Nebraska prescription for TF bees:

1. Start with bees.
2. Hive on large cell or small cell frames.
3. Use both top and bottom entrances.
4. Use slatted racks.
5. Split in summer (optional) or leave alone
6. Feed if necessary with honey.

Place bees in a good location & watch them grow. Losses should be in the 10-15% range.
Just a rookie opinion- 4yrs, TF, 95 hives & counting.
Would like to try my prescription out in Costa Rica, Calif, or Jamiaca, but I'm stuck here in NE.


----------



## JWChesnut

CtyAcres said:


> JWC- I started keeping bees in WY 4years ago and didn't know you had to treat, then moved to central Nebraska.
> Here is my Nebraska prescription for TF bees:
> 
> 1. Start with bees.
> 2. Hive on large cell or small cell frames.
> 3. Use both top and bottom entrances.
> 4. Use slatted racks.
> 5. Split in summer (optional) or leave alone
> 6. Feed if necessary with honey.
> 
> Place bees in a good location & watch them grow. Losses should be in the 10-15% range.


Interesting.
This is why a variable-controlled trial is the responsible course before promoting a prescription.
Bush claims he lost his hives to Varroa until he switched to small cell, and then, instantly, became Varroa-free.

An entire industry has grown up around the conviction that TF requires the use of "small cell" and regressed bees (if released onto open frames).
Your experience indicates this has nothing to do with the happy result.


----------



## CtyAcres

JWC- Varroa is just about everywhere and the bees need to coexist with them in some sort of balance.
Weakened bees don't do real well against varroa or any other disease without having a proper diet.
Hence point #6 in my prescription is a must!! 90-95% of all beekeepers feed sugar syrup. I also
feel that a variable flower diet, (forage) plays a roll.


----------



## squarepeg

jwc,

have you any thoughts as to why varroa are so much more problematic in your location compared to some of the others reported here?

could it be that your local population is less resistant, or that the varroa are more virulent, or maybe the propensity for robbing and therefore spreading is greater?

regarding robbing, i have been surprised at times to find a colony dwindled down to being queenless, broodless, and with not much of a population left but not robbed out. 

when i have seen attempted robbing the robbers don't look like my bees. they are much more yellow compared to the dark brown color that my bees have, and the robbers have less black striping and more solid black at the back.

perhaps those bees surviving off treatments have a lessened propensity for robbing.


----------



## peterloringborst

CtyAcres said:


> 90-95% of all beekeepers feed sugar syrup.


That simply isn't even true. Not even close.


----------



## Oldtimer

squarepeg said:


> when i have seen attempted robbing the robbers don't look like my bees. they are much more yellow compared to the dark brown color that my bees have, and the robbers have less black striping and more solid black at the back.
> 
> perhaps those bees surviving off treatments have a lessened propensity for robbing.


You have made an interesting point Squarepeg. I have often wondered why it is that some strains do not rob much, while it would seem an advantage to them if they did. My personal theory is that for the bees who don't rob much, at some time in the past that must have been an evolutionary advantage to them. IE, they could have been in an area with some kind of communicable disease, such as , say, AFB, and not robbing was a survival advantage. Whereas rob prone bees such as Italians may have come from an environment with little or no disease.

Anyhow just a theory but thought I'd touch on it because it is rarely mentioned.


----------



## Oldtimer

CtyAcres, thanks for your observation how to get bees to survive Treatment Free in Nebraska, presented with humour, and flair. 

I am really pleased you presented this from your own personal 4 years experience, because it reinforces so much, that beekeeping is local, as you have dispensed with all the usual formulae such as small cell, etc, but still have thriving TF bees.


----------



## JWChesnut

squarepeg said:


> jwc,
> 
> have you any thoughts as to why varroa are so much more problematic in your location compared to some of the others reported here?


I have bananas growing in my yard, build-up begins in December when Eucalyptus blooms. There are 10 months of brood, which if the population doubling model for Varroa pertains, then I have a longer period for epidemic populations to become lethal. 

Counter-example would be Florida, Texas and Arizona with somewhat similar favorable seasonality. AHB is much more prevalent in Arizona and Texas than my county, AHB is relatively Varroa resistant, though its tendency to swarm obscures the actual status. Recently minted TF keepers in the LA megalopolis promote AHB husbandry for the vigor of that race, I don't think that is a responsible decision (and this is based on my personal experience in Latin America).

My county has multiple truckloads of bees temporarily resident en route to the Almonds. Don't believe December-January are big swarm months, but these might shed Varroa from all over the country (so high horizontal transmission of novel Varroa genotypes and attendant virus).


----------



## Oldtimer

Good point JWC. Where I am we have brood 12 months of the year. Quite a few beekeepers including hobbyists and commercials have tried to achieve TF beekeeping and all have failed, this despite bringing in proper small cell foundation from the US in some cases and following all the other TF stuff.

There is one TF beekeeper here who in the short term, looks like he may be having more success than others, interestingly he is at the southern end of the country where they have a severe winter and decent brood break. The jury is still out on his long term success though.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting. locality really does appear to play a major role on so many fronts.

i'm having my bees mitotyped just to see if they might have a different heritage than commercially bred bees, but with all the many generations of hybridization over the years i'm not sure how much of a factor maternal lineage really is.

for now the plan is to propagate as time and equipment permits and spread these proven genetics gradually from here into neighboring counties and beyond to see how they fare. i'm encouraging those that are buying these from me to keep them off treatments, avoid artificial feeds, and allow some swarms to fly off and become feral again.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes well part of locality may be the bee strains that are wild in that location, so will be interesting to see how your efforts turn out Squarepeg, you must update from time to time. 

I am pretty sure part of our issues here in NZ are not just the climate, but also the limited genetic material. Which we cannot do much about, bee imports are not allowed to try to keep out some of the disease nasties that we don't have here yet.


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks ot, and i'll do my best to keep ya'll posted. 

even if you could bring in some queens, wouldn't it be likely that any benefits would be lost quickly with each succeeding queen?

i think you shared with the forum at one time that there are no feral colonies found surviving in your location. 

i'm no expert, but if i were tasked with coming up with resistant bees i would attempt to get a feral population going again. if it were possible to get an exemption for this purpose proven stocks could be brought in, planted in the wild, and observed. with luck some of these transplants or combinations of them may get a foothold and become adapted there, and then there would useful stock to draw from.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, one day when all known mite treatments have stopped working, we may have no option but import some new bees. But for now, it's a no no. Although there are some beekeepers who support the idea.

There are plenty of kept hives that swarm each year, so if something came together that could survive without treatment then they could presumably establish in the wild, although as you say, there is the problem of them getting out bred.

Anyway that's why I'm so interested in what you guys are doing. Because over here what we are doing is working for now. But it is inevitable a day of reckoning will have to happen eventually and at that time or before, some major decisions will have to be made.


----------



## Tyson Kaiser

JWChesnut said:


> Recently minted TF keepers in the LA megalopolis promote AHB husbandry for the vigor of that race, I don't think that is a responsible decision (and this is based on my personal experience in Latin America).


I'm one of the recently minted LA types, I think you conflate hybrid Italian/AHB feral bees with plain old Central American AHB. As a professional remover and keeper, I meet feral hybrids all the time and if the scare stories were true people would be dying every day due to the thousands of feral hives in the greater LA area. I'd say 1 in 10 hives are simply too hot to work at all. The rest are _somewhat_ unpleasant- 70% and the remaining 20% are friendly docile bees. There are greater than two feral hives in any square mile of Los Angeles, so either we are doomed because of AHB or the hype is overblown. You can imagine which one I think is true.

My aim to is select those hygienic feral traits and identify them in conjunction with docility and productivity. AHB present a set of traits that can be selected for or against, like any other bees. AHB genetics have been in the area since 1994, nobody has died yet, they have hybridized into the local population. I'd take unpredictable, diverse local hybrids over monolithic overbred commercial bees anytime.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> There is one TF beekeeper here who in the short term, looks like he may be having more success than others, interestingly he is at the southern end of the country where they have a severe winter and decent brood break. The jury is still out on his long term success though.


Can you give the name of this beekeeper, Oldtimer?
You will meet my kiwi friend in near future, if I understood right.  

Do you have one or two queen rearing periods in a year?


----------



## JWChesnut

Tyson Kaiser said:


> My aim to is select those hygienic feral traits and identify them in conjunction with docility and productivity. AHB present a set of traits that can be selected for or against, like any other bees.


Can you summarize your prescription? I understand you keep 14 hives (July '14) and harvest via crush and strain off a combo of foundation and foundationless. Any differential survival in these factors? Are you currently breeding in an organized program, or is this a future intention when you reach a certain scale.

1. Start with Italian/AHB wild hybrid bees from swarms and cutouts.
2. Hive on foundation and foundationless
3. Cut out honeycomb for crush and strain harvest
4. .... ?


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> I have bananas growing in my yard, build-up begins in December when Eucalyptus blooms. There are 10 months of brood, which if the population doubling model for Varroa pertains, then I have a longer period for epidemic populations to become lethal.


My bees seem to undertake a brood break in high summer. There's been a lot of speculation about that being one of the several (adaptive) ways of managing mites.



JWChesnut said:


> My county has multiple truckloads of bees temporarily resident en route to the Almonds. Don't believe December-January are big swarm months, but these might shed Varroa from all over the country (so high horizontal transmission of novel Varroa genotypes and attendant virus).


Might they also send a lot of of unadapted drones into the skies? What other other nearby treating apiaries might be doing the same?

Are yours truly 'surviving and thriving' ferals. or just 1st year escapees, and/or part of a struggling wild population that is too close to treated bees to develop resistance?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Interesting.
> This is why a variable-controlled trial is the responsible course before promoting a prescription.
> Bush claims he lost his hives to Varroa until he switched to small cell, and then, instantly, became Varroa-free.
> 
> An entire industry has grown up around the conviction that TF requires the use of "small cell" and regressed bees (if released onto open frames).
> Your experience indicates this has nothing to do with the happy result.


I agree with your critique of small cell. But you must bear in mind: Michael Bush was working up his bees at a time when little adaptation had been achieved by local ferals. Things are - in some places anyway - very different now. If you're fortunate with your location you'll have bees well on their way to controlling varroa competently. If you don't but can find such a spot not too far away, you can take advantage by mating there.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Michael,
> In preface, let me say I aspire to be able to present a TF prescription applicable to coastal California.


Since so much depends on isolation from treated drones your TF prescription might need to include a great deal of work building up numbers to combat drones from nearby apiaries. Its a critical variable factor John. Too close, and poor starter stock, and it might never get going. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Can you summarize your prescription? [..]


0. (Preliminary) Don't take any notice of people who say it can't be done.
1. Find a location relatively isolated from treated bees, and with hope of viable ferals 
2. Collect local swarms and cutouts. ('Local' for me meant usually within roughly a 20 mile radius - that was just the practical limit). Collect as many as you can, and don't stop.
3. Hive them on starter strip: feed unless early in the year and in flow. (Tie-in cut-out brood)
4. Other than helping them establish, don't fiddle with them at all. This is a 'live and let die' stage.
5. Give the spring survivors an unlimited brood nest (still on starter strip only, but the odd foundation or comb won't hurt and will reduce the likelyhood of wild comb)
6. Those that have lived through 2 winters and built well in their 3rd summer can be provisionally regarded as good enough for increase. Start multiplying them by grafting to eliminate any 'split effect'. Keep records so that if any collapse in late summer you will know their offspring. Don't go too narrow.
7. Maintain unlimited brood nests. Let those that can grow big do so - the larger drone populations will properly allow the stronger to influence the next generation more fully. 
8. Mate some offspring in place where you have good reason to believe there are thriving ferals. As you collect swarms and undertake cutouts you build up a picture of likely feral hotspots. 
9. Extract any way you please.
10. In broad terms (and only slightly tongue in cheek), don't even bother thinking about anything else. I suppose if you have lousy forage you might think about supplements; but better to find a nice summer-long rough forage patch. Don't clutter your thinking with high-level guff about epigentics or trait-loci, or varroa counts. Keep your mind clear to work at developing your understanding of the flow of genes/traits in your apiary through time. Its surprising how many new little insights, trips and tricks you come across. I'm serious to this extent: get the foundations (of husbandry) in place first. Then consider more depth if you think it might help. But always refer back to the principle: put best to best only.
11. Keep working at improving your record keeping, with the goal of being able to evaluate best off a level playing field. The need for good evaluation should inform - if not dominate - the management.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Juhani Lunden said:


> Can you give the name of this beekeeper, Oldtimer?
> You will meet my kiwi friend in near future, if I understood right.
> 
> Do you have one or two queen rearing periods in a year?


Hi Juhani I pm'ed you the contact details for the NZ treatment free guy.

Your kiwi friend, that is your old kiwi boss? He will be at the Taupo seminar? If so I will keep an eye out for him. 

The queen rearing period here just goes from spring right through to late fall so just one period I guess. I just keep raising them all season cos beekeeping here is booming at the moment and everything I can make is snapped up, all season.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Oldtimer said:


> Hi The queen rearing period here just goes from spring right through to late fall so just one period I guess.


It seems to me, that long season is not helping you in that sence it would make breeding faster. There is no point taking grafts from young laying queens, because there is no data (results) how they are doing.
So your breeding is taking as long as ours, in years.

Our winter makes an advantage in the early phase of breeding especially. The mites will only be breeding for 7 months here (March-October). Plus they recon about 40% of the mites die during winter months.

In the early phase of breeding this advantage is huge. In our climate there are some survivors left after four five years of no treatments.

In your climate the long breeding period makes really much harder to find any surviors, because they have not adapted, in the beginning.


In later phase of breeding it is no matter how long the breeding period is, the bees will take care of the mites.


----------



## squarepeg

jwc,

i think it's interesting that you are comparing prescriptions among successful tf operations. i have wondered why there hasn't been more attention paid in this regard by academics and commercial breeders.

so far the two common denominators that i have noticed are:

1. the presence of feral survivors in the area, which may have as much to say about the habitat as anything, and

2. the avoidance of artificial feeds, which may have something to say about the quality of natural forage available (again habitat), and may possibly have something to do with dietary mediated natural immunity to pathogens.

i've only observed survivability off treatments since starting in 2010, but my stock comes from a tf supplier who started with feral cut outs in 1996. both he and i have been using standard foundation but i am gradually transitioning to naturally drawn comb. i am doing this in part to get rid of the trace contaminants in the wax coating on the foundation, but mostly to get more drone comb to hopefully bolster mating and prevent bridge comb formation.

regarding the challenges to mike bush that he has claimed small cell is necessary for varroa control, and if my memory serves me, i don't believe he has ever made that claim. i think he just reported that he stopped losing colonies to varroa when he made the switch. it's an interesting observation to be sure, but as bispham points out there could have been other factors in play.

i am glad to see you pursuing these inquiries. it may be difficult to tease out the pertinent factors, but a carefully constructed survey just might yield a thesis or two.


----------



## JWChesnut

Oldtimer said:


> Good point JWC. Where I am we have brood 12 months of the year. Quite a few beekeepers including hobbyists and commercials have tried to achieve TF beekeeping and all have failed, this despite bringing in proper small cell foundation from the US in some cases and following all the other TF stuff.
> .


New Zealand in more than a decade behind the US in terms of unstructured adaptation to Varroa. I and many other beekeeper were put out of biz in '90 to '92 when Varroa first appeared in California. -- 100% loss. The virulence of Varroa or the adaptations of the bee, the introduction of African blood, and the dispersal of VSH genes, or the management of the keepers have changed to permit a clumsy stalemate.

California (and the US at large) lost a decade or more in the Coumaphos > Apistan (Tau-fluvinate) > Taktic (Amitraz) treadmill. New Zealand may have more opportunities for local adaptation to take hold. The absence of African alleles will be a useful test case for the importance of that strain.


----------



## JWChesnut

squarepeg said:


> comparing prescriptions among successful tf operations. i have wondered why there hasn't been more attention paid in this regard by academics and commercial breeders.


There are really powerful statistical techniques that can implemented on a matrix of practices. Steps such as "summer splits" can be coded with a binary dummy variable and a PCA (Principal Components Analysis) conducted. This would group practices into clusters. PCA analysis is often presented as a x-y or x-y-z graph on the initial two or three components. These clusters of similarity could be compared against some physical variable (such as mitotype proportion) or geographic location.


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> There are really powerful statistical techniques that can implemented on a matrix of practices. Steps such as "summer splits" can be coded with a binary dummy variable and a PCA (Principal Components Analysis) conducted. This would group practices into clusters. PCA analysis is often presented as a x-y or x-y-z graph on the initial two or three components. These clusters of similarity could be compared against some physical variable (such as mitotype proportion) or geographic location.


very cool, but beyond my level of understanding of statistical analysis. my sense is that useful information is out there for the gleaning if the effort were placed appropriately. if i were more knowledgeable and had the time i would attempt to put together some kind of proposal in this regard and submit it to the new task force.


----------



## squarepeg

huh? i was just agreeing with the point you made about resistance developing there mike, and i never use caps, too lazy. 

best not to take all this too seriously. take a deep breath, exhale, and have a nice day!


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> huh? i was just agreeing with the point you made about resistance developing there mike, and i never use caps, too lazy.
> 
> best not to take all this too seriously. take a deep breath, exhale, and have a nice day!


In that case I apologise SP. Too many skunks at the entrance making me edgy!

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg

no worries mike. i'm glad you are posting and i'm interested in seeing how your bees fare in the long run. we're all just trying to learn something here but it does get a little silly at times, and i'm as guilty as anyone.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Bush claims he lost his hives to Varroa until he switched to small cell, and then, instantly, became Varroa-free.

Not only have I NEVER claimed to be "Varroa-free" (and the posts are all here to read if you wish to verify) but I have said I DO have Varroa repeatedly and have assured anyone who asks (as recently as day before yesterday if I remember right) that if they are in North America they DO have Varroa. I always wonder why you don't read what I say instead of what you want to believe I said...

>My understanding of Nebraska prescription has shifted a bit over the years, in its current iteration:

I have been adjusting my beekeeping for the last 40 years and I intend to continue to do so if that's what you mean...

>1. Start with local feral (or TF lineage) stock.

A good plan. One that will greatly improve wintering. But most people don't have that option starting out.

>2. Hive on small cell or foundationless frames

Yes.

>3. Use a top entrance (?)

Relevant to skunks and mice. Not relevant to Varroa. Some kind of vent at the top is relevant to winter survival but it doesn't have to be a top entrance.

>4. Use medium frames (?)

Relevant to the health of your back. Not significantly relevant to Varroa or the health of the bees.

>5. Spilt in the summer, have bee raise their own queens

Actually if you're focused on a honey crop I would not split any more than necessary to make up your losses or make what increase you desire. I would not split if you can manage swarming without it, and usually you can. I have never recommended splitting other than if you find swarm cells or you need to make increase for whatever purpose.

>6. Feed with pH adjusted syrup in 5:3 concentration

Last time I fed was 6 years ago... but if you have to feed, I would adjust the pH. There is nothing wrong with 1:2 1:1 5:3 or 2:1 as far as the bees. I just don't like to throw away spoiled syrup.


----------



## CtyAcres

Oldtimer- Thanks for the comments in Post#152. I do want to make a clarification, my bees existed
in both Wyoming and Wisconsin also, so I would have to disagree with you that my bees survived
because of some local thing, rather than my methods. I derived my practices and methods from 
Langstroth, Dr. CC Miller, Doolittle, Michael Bush, Jay Smith, Michael Palmer, Mel Disselkoen, and
Kirk Webster. When you take ideas from the best minds, its not that hard to come up with a formula.
As I stated I'm a rookie, but if I don't lose them all in 2 more yrs, I'll send you a more detailed copy
of my style.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks for clarifying, and I am sure you will succeed. As you are still doing well 4 years in, to me anyway, you have already succeeded.

Where was your foundation stock from, resistant bees such as Weavers or something? And in those areas you started in, were there other successful TF bees around?


----------



## CtyAcres

Stock was from a commercial beek who wintered his bees in Texas. I believe he requeened the 
nucs with Minn. hygienic queens, because when I got them in my first year, they were fiestier, but
groomed each other I noticed. Some colonies requeened and in each of the other areas there were no
TF bees to really mate with.
I know I harp about beeks feeding sugar, but I feel honey has something to do with counter acting the weakness
caused by varroa. Michael Bush does the same thing by not feeding sugar hardly at all, just letting them
have their honey.


----------



## JWChesnut

CtyAcres said:


> I know I harp about beeks feeding sugar, but I feel honey has something to do with counter acting the weakness
> caused by varroa.


This illustrates the point I "harp" on. Feelings and beliefs can lead one astray, this is pitfall of inductive, rather than deductive reasoning. A simple side-by-side test of a practice provides evidence for one's decision, one can deduce if ones local practices affect ones local outcome.

In my hippy days deeply involved in a co-op restaurant, white sugar was kept in a barrel prominently labels "White Corporate Death", and was named as such in our recipes. Beekeepers are primed to assume that Cane Sugar bears the mark of the beast, as it competes and undercuts our own product.

In beekeeping, it is controversial (and studies and mechanisms bolster both sides in the debate) --- RNA response and immune response from flavinoids make compelling logic. 

There are thousands of new beekeepers who have bought into the prescription that small cell hives are the core practice, has the practice been challenged with a test by its core adherents? You are providing an alternative competing hypothesis that states, "Small cell is a red herring, it is the minimization of sugar syrup that is the key practice".

Knowledge advances when competing hypothesis are tested. Until then, it is just circular debate.


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> Knowledge advances when competing hypothesis are tested. Until then, it is just circular debate.


More locally; knowing advances when you learn something (true). There are plenty of beekeepers who fail without knowing why; when why is freely available information. But that isn't surprising: there's a great deal of hearsay, pet theories and general muddle to wade through.

What is the scientific evidence for and against sugar? Can we distinguish between sugar top-ups, stimulative feeds and complete honey replacement? Is there a identifiable point when a significant is likely? What would 'significant' and 'likely' mean. And so on. 

What facts are there, and in what sort of structure are they presented?

Mike (UK)


----------

