# Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

So how to you plan to outgrow the losses without splitting? 

My best bet would be, keep them the way you want them to keep and see what survives. Don't be surprised too much, though, if a complete loss of all your bees does happen regularily. 

As a side discussion: Do you think the same about humans: "Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness"? It is difficult for me to establish a world view based on this paradigma. Or do you think humans are different from the rest of nature? Two ethics, one for nature one for humans?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Mike,
Complete the project you have dreamed up. Then report the results. There is too much "armchair" and not enough reality.

I anticipate a few issues: Queen rearing is professional because if follows a full-time (to the hour) calendar. It is also an industry of scale, mostly incompatible with a back-yard operation. You have indicated that bee's are 1/3 of your income, but you are going to be neglecting the other activity during the queen raising campaign.
You will want cell-builders colonies -- and those are unstable, and generated from multiple feeder colonies. Do you have the size to sacrifice multiple colonies into cell builders.
You will want mating nucs -- and those are harvested from home colonies. What is the effect of pulling off mating nucs from you home colonies -- a split by any name.
Are these mating nucs then being turned to production colonies, or are you harvesting queens to populate 4 or 5 frame nucs, where is the nuc population coming from. Will you be replacing the mating nucs,or is this queen effort a one-shot deal.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> So how to you plan to outgrow the losses without splitting?


My experience is not one of losses. Making increase has been easy.

The idea is to some have large hives dedicated to raising bees and brood - I'm planning to go with long hives and a good working height to make life easier. Frames can be spread, brood/stores can be taken out and replaced with (usually) starter strip frames, bees can be shaken (or young bees collected at the entrance with a separator).

Additionally I'll use dedicated cell-builder hives to supply queen cells. I'll mostly use small mating nucs, then transfer to 6-frame nucs. I'm currently favouring the idea of growing colonies using the queen's own offspring as much as possible from the start. This will avoid false starts and false readings due to borrowed bees. 

However I'm going to re-read Manley on queenright cell builders, and may try that too. I want to be sure of getting the drones going - bulding that in from the start seems like a good plan. 

I'll probably make splits opportunistically too - no sense in letting good swarm cells go to waste... 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> My best bet would be, keep them the way you want them to keep and see what survives.


I think problems can occur that way. It might work, but your bees may end up being dependent on you - and thus damage ferals - and I think ferals are hugely important. I'm taking the sticky seriously - I want bees that can cope on their own.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Don't be surprised too much, though, if a complete loss of all your bees does happen regularily.


I'll be surprised when the pessimists stop offering this prognosis. My experience thus far has been extremely encouraging, and I'm very encouraged by those here who make similar reports. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Queen rearing is professional because if follows a full-time (to the hour) calendar.


Thats just plain nonsense. Queen rearing has always gone on - one way or another - in all but the most half-hearted apiaries.



JWChesnut said:


> It is also an industry of scale, mostly incompatible with a back-yard operation.


The above remarks apply equally. 



JWChesnut said:


> You will want cell-builders colonies -- and those are unstable, and generated from multiple feeder colonies. Do you have the size to sacrifice multiple colonies into cell builders.


Yes. It isn't rocket science and it isn't nearly so demanding as you make out. I'm not trying to raise thousands of queens - maybe 50 per month, including collected swarm cells. All I'm planning to do is triple my stocks (30 to 100 in round numbers). So 50/month is more than ample, and allows for mating failures and further winnowing.



JWChesnut said:


> You will want mating nucs -- and those are harvested from home colonies.


They only need a cupful of bees, and you only have to make them once. They'll come from the long hives. Not a problem



JWChesnut said:


> What is the effect of pulling off mating nucs from you home colonies -- a split by any name.


I'm not understanding. My large dedicated bee and brood raising colonies will supply plenty of brood and bees without my needing to touch production/colonies under evaluation.



JWChesnut said:


> Are these mating nucs then being turned to production colonies, or are you harvesting queens to populate 4 or 5 frame nucs, where is the nuc population coming from.


Your question isn't clear; but in all events see my reply to Bernhard above. From mating nucs to small nucs furnished with little more than sufficient brood and bees to build satisfactorily. Given comb and fed if necessary, my experience is they build quite fast enough to overwinter in a 10-11 frame national brood box - if they're good 'uns. And that's largely all I want of them.



JWChesnut said:


> Will you be replacing the mating nucs, or is this queen effort a one-shot deal.


Bit of both probably. The over-riding method though is having large bee/brood raising/comb-building colonies. They do the grunt work of building comb and supply the modest numbers of bees and brood, and stores, to allow the young queens to establish. 

Doubtless I'll make changes, and experiment as I go. But this is the current plan, designed to bring to the surface as quickly and as reliably as possible, _sound_ data concerning relative resistance capabilities and vigour in the context of hands-off beekeeping, aiming at self-sufficient bees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Yes. It isn't rocket science and it isn't nearly so demanding as you make out. I'm not trying to raise thousands of queens - maybe 50 per month, including collected swarm cells. All I'm planning to do is triple my stocks (30 to 100 in round numbers). So 50/month is more than ample, and allows for mating failures and further winnowing.....
> 
> They only need a cupful of bees, and you only have to make them once. They'll come from the long hives. Not a problem
> 
> Mike (UK)


Of course you will not believe me but I see a very fast learning curve coming up.

You will understand, afterwards.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Oldtimer said:


> I see a very fast learning curve coming up.


Strange, strange, very strange - I can see it, too!


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Mike, save you trouble, don't put them all at stake. Divide apiaries into increase units and breeding/survivor units. Make splits from the increase stock using the survivor queen's daughters as queens for the splits. You be better off doing so. Rebuilding from zero is a pain. Especially with the number of hives you already keep.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Mike, save you trouble, don't put them all at stake. Divide apiaries into increase units and breeding/survivor units. Make splits from the increase stock using the survivor queen's daughters as queens for the splits. You be better off doing so. Rebuilding from zero is a pain. Especially with the number of hives you already keep.


What you call a hat-trick of irredeemable cassandras? 

Bernhard, I might let you off that charge. That's pretty much what my plan is! I think you must be positioning yourself to claim I succeeded because I followed your advice!

Why not let us have more detail and rationale so that we can see what it is we actually disagree upon?

BTW I won't be letting any collapse. If they're showing signs of runaway mite infection I'll dig out any drone brood, treat and requeen. Or treat then break up and queen. They'll go to the back of the assay system - and be regarded as year 1 colonies with everything to prove for selection purposes.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> If they're showing signs of runaway mite infection I'll dig out any drone brood, treat and requeen.
> 
> Mike (UK)


What???

So you've spent the last year or so bashing me on the head, calling me names, thinking up conspiracy theories about me, etc etc... just cos I'll treat if need be, then, now, you say that if need be - you will treat.

A total reversal of your former position and rhetoric, Mike, you are one out of the box.

Let me ask. I can only think that you are just now saying you might treat, because you have discovered a need. Have you treated any already?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Show us where I've said you must never treat and requeen. Seriously, find the post. Then make your charge. 

I've always said that (in a determined resistance raising context) treating can only occur when its followed quickly by requeening.

In a more gradual approach, light treating followed by assay followed by requeening is the 'soft bond' method. I've never had a problem with that. 

But that method is suited to pre-existing treated apiaries. I'm building a resistant apiary from the off. Its easier for me because I don't get all the false readings assocated with treated bees. 

What I'll be doing isn't just 'treating' in the normal, damaging ongoing sense. Its 'cleaning up' spare worker bees so they can be used again to raise a new colony (or several new colonies). 



Oldtimer said:


> Let me ask. I can only think that you are just now saying you might treat, because you have discovered a need.


Not yet. I'm anticipating a benefit to this plan. No wasted worker bees = more throws of my (properly loaded) dice. And I don't want my new queens damaged by high mite levels. 



Oldtimer said:


> Have you treated any already?


No. 

The important thing is that individuals are selected _effectively_ and used _systematically_ to raise resistance in the apiary and the locality.

Everything else - all management - is subservient to that process. You can do whatever you like - as long as... individuals are selected _effectively_ and used _systematically_ to raise resistance...

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK well it seems to me that you have now had bees long enough for a bit of reality to dawn, you don't want to lose your bees, and are now advocating treating if need be but breeding from the best.

Which is exactly what I do.

Oh and drone culling. Isn't that a manipulation? 

Weird how you've been attacking me all this time, but I always knew that reality would for you eventually trump theory, I see it happen to nuubs all the time.

What kind of treatments are you considering using? Even an old reprobate like myself is very careful about what I put in my hives.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> No offense Barry, but if you haven't got it by now I don't think you're going to.
> 
> BTW is there a public list of sponsers of Beesource anyplace that would allow us to evaluate the likelihood of pressure there might be to maintain confusion among non-buyers of treatment products?
> 
> Mike (UK)


OK I've figured out what's going on. Mike you are secretly taking money from Bayer and are in league with Barry to cunningly subvert the non treaters and make them think it is OK to spend money on treatment. It's obvious now. Bashing me was just a front.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> OK well it seems to me that you have now had bees long enough for a bit of reality to dawn, you don't want to lose your bees, and are now advocating treating if need be but breeding from the best.


You haven't found me saying 'don't treat even if requeening' anyplace, but you're going to continue as if your charge has been substantiated, right?

Think what you like. It seems to me that you've developed an assumption that because I don't like treating as a method of 'husbandry' I'm against its use in all circumstances. Your assumption is wrong. 

In general I've opposed you histrically for being rude and for being wrong - in lots of ways, but mostly for assuming - and preaching - that because you, in NZ, with no bred resistant bees and no ferals, can't make tf work, nobody, anywhere, can. 



Oldtimer said:


> Which is exactly what I do.


Which is sort of what you do. You have masses of treatment-dependent bees: I don't. You have masses of treatment-dependent drones: I don't. You don't have resistant ferals: I do. You struggle to assay for resistance effectively; I don't. You treat lightly and systematically (or according to need?). I don't treat except to clean bees for re-use (and I haven't done that yet).



Oldtimer said:


> Weird [...] I always knew that reality would for you eventually trump theory


Wierd how when people eventually realize they're on the wrong side they eventually start to say, 'yeah we knew that all along.' And 'We taught it to him'!



Oldtimer said:


> What kind of treatments are you considering using? Even an old reprobate like myself is very careful about what I put in my hives.


I haven't looked ito it yet, and I won't until I find a need. Then I'll ask local experts what works well around here.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> Your assumption has always been wrong. In general I've attacked you for being rude and for being wrong - in assuming that because you, in NZ, with no bred resisntat bees and no ferals can't make NT work, nobody can.


But I've never said that and I do not assume that. You are making things up yet again.

Surely admitting your attacks on myself and others have been wrong must be hard, but let's at least try to be honest.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> But I've never said that.


You've written determinedly as if that were the case. It seems to me. 



Oldtimer said:


> ... let's at least try to be honest.


Pot, kettle, black... Again.

Let's get back on topic. The purpose of this forum is discussion of ways to raise bees that can cope with problems themselves. That's what I'm trying to do with this thread. As usual, you're getting in the way in a manner that makes it very easy for us to suppose you are trying deliberately to derail the discussion and generally undermine the purpose of the forum.

And bear in mind: as I've outlined above: your situation and mine are very different. I realize you struggle to imagine yourself in a position of having lots of lovely ferals, and it must be hard to accept that the horrid Englishman has them. But it is, it seems thus far, a fact. 

You'll surely agree that if I stick with my system this year, I'll find out quite a bit more about the resistance qualities of my bees?

What's your plan for the year in terms of overcoming the problems associated with false resistance readings in your 320 hive operation? (Or is the soft bond operation a more modest affair?)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> I realize you struggle to imagine yourself in a position of having lots of lovely ferals, and it must be hard to accept that the horrid Englishman has them.


What you think you have realised about what I "struggle to imagine" is not the reality, you are making things up yet again.



mike bispham said:


> You've written determinedly as if that were the case. It seems to me.


No, you are wrong completely.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> No, you are wrong completely.


OK. So you now agree (in fact you've always agreed) that those with access to resistant ferals and/or bred resistant bees stand a good chance of becoming treatment free as long as they can get their selective propagation going? That success will be dependent on that that?

That to that end distance from systematically treating apiaries is useful-to-critical?

That to that end a sound system of evaluating resistance qualities will be essential?

That somebody like myself, has, given that my bees are indeed at least somewhat resistant, a chance of succeeding?

I'm not trying to trap you here. I'm not going to trawl around for evidence that you haven't always said or supported these things. I just want to see if we're on the same page in terms of how-to-do-it now, and if not, where the differences lie.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Same page? Mike I do not consider you, and myself, same page.

However if trawling around makes you happy please do so. You are not trying to trap me, yeah right LOL you would love to do that, dream on  But sadly for you, through all the time you have been arguing with me about these things you will not find me saying that mite tolerance is impossible, that is not my belief. This and your other crazy ideas about me are just in your head.



mike bispham said:


> I realize you struggle to imagine yourself in a position of having lots of lovely ferals, and it must be hard to accept that the horrid Englishman has them. But it is, it seems thus far, a fact.


Why then has the horrid Englishman deemed it necessary to mention he might have to treat them?


----------



## tommysnare (Jan 30, 2013)

It's ok ..... I remember how much I dreamed when I got my FIRST hive too  
I also heavily agree....there will be a learning...I can see it as well. I'd like to know the reports throughout ur seasons though. Could be ones to take note of. But as for me, I'll take the advice of 40 plus year beeks and try new things myself.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Why then has the horrid Englishman deemed it necessary to mention he might have to treat them?


So we're back to disruptive nonsense conversations. 

The reasons are given, quite adequately, in posts #11 and #14
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-Readings-of-Resistance&p=1078960#post1078960
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-Readings-of-Resistance&p=1078976#post1078976

When my kids were little and forgot to ask with a 'please' I used to say: 'wait 5 minutes then ask again properly'.

OT: I won't be opening your posts for 3 weeks. I make that 17th April.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

tommysnare said:


> It's ok ..... I remember how much I dreamed when I got my FIRST hive too


Tommy, I've been beekeeping on and off, learning hard about resistance issues for 20 years, and started an effort to breed up ferals 4 years ago. I currently have 28 hives. I'm completely open about my methods, rationales and results. I do pretty much what all the successful resistance raisers have done and do.

Oldtimer raises lots of treatment-dependent bees for sale and dabbles in resistance raising in a minor half-hearted side operation. He won't tell us anything about it, except it doesn't work. 

You follow who you like. But don't mistake me for a first hive man.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I don't really care if either of you ever get along but I am sick of listening to your personal bickering with each other. take it private.

As for the subject. Mike sounds like he is doing a lot of what I am doing. I am interested in what the learning curve is supposedly going to be. I could write out in very long detail exactly what I plan to do. ti is based upon what I have done int eh past what the bees had shown me they are capable of. In fact I see it more a more of my ability to keep up with the bees rather one of if the bees are capable of such production.

From swarm cell to mating nuc to nuc to full size colony.

I agree there is a problem with numbers of bees at the swarm cell to mating nuc junction. What is missing for me is that most simple comments treat it as if bee numbers are a static figure.

You have 1 colony with one queen with 100,000 built up strong for the flow. But first they will attempt to swarm. This population is then broken down and each swarm cell is given enough bees to populate a mating nuc. The numbers I have been working with are 19 cells and one original queen for a total of 20 compartments to keep queens in. Real numbers from my hives last year.

In two frame mating compartments this requires 40 frames from each hive to populate the compartments. I am not saying that it is easy or 100% reliable but a colony can be built up to 40 frames prior to swarm season. I have 2 that are 50 frames as of now. 4 that are 40 frames and will likely to be 50 before swarming commences. 6 that are 20 frames and less likely to attempt to swarm. Two of those 20 frame hives tarted this season as 5 over 5 nucs. In addition I have 7 5 over 5 or 5 frame three boxes tall nucs. Notice my building up of this plan and it's necessary support began nearly a year ago. It is not accident I have what I have by any means.

Anyway so I have 12 colonies that are likely to swarm for a total of 240 cells. This requires 480 frames of bees cells pollen honey etc to house these queens or cells in. My apiary currently have over 500 drawn frames in it.

So here I set with 13 4 compartment queen castles. 515 fraems to search through for queen cells waiting for it all to begin.

1. I wish I had double the queen castles as of right now. I have a plan to get them made but it is a very nip and tuck plan.

2. What I have come to call the cell watch is far to time consuming and labor intensive to be considered anything standard by anyone. Way to much work but I want to see if my idea works.

Due to number two above I have also started a cell builder per Micheal Palmer's method and in the process of making my first 45 grafts for the season. By simple chance encounters with other beekeepers I have nearly all of them sold and the larva have not even been grafted yet. This will account for the combined total of cells expected from two full size colonies. It is far more controllable and eliminates the time needed to search for swarm cells. It will break down the colony to a level there is no chance they will swarm but increases the chance they will abscond.

Up to this point these are things that are in fact a reality they have been done. So at this point it is about speculation and anticipated results. Numbers are based upon actual results from last year.

Only half of all swarm cells will result in a mated queen. this means as soon as any queen is confirmed mated (21 days after emergence) The fraems will be available to transfer her to a 5 frame nuc with 4 fully drawn fraems and one empty frame. These bees will act very much like a swarm. and this is where I have a problem with the static anticipation. In short I now have 1o queen in 10 colonies producing increase. Not only that but in the hyper state of growth commonly mentioned by almost any beekeeper. These nucs can and do (again reality as my nucs have done it) double in size in less than 30 days. Due to this expansion from 4 to 8 drawn fraems all of these nucs will be capable of returning the full number of fraems to there parent colonies. 

Now I agree there is some huge questions as to how this restoration of parent colonies will actually work out. But to me it has never been a question of loosing anything. what do you loose if you move two frames of bees to a mating nuc? you still have the bees. you still have the frames. you are adding a queen. You just gave bees that are setting around waiting to swarm sometime else to do. And in 3 weeks you will have another producing queen in the mix. 

If started just prior to the natural swarming of the colonies this 4 week window falls right during swarm season.

I realize there are questions about the productivity of the nucs. the issue of lost queens to mating flights. the danger of loosing bees and queens to absconding. and many many unforeseeable reasons that even mated queens in nucs will simply not produce enough to return anything to a parent colony. This at most puts at risk an estimated 1000 lb honey harvest. But produces a possible 120 or more colonies.

As for the success rate at starting and keeping nucs this way. I have done it. 10 over wintered nucs from last summer. The nucs work even at the worst of times. I have little concern they will do as expected to a high percentage of success.

What I am interested in is the details that would be concealed in a simple statement such as "a big learning curve is in order" Mainly I am interested in exact details of actual results from anyone that has actually done something like this.

I find such a plan is actually consistent with methods of increase as old as the 1800's. I have not found the details that restores the parent colony and this is what concerns me the most. This is how I see the entire plan fits hand in glove with the events that bees will be engaged in naturally.

1. Swarm period. 4 to 6 week period that bees woudl bee reducing their numbers in an attempt at increase. This involves increasing anywhere form one to multiple new colonies.

My idea does nothing more than what the bees would do on their own. the only difference is in the degree of numbers of increase. If a colony is made quenless cell production can be controlled to some degree and anticipated. This doubling the impulse under which cells are produced. Swarming and Emegency impulse.

Control of when cells are produced is advantageous in that it should be early in the swarm period if not Just prior to it. This giving all virgin queens the entire 4 to 6 week period to mate and start producing brood.

It takes 3 weeks for a virgin to mate and be laying at most. this requires 3 of the minimum 4 weeks of the swarm period.

Post swarming there is a well known lull in activity before bees start foraging and making honey. This provides the newly mated queen 3 full weeks minimum to produce 4 frames of brood to return to her parent colony. It is estimated it will take this queen 4 weeks to accomplish that. this means that if the swarm period is in fact only 4 weeks she will be a week late in restoring her share of the parent colony. If the swarm period is 6 weeks she will have an additional week to accomplish this task.

In short where do the bees come from to make increase? from the increased queens ultimately.

This does not take into account that the original queen has been in her own nuc restoring her own population for the entire duration of the swarm period. Acting as a swarm in doing so increasing at an accelerated rate she may very well be superseded during this time. 

Swarm impulse is not prevented it is satisfied.

The task of producing the population that is expected to make a honey harvest no longer falls on one queen but is shared by 10.

According to Michael Palmer with a bit of alteration to his numbers. a single parent colony supported by 10 nucleus colonies is how you make what I have come to call Super colonies that not only are used as cell builders but produce honey crops in the process. I have little doubt that what Micheal teaches is reliable. I may simply see a slightly different way to use it. I am not looking to make cell builders. I am looking to make honey producers. Not much more than a multiple queen hive idea just far more queens per hive than is typically considered. As for build up of the nucs. that is what next spring is for.


----------



## tommysnare (Jan 30, 2013)

I mistake for nothing more than how you express urself here on beesource. I enjoy the company of gentle and non judge mental souls. Shalom.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> OT: I won't be opening your posts for 3 weeks. I make that 17th April.


I've heard that before LOL. 

Mike the reasons you referenced are here, in this thread. After you changed your tune.

My surprise is that after all this time of treatment bashing, and attacks on my methods, you have switched to a method that is pretty much what I explained to you here, post #130
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ion-Treatment-Free-adequate-to-the-task/page7

I'm just surprised that after all that's gone down, all the crap, just like that, suddenly you are pro treatment if need be. Same as me. There never needed to be a problem.

How's the trawling going?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> Mike sounds like he is doing a lot of what I am doing.


I agree with most of what you say there Daniel, but you haven't addressed the topic of the thread. How much do you calculate your methods will tend to aid the bees by making it harder for mites to bloom?

To whatever extent; that will tend to obscure the key data you need to make selection decisions. 

Or maybe you are grafting from a few hives that you are very confident are your most resistant - or resistant enough?

Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

Mike (UK)


----------



## USMCEOD (Jan 5, 2014)

Well... that was a waist of time.... I don't understand how one can say he wants to get to a non-treatment world with resistant bees and consider treatment as a viable way to combat losses...

But, then again I probably got lost in the context...

Have a Nice Day!!!


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

All y'all (that's Southern for "all you all")  need to read Randy Oliver's piece in ABJ from the March issue...... he has a great rant that addresses much of this...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Don't get ABJ. Any way to access the article or I just have to subscribe?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

snl said:


> All y'all (that's Southern for "all you all")  need to read Randy Oliver's piece in ABJ from the March issue...... he has a great rant that addresses much of this...


I've seen the first part but haven't been able to access the queen-raising second section. Does it address the specific issue of making increase without clouding resistance evaluation?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

USMCEOD said:


> I don't understand....


.. being the key part.

Mike (UK)


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Don't get ABJ. Any way to access the article or I just have to subscribe?


I believe you have to subscribe...... but there is a cheap, digital version they put out.........


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> I've seen the first part but haven't been able to access the queen-raising second section. Does it address the specific issue of making increase without clouding resistance evaluation? Mike


No Mike, it does not... he just _*strongly*_ suggests making increases from local, resistant stock and then describes (both written and pictorial) a method of rearing them...


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Don't get ABJ. Any way to access the article or I just have to subscribe?


Randy eventually posts his articles to his website, but there is often a delay of several months.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/


Mike, sorry to see that reality has already bitten your idealism in the butt, such promise wasted


(and I lost the committee wager to boot). 


Don


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

D Semple said:


> Mike, sorry to see that reality has already bitten your idealism in the butt


Don, do you really think that or are you too pulling cheap shots?

Its always been sensible to not waste bees, and so requeen. Since when did it become illegal to clean the mites off the bees first?

Perhaps _you_ can show us where I've ever written otherwise? Even alluded to that position.

Of course plenty of people have attributed all sorts of silly practices to me. Perhaps you're muddling up my words with those spoken on my behalf?

I can think of a number of occasions when I've written that (in the context of raising resistance) treatments should only be used where requeening from (hopefully) better stock is to follow.

I don't think I've ever spoken about 'cleaning' bees before re-use before. But then there are probably lots of things I'd do but haven't found occasion to mention. 

What I'm not doing is treating and then not requeening. Or trying to treat lightly and then read resistance in the results. 

What matters is what the next generation is made from. Period. The rest is just detail. 

If you're trying to raise numbers hard, while preserving the capability to evaluate for resistance, it makes sense to use all the tools at your disposal. I've never said otherwise. 

Sorry guys. This is either an assumption on your part, or you're reading someone else's interpretation of my thinking.

I've made 1250 posts over 5 years, 95% on the same topic. If I'd said _anything_ of that sort do you think Rader wouldn't have dredged it up by now? Nilch. (I bet the fire brigade is working overtime on the job)

Every one of those posts has had "Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness" under it.

Read it carefully. Think about it. Try not to jump to conclusions.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Mike we have read what you have written and we are not completely stupid.

Just saying that you have actually been pro treatment if needed all along is not what you have been saying, and saying it now is not fooling anyone.

It's a major change in position and the likely reason is obvious. Your hardy, mite resistant, feral, bees, have turned out to be not as hardy, mite resistant, and feral, as you had imagined.

But hey, that happens, no criticisms about that. Just, to switch positions without even a hint of an apology to all those you have been so nasty to when they were right all along, surprises me (or maybe not).


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> If I'd said _anything_ of that sort do you think Rader wouldn't have dredged it up by now? 

Sorry I don't work on your timetable, Mike. :no: 

It isn't difficult to understand your _past _comments on treatments. For instance, post #163 of this thread: 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ekeeping&p=503072&highlight=oxalic#post503072

I invite everyone to read the entire post, but here is one of your paragraphs from that post ...


> So it doesn't matter whether we are talking about mites or fungi or bacteria or viruses. Its all the same process, and treatments is always the core of the problem.


You said, "_*Treatments is *__*always the core of the problem.*_" And now you are advocating treating, and yet you claim that is not a change of your position! 









Here are a couple more from your same post ...


> The main difficulty lies in convincing treaters of the destructive effects of practices they have been taught from the start, and are still advised to do by experence beekeepers and by official government advice.





> We can note that the organic small cell types stop treating for everything, period. This is the management regime that works, because it stops interfering with the bees own health-mainenance system in the kinds of ways we've discussed.



Mike, you still haven't responded to _Barry's _question as to why your views could not be accommodated in existing forums. Weren't you planning that your new forum was going to be a _*Treatment-Free*_ forum? :scratch: :s


:gh:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> It isn't difficult to understand your _past _comments on treatments. For instance, post #163 of this thread: [/COLOR]


And so on. I've replied to these points on the thread: 'Treating within a selective breeding system' http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...sistance-raising-system&p=1079364#post1079364


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> How much do you calculate your methods will tend to aid the bees by making it harder for mites to bloom?
> 
> To whatever extent; that will tend to obscure the key data you need to make selection decisions.
> 
> ...


I see what you are getting at and I believe beekeepers are a long way form understanding those issues. Discussion is a good thing.

I am increasing from my best. mite free is not necessarily evaluated as best. In truth I have had very little issue with mites in two years. Going into my third season and so far still do not see them. It is hard to tell how my management methods effect mites that way.

About the only thing I can say about calculating is that I consider losses of bees not necessarily colonies to mites the same as loosing bee production due to brood breaks. It is still lost production and the why then becomes insignificant. I can call it losses due to mites because I had to make a brood break or I can consider it losses to mites because the mites weaken the bees.

My observations so far lead me to believe that a strong hive is the best resistance to mites. I cannot give you any calculations to support that it is just an overall impression I get.

I wrote my post mostly in response to comments that had already lead the conversation off the topic specifically. I do not agree that some of your ideas ar unachievable or that they are not even reliable. I have found myself that much of it is doable and not even that difficult to achieve.

I suppose in all I tend toward the out produce mites line of thinking. but then that is a fairly standard approach in husbandry. I would tend toward it as a default response.

I have also had some thoughts of keeping methods that treat bees as what I have termed Annuals. Like in gardening you simply have certain varieties that you do not expect to survive for more than one season. so just accept bees cannot survive in the long term and don't manage them to do so. I suppose that could be labeled a realists point of view as much as it could be called defeatist.

I have some thoughts that if mites are allowed to kill off the colonies they infest. they to a large degree destroy themselves. So let them. just outproduce the losses in colonies with increase. A broad vague idea that is not well supported by actual experiences of many.

In general no predator or parasite in the case of mites is capable of hunting it's prey into extinction. As the population of prey decreases the predator is far more likely to starve than to make a successful kill for example. While the reduced population is actually an advantage to the prey species because they have more food per individual and more opportunity per individual. Beekeeping keeps the prey population artificially increased. Never allowing the prey species population to decrease to levels that would be devastating to the parasite. We maintain levels that keep the equation in favor of the parasite.

Anyway I have had many thoughts on the mite and how it is effected by management of bees. But so far nothing that leads me in any one direction. I have simply not seen enough mites to see for myself what effects them and what does not.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> I am increasing from my best. mite free is not necessarily evaluated as best. In truth I have had very little issue with mites in two years. Going into my third season and so far still do not see them. It is hard to tell how my management methods effect mites that way.
> 
> [...] Anyway I have had many thoughts on the mite and how it is effected by management of bees. But so far nothing that leads me in any one direction.


I think part of what is driving me to think about these things now is where I'd like to be summer 2015 and on. The thing I really want, which I don't have now, is a set of hives having thrived pretty much untouched for 2 and 2 years, all the same age and having always been managed in exactly the same way, and on the same spot. That'll give me a clear idea of which really do thrive and produce best - on their own. 

Nothing else will substitute for this. The sooner I start setting it up the better.



Daniel Y said:


> I have simply not seen enough mites to see for myself what effects them and what does not.


I'd take care to ensure that not selecting them well doesn't have the effect of reducing their resistance!

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> The idea is to some have large hives dedicated to raising bees and brood - I'm planning to go with long hives and a good working height to make life easier. Frames can be spread, brood/stores can be taken out and replaced with (usually) starter strip frames, bees can be shaken (or young bees collected at the entrance with a separator).
> 
> Additionally I'll use dedicated cell-builder hives to supply queen cells. I'll mostly use small mating nucs, then transfer to 6-frame nucs. I'm currently favouring the idea of growing colonies using the queen's own offspring as much as possible from the start. This will avoid false starts and false readings due to borrowed bees.
> Mike (UK)


I don't think it's possible to use this method, or pretty much any other method of making increase, without affecting mite numbers. I'm thinking it would be equally good to use any method you like ie splitting or whatever, and once the new hive is established treat it as a new unit & start new mite counts from scratch. Anything else is too overcomplicated & likely counter productive.

Without worrying about mite counts, if it's just purely maximum numbers of increased beehives you want, the most effective method is this. Raise the queen cells in cell raiser hives. When they are due to hatch make nucs for them using standard frames and a smallish number of bees. 4 frame not 6 frame. When the queens have mated combine or re-establish any that did not mate. Add bees to the ones that did mate to enable the queen to lay in good quantity. Ensure they have all the food they need.

Won't help with continuum of mite counts but will get you maximum increase. Just start mite monitoring with them from scratch.

My humble opinion.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Although having thought about it I do not think you have the resources to produce your 50 queens per month using that method, not sure how you plan to do that.


----------

