# I Don't Treat! I Don't Treat!!!



## LSPender

*ph*

how did you lower the Ph? And from what Ph to what Ph level.

Thanks, Larry


----------



## BjornBee

Not sure if the thumbs down is about the swarm, or those who do not treat, or are you giving yourself the thumbs down? :s

Your asking who would be proud to have a hive like this, so apparently they could claim they do not treat. :s

I do not treat. Of course, I do not expect the same results and expectations from swarms I caught. I evaluate them, and if they are not up to par, they get requeened. Perhaps you should consider requeening with better stock, instead of just applying treatments to slap a band-aid on the problem. Obviously, those bees are good at breeding mites. Some of the best I've seen in a awhile.  So what will change after the treatment if you keep the same queen and genetics? And how will that equate into production or health come spring?

And for those who would like to stop on by this coming year for the picnic, a class, or anything else, my operation is open for all to see. Last unannounced state inspection in mid-September found a high mite count of TWO! No treatments here.


----------



## tecumseh

harry vanderpool writes:
Thursday at about 3:00pm I trickled 5ml of heavy syrup that I had lowered the PH somewhat

tecumseh ask:
well harry as you likely know I ain't a purist when it come to the treatment/non treatment question. I would also say... one need to recognize within themselves where the line is drawn in regards to treatment (for example a pest strip inside a hive is a real no go for myself) and to kind of know why you are treating. which is to directly suggest that many random treatments likely are counter productive (and any and all treatments cost something... typically more than most folks might think via casual observation).

so what is the lowered ph all about? that is a new one on me.


----------



## BjornBee

Seems since I was the only one that has commented, and your post follows mine, I'll feel somewhat obligated to respond.

So whats so unique about someone catching a swarm or unknown origins and having an issue with mites. I actually see this sort of stuff all the time. Seems swarms and cutouts in particular are seen to have problems with SHB.

I guess controlling my genetics, requeening swarms with bad queens with better one's, using equipment options and management techniques, could be seen by some as "treatments". But that to me is splitting hairs. Oh well.

Anyone reading [edit by mod] about those not treating should consider spending more time with others who do not "treat". ( "treat" - A sometimes self defined term by some, which is manipulated, to then be used to attack others) Here is a group and a meeting coming up... and may I say, I think they know which end of a hivetool is used for what.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221705


----------



## BjornBee

LSPender said:


> how did you lower the Ph? And from what Ph to what Ph level.
> 
> Thanks, Larry


Is this a reference to adding water?


----------



## deknow

...i do wonder if those who like to shout that they treat when posting here on beesource are as willing to make these claims to their customers....or is it a case of giving different messages to different audiences?

do you think that your own customers would rather buy honey from treated bees or untreated? do your customers assume that nothing is in the hive but wood and bees? (i expect most of them do). would you be happy to share msds information of the substances you use with your customers?

...and by customers, i mean the consumers (not wholesalers/resellers)...people that feed your honey to their children.

deknow (who doesn't treat....and who can open a beer bottle with either end of a hive tool)


----------



## dcross

LSPender said:


> how did you lower the Ph? And from what Ph to what Ph level.
> 
> Thanks, Larry


My guess would be he's referring to an oxalic acid trickle.

BTW, Harry, did the hive have a mite problem? Your pictures/post don't really tell us that.


----------



## Michael Bush

That's what my hives looked like last time I treated them with Apistan about eight years ago...


----------



## stangardener

!!! won't work for me!!! is a copout. if you can't explain it, you're not qualified to attack it!

i think you're part way there. just keep setting a few colonies aside and leave them to make or break on their own. in time some will make it off the welfare system. that will be the stock to expand from.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Well Harry, this is are your fault ! lol 


BB, I have spent time with those that don't treat, they also have spent time with me shaking my bees to restock thier's.


----------



## BjornBee

Keith Jarrett said:


> BB, I have spent time with those that don't treat, they also have spent time with me shaking my bees to restock thier's.


Sounds to me like the foundation to all their problems to begin with.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

That's a good one BB, except I never lossed mine.


----------



## Bizzybee

Thia is not unlike discussions over who to vote for, "pointless"

Fortunalty the decision to treat or not to treat isn't going to affect anyone but the end user. If treating is allowed to affect the public by it's misuse, shame on you! But otherwise who cares?!


----------



## Tom G. Laury

*Pointless*

No way is it pointless if people share experience& experiments & etc. 

But sometimes there is a lot of static & hysteria & Egos


----------



## iddee

Cabin fever is incurable and it is just beginning to flare up again.

I TREAT!!!!

I treat for weather with a lid on my hives. It's all in how you interpret treating.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*Look out for your fellow beekeepers!*



Bizzybee said:


> Fortunalty the decision to treat or not to treat isn't going to affect anyone but the end user. But otherwise who cares?!


I have to respectfully disagree with you there, Bizzybee.
We POUND it into our beeschool students:
"If you don't care enough to maintain your colony health, please do it for the rest of us.
Especially if you are within a two mile radius of our hives.
Sick and abandoned hives can be the basis for localized spread of all kinds of pests and diseases.
When your hives crash as they will without effective pest and disease management, our hives will not only rob them of their SPORES, but also their SPORES, mites, bacteria etc...."

The fine beekeepers that I pollinate with trust setting their hives alongside mine. I have the same fine regard for their colony health maintenance program (s).
If anyone of us were to jump on the "I don't treat" bandwagon, they would find themselves in another line of work.


----------



## tecumseh

deknow writes:
...i do wonder if those who like to shout that they treat when posting here on beesource are as willing to make these claims to their customers....or is it a case of giving different messages to different audiences?
tecumeh:
good question.

then deknow writes:
do you think that your own customers would rather buy honey from treated bees or untreated? do your customers assume that nothing is in the hive but wood and bees? (i expect most of them do). would you be happy to share msds information of the substances you use with your customers?
teumseh:
untreated for sure... but what does that really mean? which was really my initial concern. some of my customers are well aware of the problems. for those that have the time and are concerned, I have the time to explain exactly how I treat my bees.

and then deknow writes:
...and by customers, i mean the consumers (not wholesalers/resellers)...people that feed your honey to their children.
tecumseh:
I would assume the further the producer is from the consumer the easier it is to be insulated from questions of contamination. 

and finally deknow writes:
deknow (who doesn't treat....and who can open a beer bottle with either end of a hive tool)
tecumseh:
your also an excellent person deknow and by the above description quite talented.

mr jarrett writes:
Well Harry, this is are your fault ! lol 

tecumseh:
yea harry it all your fault!

then iddee writes:
Cabin fever is incurable and it is just beginning to flare up again.

tecumseh:
as usual iddee is quite correct.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*Hey Keith!*



Keith Jarrett said:


> Well Harry, this is are your fault ! lol


Hey! How did your year shape up?
We did VERY well this year but the long, cold spring was tough.
Nice to have a couple of months to work on trucks, build equipment, do some welding.
SPEAKING OF WELDING, I .... oops! am I off topic?

Sorry!

I wouldn't want to interrupt the "I don't Treat Choir"

Everybody ready? a ONE,and a TWO, and a........


----------



## Keith Jarrett

HarryVanderpool said:


> Hey! How did your year shape up?
> .
> SPEAKING OF WELDING, I .... oops! am I off topic?
> 
> ......


We did ok, although to many bees in my area now.

Welding... now were talken, use to do that in another life.


----------



## BjornBee

Thanks Harry. I was not sure of your intent for the opening post. At least now, it's very clear.

Sorry it turns out your original post said little, and was nothing more than a vague attempt to attack others who keep bees different than yourself.

Have a good one. Hope those treatments are working well for you.


----------



## tecumseh

mr jarrett writes:
Welding... now were talken, use to do that in another life.

tecumseh:
perhaps it is the bead that binds? I'll still burn a rod or two every now and then.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

tecumseh said:


> I'll still burn a rod or two every now and then.


Hey Big T,

What are we burning these days, 6011/7018?

And what's up with mr.jarrett??? I also go by Keith


----------



## TwT

HarryVanderpool said:


> I have to respectfully disagree with you there, Bizzybee.
> We POUND it into our beeschool students:
> "If you don't care enough to maintain your colony health, please do it for the rest of us.
> Especially if you are within a two mile radius of our hives.
> Sick and abandoned hives can be the basis for localized spread of all kinds of pests and diseases.
> When your hives crash as they will without effective pest and disease management, our hives will not only rob them of their SPORES, but also their SPORES, mites, bacteria etc...."
> 
> The fine beekeepers that I pollinate with trust setting their hives alongside mine. I have the same fine regard for their colony health maintenance program (s).
> If anyone of us were to jump on the "I don't treat" bandwagon, they would find themselves in another line of work.


I can understand what you mean Harry, I am one also that doesn't treat my hives, I have worked hard on selection so I wouldn't have to treat, taken loses and improved breeding, I have test yards that I bring new hives to and leave for 3 years at a time before they get moved to breeding yards, on the flip side of what you said above, I would hate for someone to bring hives that have to be treated close to my yards because they would probably wipe out most of my work with their drones, then it probably would happen like you said above.

I know you and others are busy and dont have time to take chances like us "untreated folks", its how you make a living and I understand that. but we also have our side of the story and are trying to raise a bee that doesn't need chemicals to live, maybe one day we can help you guys with a selection of bee's that would save you treatment money and time, and thinking bee's cant make it without treatment is crazy, bet the same thing was said with T-mites, I know some still treat for T-mites but these are the one's that keep them going when so many dont have to.


----------



## BjornBee

Migratory beekeepers worried about other peoples hives is somewhat questionable. I see it at a basis for rationale and justification to attack others, and claims and reasoning to degrade others while pretending to protect their business in some round-about way. The migratory beekeepers I know, treat regardless of whether they have afb, mites, or anything else. The treatment schedule for sending them to California is exactly that...a schedule, with treatments used automatically. And if you are routinely treating for every disease...are you really concerned about that so-called "abandoned" hive in the first place. And to use the term "abandoned hive" in association to somehow justify comments on those not treating on this board, who obviously are NOT treating due to their intense involvement with their bees, is absurd.

Deadbeat beekeepers and an occasional abandoned hive is one thing. To use those situations to come here and degrade, attack, and somehow justify comments about others who do not treat, is wrong. 

But I guess as the data and information comes in of the migratory guys shooting themselves in the foot, contaminating their hives, having CCD problems, and feeling somewhat guilty of their actions, I can see how some will lash out at those who are not in those same sinking boats.


----------



## tecumseh

bjorn writes:
And to use the term "abandoned hive"

tecumseh:
really bjorn you need to get out of the woods a bit more. perhaps visiting central or south florida, central texas or perhaps california might enlighten you a bit.

all the above are prime locations for some yankee bee keeper to drop a lot of hives and either die or run out of money. even if these stacks of hive were in great condition when dropped (which they usually are not) they quickly turn into a huge pile of junk within a year or so. none of this is exactly recent history... which is to say it was true when I was a lad in central florida 40 years ago.


----------



## BjornBee

tecumseh said:


> bjorn writes:
> And to use the term "abandoned hive"
> 
> tecumseh:
> really bjorn you need to get out of the woods a bit more. perhaps visiting central or south florida, central texas or perhaps california might enlighten you a bit.
> 
> all the above are prime locations for some yankee bee keeper to drop a lot of hives and either die or run out of money. even if these stacks of hive were in great condition when dropped (which they usually are not) they quickly turn into a huge pile of junk within a year or so. none of this is exactly recent history... which is to say it was true when I was a lad in central florida 40 years ago.


Geesh, this again!

Yes, Yes....I can see the light....abandoned hives from bankrupt migratory beekeepers are justification to come here and degrade beekeepers who do not use treatments. I guess that logic fits as good as about all the other logic you use. Nothing makes sense, so why should this.

And now its all once again the yankee beekeeper.


----------



## tecumseh

mr jarrett... I mean keith writes:
What are we burning these days, 6011/7018?

tecumseh:
well of course it does somewhat depend on machine and what I might be joining.... but my all time favorite rod (especially in a teaching situation) is a 7014. sometimes called a drag rod.. it is a good rod for beginners and will, with very limited skill, give you a good connection. got a nice mig machine (which sets way too much)... but of course a mig welder is often times seens as a girly man's tool and is unbecoming to a manly welder type.

for my next welding/fabrication project I have been considering (tell me what you might think of this idea keith) converting an old 4 wheel drive blazer into a bee loader. I have been thinking I could hook it up with a toe bar and simply pull it from location to location (local of course). 

I do know what ya' mean by the mister thing... some of my close friend's children sometime refer to me as mister ___ and my head pop around wondering who they are referring to...


----------



## deknow

HarryVanderpool said:


> Sick and abandoned hives can be the basis for localized spread of all kinds of pests and diseases.


...i'm wondering how you feel about feral colonies? should they be eradicated?

deknow


----------



## deknow

tecumseh said:


> teumseh:
> untreated for sure... but what does that really mean?


well, it means that bees are bred for survival and productivity....that nothing goes into the hive but bees and wood. pests/parasites/disease are not masked by treatments....no fluvalinate, no fgmo, no sugar dusting nothing.

for customers, it means that although there are certainly some chemicals (pesticides and others) in the hive brought in from the environment, the low hanging fruit...the things that no one wants to eat or feed their children is not put in the hive, and is much less likely to be found in the hive.

do you care to share with your interested customers the data from penn state? that the most widely distributed and highly concentrated pesticides found in hives were fluvalinate and coumaphos? that the nhb conveniently didn't fund for testing the honey in these tests, but did find this to be true with wax, bees, brood, beebread, and even trapped pollen before it even entered the hive? ...i expect not.

the accounts here from those that treat reminds me of a friend. this friend goes to and consults with all manner of "new age healer" types. they are all "wonderful" and "really help" this person......yet there is always a new treatment for a new problem. when your basis is that "bees need to be treated, and those that don't treat are irresponsible" and you ignore the evidence of healthy bees that are not treated (not to mention the 100 million years before we were here or sophisticated enough to synthesize chemicals), it isn't a big mystery why you think everyone should treat.

bees are not humans. i love my bees...but i'm not attached to any one particular genetic line (or hive) of bees. i see losing a hive as progress towards better genetics. this is a long term game, not a short term (ie, 'this year's harvest') one.

now, who do i sue if my bees rob out a treated hive and i end up with high levels of fluvalinate in my operation?

deknow


----------



## Keith Benson

iddee said:


> I treat for weather with a lid on my hives. It's all in how you interpret treating.


Stop coddling your bees. Next thing you know they will want boxes and bottom boards.

Keith


----------



## alpha6

You guys got it all wrong. You are babying your bees. You know how I treat for mites? I wait till there is about a foot of snow on the ground, open the hive, dump all the bees into the snow. Kills the mites and the bees that make it back are survivors to be sure. 

Afterwards I make sure there is plenty of hot chocolate and biscuits with molasses for them and come spring they do great. :thumbsup:

For more information about my bee raising techniques read my book - "Keeping the bees the Spartan way"


----------



## BjornBee

alpha6 said:


> For more information about my bee raising techniques read my book - "Keeping the bees the Spartan way"


Hey, I also parade around my beeyards naked.


----------



## beemandan

BjornBee said:


> Hey, I also parade around my beeyards naked.


The girls are surely going to need some kind of treatment for that.


----------



## iddee

>>>>Hey, I also parade around my beeyards naked<<<<

If they can survive that, they should be able to survive anything.

ALTHOUGH,...I don't think I would want blind bees.


----------



## Keith Benson

alpha6 said:


> molasses


How many moles do you go through in a given season . . . .?

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson

BjornBee said:


> Hey, I also parade around my beeyards naked.


Hmmmm - nudist beekeeping. That sounds like it would be right up there with frying bacon in the altogether.


Keith


----------



## TwT

BjornBee said:


> Hey, I also parade around my beeyards naked.


I myself hope you sealed the entrances, that would be worst than a plane flying low spraying pesticides, them is some tough bee's then, wonder how they find the flowers after seeing that :scratch: ,


----------



## tecumseh

deknow writes:
well, it means that bees are bred for survival and productivity....that nothing goes into the hive but bees and wood. pests/parasites/disease are not masked by treatments....no fluvalinate, no fgmo, no sugar dusting nothing.

tecumseh:
first off you cannot breed dead bees.

secondly...sounds like a plan that MIGHT work if you were not raising or keeping bees in an intensive (high density) manner or were keeping bees outside of any commercial interest.

and really deknow I am not trying to encourage folks of any stripe or fashion to treat or not treat for anything or everything. everyone need to make this decision for themselves... but saying you do one thing while doing the exact opposite is a different issue. posting in one thread that you do not treat and on another that you treat for this or that problem just makes some folks look very foolish and deceitful.

let me give you an example that is a personal decision from my own experience.... if I was not rearing nucs for folks then I would quite likely not treat for afb or nosema (in regards to afb I have input a significant quantity of hygenic stock over several seasons to somewhat counter this 'problem' via genetics). given that both diseases are long term and persistent and the drugs for prevention are relatively cheap I would feel foolish if a new beekeeper ended up acquiring bees from me that were then effected by either. my feelin's is anyone who kept to this rigid 'I will not treat matra' is simply being penny wise and pound foolish.

my final suggestions are...use what will work and try to find out what does not. associated with this try to come to understanding that somethings may have benefit in the current time frame and cost you years down the road.

bee keepin' naked??? don't think I need to go there... this old hide is wrinkled and tough, but it ain't that tough.

ps... in regards to my customers.... as suggested previously most seem very much aware (casually) of OUR problems. those that have the time to discuss the issues and come to some understanding of how I treat or manipulate 'my girls' I have time to share with them what I do. in this regards (unlike some of which you seem to have some issue with???) all my cards are on the tabletop.


----------



## deknow

tecumseh said:


> deknow writes:
> well, it means that bees are bred for survival and productivity....that nothing goes into the hive but bees and wood. pests/parasites/disease are not masked by treatments....no fluvalinate, no fgmo, no sugar dusting nothing.
> 
> tecumseh:
> first off you cannot breed dead bees.


ding ding ding ding....

we have a winner!

if, in the end, you want bees that are able to take care of themselves without treatments, you have to _not_ breed from those that are not able to survive without treatments. you can come up with all kinds of criteria for a breeding program...but culling (or allowing nature to cull) those that can't survive without treatments is the easiest and most direct method. those 'dead bees' might have given the beekeeper numbers if they had been treated, but it would also have produced drones (and possibly queens). so, i do agree with you...you can't breed from dead bees...and you don't wan't to breed from bees that would die without treatments unless you are really committed to treating over the long haul.



> secondly...sounds like a plan that MIGHT work if you were not raising or keeping bees in an intensive (high density) manner or were keeping bees outside of any commercial interest.


there are all kinds of financial rewards....those that come with high risk pay off big when they pay off. not treating is certainly "high risk"...and even organic standards allow for many treatments, and honey that is produced completely without treatments gets a high price from those that care about residues and the long term heath of the bees. shipping bees around on a truck to pollinate monocrops is also high risk. if you want that pay off, you are welcome to it. i expect risks (and losses) will continue to rise over time. there are lots of things people can do to make money (some of the most profitable are "immoral" or illegal)...i've chosen a way that to me, makes sense and pays off long term. yes, i'm aware that most of the food we all eat is produced in monocrop situations that require migratory pollination...i expect that will change over time without my help...i'm growing in a separate niche.




> but saying you do one thing while doing the exact opposite is a different issue. posting in one thread that you do not treat and on another that you treat for this or that problem just makes some folks look very foolish and deceitful.


i'm confused by the above...are you referring to me? i think the last treatment i used was organic acids 4 years ago. i did use apistan and menthol once about 8 years ago. in what thread did i say that i treated?



> let me give you an example that is a personal decision from my own experience.... if I was not rearing nucs for folks then I would quite likely not treat for afb or nosema (in regards to afb I have input a significant quantity of hygenic stock over several seasons to somewhat counter this 'problem' via genetics). given that both diseases are long term and persistent and the drugs for prevention are relatively cheap I would feel foolish if a new beekeeper ended up acquiring bees from me that were then effected by either. my feelin's is anyone who kept to this rigid 'I will not treat matra' is simply being penny wise and pound foolish.


i can understand not wanting spread afb or nosema...but using these treatments (i assume you are talking about terramycin and fumidil) leads to problems. terramycin use makes the yeast population in the hive skyrocket (as it's bacteria in the hive that keeps the yeast population in check). we know that afb can become resistant (due to routine use), and there is suspicion that the same is true for fumidil. in addition, if you are using this stuff on your stock (and not just "pre shipment"), you are breeding for less resistance to these problems, and more aggressive strains of pathogens.



> ps... in regards to my customers.... as suggested previously most seem very much aware (casually) of OUR problems. those that have the time to discuss the issues and come to some understanding of how I treat or manipulate 'my girls' I have time to share with them what I do. in this regards (unlike some of which you seem to have some issue with???) all my cards are on the tabletop.


...and by your own words, they would prefer honey from untreated bees. you might consider the premium that customers will pay for what they would prefer. ditto with beekeepers buying bees...healthy bees that have not been treated will fetch a higher price from those that don't want to treat their bees. your business is your business, and your customers are your customers. ...but if your customers would prefer something else (like honey from bees that are not treated), someone will eventually 'give the customers what they want'....imho, it might as well be you...but again, that is up to you.

deknow


----------



## alpha6

*Another example*

"Keeping the bees the Spartan way" - Getting rid of wasps. 

To prevent robbing during the fall from wasps my bees have been trained to rip the heads off wasps they kill. In anticipation of this, in front of each hive I place rows of toothpicks in front of the entrance which my bees then place the wasps heads. It is amazing how effective this is in deterring future robbing. :thumbsup:

I know it sounds a little morbid in the beginning, but no worse then squishing a wasp and getting its guts all over the toe of your shoe. 

Anyway...stay tuned for more hints and helpful tidbits right here on Bee Source.


----------



## megank

alpha6 said:


> "Keeping the bees the Spartan way" - Getting rid of wasps.
> 
> To prevent robbing during the fall from wasps my bees have been trained to rip the heads off wasps they kill. In anticipation of this, in front of each hive I place rows of toothpicks in front of the entrance which my bees then place the wasps heads. It is amazing how effective this is in deterring future robbing. :thumbsup:
> 
> I know it sounds a little morbid in the beginning, but no worse then squishing a wasp and getting its guts all over the toe of your shoe.
> 
> Anyway...stay tuned for more hints and helpful tidbits right here on Bee Source.




My method of treatment involves using black and red magic markers by first making a black circle, then drawing a red mite in the middle with a black line crossing out the mite. This has the effect of mites knowing they're not welcome in my hives such that they hop off before the bee lands on the bottom board. Problem solved!

This method has worked for me for fifteen years, and I've yet to loose a hive due to mites.


----------



## tecumseh

deknow writes:
i'm confused by the above...are you referring to me?

tecumseh replies:
nope.

thanks for the comment #41.

as suggested previously by myself and touched on at a bit deeper level by yourself (#41) all treatments are not created equal. which is to say that the cost and benefits for any treatment may project much futher into the future than just tomorrow.


----------



## Barry

tecumseh said:


> secondly...sounds like a plan that MIGHT work if you were not raising or keeping bees in an intensive (high density) manner or were keeping bees outside of any commercial interest.


Perhaps you missed this thread?

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222759


----------



## NeilV

Bjorn says: "I do not expect the same results and expectations from swarms I caught. I evaluate them, and if they are not up to par, they get requeened."

Can you describe how you evaluate? What makes a new swarm up to par or not?

thanks,

Neil


----------



## BjornBee

NeilV said:


> Bjorn says: "I do not expect the same results and expectations from swarms I caught. I evaluate them, and if they are not up to par, they get requeened."
> 
> Can you describe how you evaluate? What makes a new swarm up to par or not?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Neil


Hello Neil,
I evaluate them by time, over wintering them without treatments, and testing with such items as paper towels soaked in oil and a trigger mechanism such menthol or thymol. You may find something good or something needing requeening. You can do sugar shakes and a host of other evaluation checks such as brood pattern, visible DVW, and other brood problems.

If a swarm is seen with SHB, DWV, or the queen lays a bad pattern, or has a shotgun pattern, then she gets replaced. 

My point for making that comment was that you should not expect all swarms to be healthy, productive, or worth keeping. How you evaluate may be different. Some just throw them in a nurse yard and wait till spring to see what’s left. 

I control my genetics as practical as possible and anytime you bring a swarm home of unknown genetics, you should monitor and take corrective actions if needed.


----------



## tecumseh

barry writes:
Perhaps you missed this thread?

tecumseh:
you are quite correct barry I did miss that thread. thanks very much for the 'take a look here'. 'preciate that. are you a big promoter of small cell? (just a curiousity thingee)... 

after reading all the comments there barry.... I must say I do suspect my VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS down the road would not have been so kind in regards to someone's poorly contrived and speculative argument which to me sounds like more of the same... OPINION based on NO EVIDENCE and WISHFUL THINKING. quite evidently some folks (by what is said at the first of the thread) do have some problem with reading comprehension.

but what the heck barry.... karma does have a way of leveling those with self imposed importance.


----------



## Barry

tecumseh said:


> after reading all the comments there barry.... I must say I do suspect my VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS down the road would not have been so kind in regards to someone's poorly contrived and speculative argument which to me sounds like more of the same... OPINION based on NO EVIDENCE and WISHFUL THINKING. quite evidently some folks (by what is said at the first of the thread) do have some problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> but what the heck barry.... karma does have a way of leveling those with self imposed importance.


I see it's difficult for you to leave all the little personal jabs out of your posts.

I give you an example of someone who has been keeping their non-treated hives mixed in with commercial treated hives and you take the role of cutting it apart as to the "why". Disagree all you want with the why, it changes not the fact that his hive are not treated and have done well mixed in with commercial hives.


----------



## tecumseh

barry writes:
see it's difficult for you to leave all the little personal jabs out of your posts.

I give you an example of someone who has been keeping their non-treated hives mixed in with commercial treated hives and you take the role of cutting it apart as to the "why". Disagree all you want with the why, it changes not the fact that his hive are not treated and have done well mixed in with commercial hives.

tecumseh:
humm... my goodness barry all the stuff happening must have you setting on pens and needles. right now I can not imagine what I said that may have suggested anything about why?

in regards to your comment only two entities comes to mind..... did my suggestion that some folk's criticism of my good neighbors down the road (on a thread that you suggested might enlighten) seem like ridicule? I certainly wasn't demeaning or belittling (or even referring to) anything that bee wrangler did or reported in the thread (which really sounded quite interesting)?

I guess my simple question as to your interest in small scale will remain unanswered.

If I did offend (which quite evidently in your eyes I did)??? then I do apoligize.


----------



## Barry

tecumseh said:


> are you a big promoter of small cell? (just a curiousity thingee)...


No. I do use small cell but don't promote/push it much. I'm curious as to why you ask in light of me pointing your attention to the thread Dennis started? This thread sure isn't about small cell. AFAIK, I'm staying on topic here.


----------



## Barry

tecumseh said:


> did my suggestion that some folk's criticism of my good neighbors down the road (on a thread that you suggested might enlighten) seem like ridicule?


No, but after rereading your post, I'm confused! I took what you wrote one way, and now I'm not sure if it was meant to be taken that way. Some of the vague references to "people" that you didn't name names might be different than the ones I think/thought you were referring to. I'll repost and ask for clarification.


----------



## Barry

tecumseh said:


> I must say I do suspect my VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS down the road


Who are the "VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS"?



> in regards to someone's poorly contrived and speculative argument


Who is the "someone" here?



> OPINION based on NO EVIDENCE and WISHFUL THINKING.


Who's opinion?



> quite evidently some folks (by what is said at the first of the thread) do have some problem with reading comprehension.


I hesitate to ask who you are referring to here as making a negative comment about a persons reading comprehension can feel quite belittling.



> but what the heck barry.... karma does have a way of leveling those with self imposed importance.


Can this be said in a different way? There are several ways I can interpret what you wrote and perhaps I took it the wrong way.


----------



## tecumseh

barry writes:
I'm confused!

tecumseh:
most days I am also. 

although almost every day I really don't wish to make your job here any more difficult than it already is... which I guess is my off handed way of saying, I do admire what you are doing here.


----------



## tecumseh

barry writes:
Who are the "VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS"?

in regards to someone's poorly contrived and speculative argument
Who is the "someone" here?

tecumseh replies:
in regards to the first question: 

that would be beneford weaver and family. I do hold beneford and his entire operation in great regards (an evaluation made via contact over a goodly number of years and for numbers of reasons).... so when someone else (whose resume seems a bit thin) belittles my neighbors reputation and seems(???) to demean a life time of effort toward beekeeping I am more than just a little bit offended. some people may consider everything everyone says as simple marketing spin... but there are folks and familys who consider what they say and their family name and reputation important.

perhaps this very personal value is simply a hillbilly thing? 

in regards to the second question:
based upon my comments above I do suspect you can connect the dots in regards to this question.

then barry ask:
reading comprehension

tecumseh:
I am as quilty as everyone else here barry. I am tossing stones...while living in a glass house. 

it does seems alot of conflict is created by folks reading what they think people (members) are saying rather than reading what they actually say and leaving it at that.

like I said.. I am quite as quilty of this as anyone else mention or alluded too...


----------



## Barry

OK, in light of your further clarifications, I misread the first time around on some of it. I thought you were referring to a different post, so I understand now. Filling in some of the names helps me know the rest of it. Thanks.

> humm... my goodness barry all the stuff happening must have you setting on pens and needles.

There could be some truth to this!


----------



## HarryVanderpool

No medications in your hives?
It's all in how you justify it; right?
Well I am so happy that almost all of the beehavers are well beyond the 2 mile radius of my VERY HEALTHY HIVES.
Its a free country. (at the moment)
Let your hives die in your own fashion.


----------



## adamf

HarryVanderpool said:


> No medications in your hives?
> It's all in how you justify it; right?
> Well I am so happy that almost all of the beehavers are well beyond the 2 mile radius of my VERY HEALTHY HIVES.
> Its a free country. (at the moment)
> Let your hives die in your own fashion.


From Harry's quote above, I assume he's saying that if one doesn't treat their bees,
that they will harbor disease and eventually die. If I'm incorrect Harry,
please correct me.

I have not treated the colonies I run for ten years. I still have bees,
still make honey (when the Weather is good!) and raise queens. I vowed to
follow this management style and have remained faithful to it. I
concentrate my efforts on selection and breeding from my chemically free
population and I test and evaluate queens from others' populations, and if
they are good, add them into my population, gradually.

I lose colonies. I don't loose many, but every now and then I do. Last
season I had some intense acute paralysis virus in some colonies. Replacing
the queens heading those colonies solved the problem. 

I spend lots of time observing and testing my population. More time than
most people spend with their bees. I also use Instrumental Insemination in
my breeding program. This requires even more time and plenty of planning and preparation.

Harry, we don't treat our bees, but we DO spend huge ammounts of time managing
them and working to keep them healthy through selection and breeding. This
isn't for everyone. But, it can be done.

Adam Finkelstein

www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Michael Bush

I am baffled by the implication that untreated hives are full of diseases and parasites as well. I don't treat, and have my bees inspected every spring. The inspector doesn't think they are harboring diseases:

http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm


----------



## deknow

...our untreated bees are also inspected annually. This last year, the inspector said that he did see 1 mite (out of 16 or so hives inspected)....no other disease problems.

deknow


----------



## Oldbee

"I am baffled by the implication that untreated hives are full of diseases and parasites as well. I don't treat, and have my bees inspected every spring. The inspector doesn't think they are are harboring any diseases." --Michael Bush.

What about in the fall; are your bees inspected then, when mites are increasing in population? My colonies have been inspected spring and fall two years running now. OB.

"our untreated bees are also inspected annually. Last year, the inspector said that he did see 1 mite [out of 16 or so hives inspected]..no other disease problems.--deknow.

deknow, Michael Bush?? As just an average 'keeper' of four colonies of bees, but reading as much as I can, these statements seem pretty AMAZING to read considering all the 'stuff' we read about with beekeepers losing colonies to mites or other diseases.

[1],... One MITE out of 16 Hives or so Hives Inspected--deknow. Is the MOST amazing comment of all.

OK!! So what the heck is going on here??

#1. You have been allowing your hives to die off and requeen from survivors for the last 10 years or more?
# 2. You have been using small cell or 'variations' for 6-10 years?
# 3. Your colonies are 'isolated' from other 'diseased' colonies?
# 4. You are an expert 'genius' at beekeeping and the rest of us are just [chemical] fools or,.. haven't been keeping bees long enough?



One MITE out of 16 hives!! What is your,. 'secret'?? OB.


----------



## deknow

Oldbee said:


> OK!! So what the heck is going on here??
> 
> #1. You have been allowing your hives to die off and requeen from survivors for the last 10 years or more?


well, this is the plan, but we've been at it for less than 10 years...see below



> # 2. You have been using small cell or 'variations' for 6-10 years?


we basically started over with our bees last spring (2007), and regressed them immediately. we did loose some colonies, but none since feb or so (and the ones we lost were largely, imho, due to ventilation issues that were my own darn fault). after regression (with hsc), we only introduced empty frames with no foundation. probably less than 10% of our combs are hsc, the rest are wax drawn without foundation (and without the chemical contamination that comes with commercial foundation).



> # 3. Your colonies are 'isolated' from other 'diseased' colonies?


absolutely not. i've gone along with the bee inspector inspecting at least 20 or so hives in flight distance of mine. these are pretty much all managed conventionally (large cell size, regular treatments, spring and fall feeding with sugar syrup, etc). some have even had bad afb.



> # 4. You are an expert 'genius' at beekeeping and the rest of us are just (chemical) fools or,.. republicans at best??


...if it's genius to realize that treating bees short circuits the natural selection of bees that can survive without treatments, then perhaps. but let me add that virtually every non-beekeeper i talk to about this (several hundered people a week) sees this as making sense. it's only beekeepers that assume that untreated bees will simply die. where did bees come from in the first place? how did they survive (and evolve) over 100 million years without humans to synthesize fluvalinate?




> ONE MITE OUT OF 16 HIVES!! WHAT is your,. 'secret'?? OB.


...no secret at all. we are pretty open about what we are doing (posted mostly on the organic list and on our own website). last year i wrote an extensive article for our local county club newsletter to describe what we were doing, and what we were trying to accomplish. imho, this is important...it's much easier to wait until one has worked out all the kinks and made all the mistakes before sharing what one is doing...but this way is more honest, more immediate, and i think, more interesting (to be able to follow the process through it's ups and downs rather than read how successful it was after the fact).



> I hope it's NOT like the difference in 'philosophy' between the 'Democrats and Republicans';..is it??


i'd like to attempt to keep politics out of this...but it is worth looking at "live and let die" vs "care for the weak". this is more extreme than conservative vs liberal, but the same concept.

it's also worth mentioning that we went through about 600 of dee's hives in april (making up about another hundred in splits), and i spotted 1 mite...and 1 more in a photo after the fact. i posted the following on the organic list this morning wrt a group of dee's yards that were officially "ccd" last fall (and that we worked with her this last april):



> going through these yards in april was inspiring. on the one hand,
> there were lots of deadouts (about 2/3 of the hives). the first phase
> of going through any one of these yards was identifying and preparing
> the deadouts to split into...always depressing. but then, going into
> the survivors, and seeing really (really) strong hives ready to split
> (many 3 ways) was incredible.
> 
> although there is always sadness when looking at dead hives, seeing
> the survivors, and knowing that they had come out the other side of
> whatever killed the rest was an explicit example of "nature at her
> best". nature is cruel...she culls ruthlessly, kills the weak
> (sometimes in gory detail)...yet, it is what leads us to the wonderful
> variety of life we see all around us...something that would be
> impossible if all life could be magically "saved" by nature "playing
> nice".
> 
> these kinds of 'losses' are necessary to move forward. the weak would
> have been killed by nature whether the bees are in a box, or in a
> tree. we must see losses like these as "progress"....and realize that
> our years of intervention have led us to the point where there are
> significant numbers of hives that must be culled. personally, i don't
> know enough to know which should live and which should die...i leave
> that to mother nature...she knows best


----------



## Michael Bush

>deknow, Michael Bush?? As just an average 'keeper' of four colonies of bees, but reading as much as I can, these statements seem pretty AMAZING to read considering all the 'stuff' we read about with beekeepers losing colonies to mites or other diseases.

I know.

>[1],... ONE MITE out of 16 HIVES OR SO HIVES INSPECTED--deknow. Is the MOST amazing comment of all.

For the last five years inspections (see the link above) my inspector has found NONE, which is roughly the same results.

>#1. You have been allowing your hives to die off and requeen from survivors for the last 10 years or more?

I haven't lost a hive to Varroa since regressing. I have moved to more of feral offspring as I have gone along. I only started regressing back in 2001. I lost plenty before and know what the piles of dead bees and mites look like when they collapse from Varroa.

># 2. You have been using small cell or 'variations' for 6-10 years?

Not I. Dee has been for about 18 years. I have been for about 6 or 7 years, but not 10 years.

># 3. Your colonies are 'isolated' from other 'diseased' colonies?

I don't know. But I do find a few Varroa mites in the fall. Very few.

># 4. You are an expert 'genius' at beekeeping and the rest of us are just [chemical] fools or,..
republicans at best??

I don't know what republicans have to do with it. Dee Lusby is the one who came up with the concept of small cell. After I lost ALL of my hives to Varroa AFTER treating with Apistan, that was the last straw for me. I couldn't see the point in putting poison in the hives AND losing the bees anyway. I've never liked putting anything in the hives, but I got desperate when the Varroa came. But once I realized they would die with the chemicals as well, I knew there had to be a better way.


----------



## tecumseh

sound to me (this is really a question) like the state inspectors test could be different depending on which state the bees reside???? and possible the permit issued???* 

I guess what I am really asking here is... deknow and michael bush have suggested some fairly significant sample of hives have been tested for varroa mites... soooo what kind of test do the state boys use in your state?

*I would suspect (speculating for sure) that health permits to move bees across state lines and the uncertainty associated with this requirement is an issue that really does not apply to most of us here but likely is very significant for someone like harry (and by extension all commercial migratory beekeepers).


----------



## Oldbee

"varroa mites...soooo what kind of test do the state boys use in your state"?.- tecumseh.

They use the sugar/rock n' roll. So far, both spring and fall, they have found MORE than 1 [one] mite per hive that's for sure, lol. I am not on 100% small cell yet though.

Thanks for taking the time to make comments, Michael Bush and deknow; enlightening.

For what it's worth, I did notice something interesting at the new hive established from the [wild drones] public hunting grounds; Sept. 08. There were about 8-10 bees that seemed to be wrestling with other bees on the landing board but didn't seem to be trying to sting each other. I notice this at other times that the bees seem to move,.. 'excitedly' around a bee like they are grooming it or something. It didn't look like robbing. This was only one time and only one day of course, but I did not see this activity at the other hives that day.

"But once I realized they would die with the chemicals as well, I knew there had to be a better way.- Michael Bush. I can go along with that; OB.


----------



## tecumseh

old bee writes:
"varroa mites...soooo what kind of test do the state boys use in your state"?.- tecumseh.

tecumseh:
well I do know that in the field the state inspectors use the starting fluid method.

for sample obtain and taken back to the lab for the issue of certain permits I really don't know what they might use in a lab setting. I suspect??? in most places if no permit (legal paper) is issued the state boys may be telling folks what they wish to hear (the line of least resistance).

I personally rarely see a bee with a mite. A bit more often I see effects of what I suspect is varroa. I do know if I did not look or I looked in the right (wrong) place I would never see a mite.

to date my strategy is two fold.... but will likely change as time goes by.

first detection and monitoring and a good deal of drone scratching (mechanical control) in the very early spring. for keeping an eye on the problem (in a very loose and unencumberd way) I like to pluck drone cells but will attempt the use of homemade sticky boards (plus tobacco smoke) in the near future. in the past I used sugar roll but am troubled but the inconsistancies in this approach... reading has reinforced the understanding that the error term in every approach mention in this thread is often time so great as to mask any real result. 

in conjuction with the monitoring I strategically use oxalic... otherwise in regards to varroa I use no treatment what so ever. the strategy employed is to test and mark hives as significant vs insignificant levels of varroa. the 'insignificant' hives have absolutely nothing done to them... the significant get treated (sometimes twice mostly depending on my available time) and then are used for increase purposes.

at the present time I estimate I need to make up 1/3 of my desired number in new starts yearly just to stay even with my loss.


----------



## adamf

*Mites per colony vs overall Survival*

Varroa mite levels in bee colonies under a "non-treatment" management
scenario is important. There are several methods to keep track of
mite populations throughout the season. This method works very well:
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html and gives you an
idea of the level of phoretic mites in your colonies.

When we committed to non-treatment, we used *survival* as the
indicator for selection. Mite levels per colony or per year remained
unknown for many years. We just selected from colonies that performed.

Once we had a population that was maintaining vigor and producing honey while
*surviving* we ran the Tuscon test (see link above) out of curiosity.

The results were pretty amazing: our colonies averaged ~ 5 mites/100
bees over the season. Some had more, some had less although the variation was fairly slight. 
The varroa population fluctuates seasonally and yearly--but the colonies we tested 
performed under the load, regardless of the mite levels.

Determining what makes the population hardy is less important now then
keeping the population hardy. Maybe in the future, mechanisms will be
discovered explaining the way bees handle mites and remain productive and
methods could be developed to select for these mechanisms in bee breeding.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Michael Bush

>I guess what I am really asking here is... deknow and michael bush have suggested some fairly significant sample of hives have been tested for varroa mites... soooo what kind of test do the state boys use in your state?

The inspector gave me the choice and I wanted to NOT kill the bees so he did the sugar roll.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*"I treated all of my hives with Apistan and they all died."*

"I treated all of my hives with Apistan and they all died."

What comes to mind when you read that statement?
Here's my answer: Someone does not know what they are doing.
And this is one good example of where I actually agree with the "I don't treat choir".
Throwing any treatment at a honey bee hive, let alone ALL of your hives and then just setting back and allowing them to die is very poor beekeeping.

Apistan it's self did not kill the hives.
Then what did? Mites?
If so, the implication is that the treatment was ineffective. A good beekeeper would have known this within 24 hours through verification testing and would have taken appropriate steps further.

If not mites, then what?
Another pest or disease that a blind eye ignored?
Don' t blame Apistan for P-poor beekeeping.

For more information on verification check out:

www.mitegone.com


----------



## Michael Bush

<>"I treated all of my hives with Apistan and they all died."
>What comes to mind when you read that statement?
>Here's my answer: Someone does not know what they are doing.

I just did what was recommended to me by the "I do treat choir" at the time, who were mostly treating "just in case". I wasn't falling for that and monitored to decide that I NEEDED to treat, but I was not aware that one needed to monitor not only before (which was why I resorted to treating) but during and after. I have certainly learned that lesson. Unfortunately, most have not. However I much prefer the position I'm in now, not treating at all.

>Apistan it's self did not kill the hives.
>Then what did? Mites?

Exactly. But the Apistan did nothing to help and only caused more harm. Although I do not think it was the cause of these losses, Apistan is a poison and it can kill bees and it will contaminate the wax. You can pretend otherwise if you wish.

>If so, the implication is that the treatment was ineffective. A good beekeeper would have known this within 24 hours through verification testing and would have taken appropriate steps further.

That was not being recommended anywhere that I had read at the time. The implications by all the articles I had read were that if you had mites, treating was a sure way to get rid of them and anything else was risky. They did not imply that treating could be just as risky and fail in exactly the same way. If putting poisons in my hives won't solve my problems, then why would I even do it? I didn't want to in the first place and resorted to it out of desperation. I know better now.

"A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday."--Alexander Pope


----------



## tecumseh

thanks for the link adamf.


----------



## Bizzybee

Harry,

I take exception to your posturing in that last post. I think you could agree that slandering and belittling another member because you don't agree with their methods or understanding can be handled a little better.

This is the second time I believe in this thread you have chosen to take an adversarial approach. I think everyone would appreciate a less offensive discussion.


----------



## Robert Brenchley

Please leave the D- and R- words out of it; I know you did it innocently, but it leads to my being inundated with complaints! Bees know nothing of US politics, and it has nothing to do with this discussion either.

As for not treating, or treating ineffectively, it can cause problems. A couple of years ago my hives were inundated with mites from collapsing hives belonging to someone who was treating resistant mites with Apistan. That's bad beekeeping. But if some can maintain selected bees without treatment - I'm on the wrong continenent to check for myself, but I see no reason to disbelieve them - then bully for them. What we all need is strains which will do this reliably, and if we never get to the point of trying to cut down or eliminate treatment, then we'll never have resistant bees.


----------



## NasalSponge

"the organic list" Can someone post a link?? I am very interested in the no treat style of beekeeping and exactly how successful folks are pulling this off!:thumbsup:

Are there any folks in here that sell small cell packages and queens??


----------



## Michael Bush

Organic group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers

Organic conference in November:
http://www.bushfarms.com/organic_beekeeping_meeting.htm

Much info on beekeeping in general and natural and small cell beekeeping:
www.bushfarms.com/bees

Natural cell size:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm


----------



## tlozo

Doesn't Dee Lusby have AHB which are more mite resistant because of their aggressiveness.:scratch:


----------



## Michael Bush

>Doesn't Dee Lusby have AHB which are more mite resistant because of their aggressiveness.

In my experience, aggressiveness has nothing to do with mite resistance.


----------



## NasalSponge

Thx....Michael
Mike Forbes


----------



## tecumseh

tlozo writes:
Doesn't Dee Lusby have AHB which are more mite resistant because of their aggressiveness.

tecumseh:
it is my understanding that the difference would be the length of time of the capped pupae state of the bee. they may or may not be some correlation with aggressive/defensive behavior.


----------



## TwT

tlozo said:


> Doesn't Dee Lusby have AHB which are more mite resistant because of their aggressiveness.:scratch:


does dee have AHB, well they get swarms from all over their area so if they are in a AHB area I would say yes (but thats me),

does aggressiveness help with Resistance to mites, I would say no to that one, I have bee's that seem to be resistant because they are still alive after 5 years on regular cell, a few longer and they are on regular cell size. its the bee's themselves and not aggressiveness.

do I think cell capping time is a reason for this, no not even close, the test that was run on small cell bee's showed no difference from the results from UGA and they said they had more mites with SC so that would be out if SC hatches earlier.

ITS THE BEE'S THEMSELVES, SOME HANDLE THEM AND OTHERS DONT, its just a chance you take and some dont take the chances, buying bee's from big bee's suppliers is not going to do to good, the way I went was doing removals and getting a few queens from people like Purvis Brothers or Russians from a USDA Queen Breeder that go chemical free, there are a few on this site that sales queens that dont do SC or chemicals, you should get queens from these folks if you want to try chemical free. !!!!!!! 

just my 2 pennies worth, cant buy cup of coffee with that.......


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Bizzybee said:


> Harry,
> 
> I take exception to your posturing in that last post. I think you could agree that slandering and belittling another member because you don't agree with their methods or understanding can be handled a little better.
> 
> This is the second time I believe in this thread you have chosen to take an adversarial approach. I think everyone would appreciate a less offensive discussion.


Well Harry it's all your fault for getting to the point .

Unlike the CCD crowd, Harry is clear and to the point, CCD team should have hired him for there spokesman.... but then there would be no smoke to hide behind all there short comings.


----------



## tecumseh

twt writes:
do I think cell capping time is a reason for this, no not even close

tecumseh:
ok... first off to get somewhat approximate to something that looks like SCIENCE you need to at least present a mechanism for HOW something works. anything less is magic.. at this point twt you seem to be waving a wand and conjuring up magic to explain what is happening here.

it is still my understanding that the Lusby's bees were somewhat africanized??? if yes, then the literature suggest that when compared to the purely european cousins their pupae stage is a bit shorter.

keith jarrett writes:
Well Harry it's all your fault for getting to the point 

tecumseh:
well no he is not keith.. he simply (in this case) agreeing with your own point of view. at this point there apppears to be a difference in OPINION basd somewhat on SCALE of operation... which might also be describe as a line drawn in the sand as to whether bee keeping for that person is a business or a hobby.

me I am just stuck in the middle... which really mean that for my bees that are thriving I will just leave them alone and the one's that are sick I will treat (I will however not go down the road that inevitable means the pest or disease in question grows ever stronger while the bees are slowly but certainly growing weaker). I have seen this before in another context... at that time it did look as if some folks didn't so mind shooting themselves in the foot.

in the short run I can kind of understand you and harry's view (given the money laid on the table at this point in time). I would suggest over a bit long term (if resistance and genetics still works tomorrow as it did yesterday?) that somewhere down the road (if it ain't already happened) you will look down and wonder how that gaping hole got in your foot. 

as ray wylie hubburd wisely said:
doin' what's right aint so hard,
it just ain't as much fun.
'conversation with the devil'


----------



## TwT

tecumseh said:


> twt writes:
> do I think cell capping time is a reason for this, no not even close
> 
> tecumseh:
> ok... first off to get somewhat approximate to something that looks like SCIENCE you need to at least present a mechanism for HOW something works. anything less is magic.. at this point twt you seem to be waving a wand and conjuring up magic to explain what is happening here.
> 
> it is still my understanding that the Lusby's bees were somewhat africanized??? if yes, then the literature suggest that when compared to the purely european cousins their pupae stage is a bit shorter.


when bee's aren't on small cell and aren't africanized and live without treatments of any kind it must be magic since their pupae times should be the same as normal bee's, I have not timed it but if shorter cell times is the reason my bee's live then they must magically shorten their cell times. it could be but I doubt it very seriously. if it is magic I should go to Vegas and make a fortune.


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> tecumseh:
> ok... first off to get somewhat approximate to something that looks like SCIENCE you need to at least present a mechanism for HOW something works. anything less is magic.. at this point twt you seem to be waving a wand and conjuring up magic to explain what is happening here.
> 
> it is still my understanding that the Lusby's bees were somewhat africanized??? if yes, then the literature suggest that when compared to the purely european cousins their pupae stage is a bit shorter.


This all sounds more like speculation than SCIENCE to me. Whether small cell, Africanized (Lusby inssists hers aren't) or conventional cell as TWT keeps, whatever keeps them from collapsing, at this point, is pure speculation.....in my opinion. Just because no one has yet established the mechanism doesn't mean that its magic......and we all know there are as many opinions out there as there are beekeepers....maybe more.


----------



## iddee

It's the same thing that keeps apistan from killing mites.

Natural selection.


----------



## tecumseh

beemandan writes:
Just because no one has yet established the mechanism doesn't mean that its magic

tecumseh:
I did not say that you need to prove the mechanism was the 'the one and only' thing that created 'la differance'. You do need to PRESENT a reasonable explanation of mechanism. proof can come later, but don't be surprised when this or is proved that the mechanism was a bit more complex than first suggested.

then beemandan writes:
Lusby inssists hers aren't

tecumseh:
ok.. altough I have read other places that suggested they were. I would also suggest given the lusby's location if some africanization had not taken place that 'this' would be extremely unusual.

twt writes:
when bee's aren't on small cell and aren't africanized and live without treatments of any kind it must be magic since their pupae times should be the same as normal bee's, I have not timed it but if shorter cell times is the reason my bee's live then they must magically shorten their cell times.

tecumseh:
well first off I don't think you (given your screen location) are any more isolated from africanization than are the lusby's or myself. 

secondly, although the book might state that 'this stage of a bees development' is X days long... this is actually an average for that particular genetic make up of bees. other species or sub species 'time of development' for any stage (or even their total life span) will have different time frames (mean and standard divation). if it is of your OPINION that each and every time frames in a bees life if set in stone for all bee species or sub species... then I would suggest you hit the books once again. quite evidently there is more variation out there in the natural world than some seem to recognize.

iddee writes:
It's the same thing that keeps apistan from killing mites.

Natural selection.

tecumseh:
I am not certain where you might be going with this 'plausable explanation' iddee, but go ahead brother give it your best shot. at least it is a mechanism that could (or might) explan the difference. are you suggesting that 'small cell' selects for those bees that survive, or are your suggesting someting else?

ps... as a casual well written book 'guns, germs and steel' by jared diamond is quite excellent. given the title you may be surprised to find that a great deal of the book has to do with agriculture crops and the distribution (over time) of these crops. between the covers of this book mr diamond describes agricultureal crops who genetics are simple vs those that are a bit more complex and how this genetics plays out over time in determining what crops are or are not useful (in a historic context).


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> beemandan writes:
> Just because no one has yet established the mechanism doesn't mean that its magic
> 
> tecumseh:
> You do need to PRESENT a reasonable explanation of mechanism.


If you are undertaking a scientific study, then I agree. But, for an individual who has had success without knowing why....well, so be it....in my opinion. 


tecumseh said:


> then beemandan writes:
> Lusby inssists hers aren't
> 
> tecumseh:
> ok.. altough I have read other places that suggested they were. I would also suggest given the lusby's location if some africanization had not taken place that 'this' would be extremely unusual.


I agree....but am only pointing out what she says. I can't imagine that hers don't have a boatload of african genes


tecumseh said:


> tecumseh:
> well first off I don't think you (given your screen location) are any more isolated from africanization than are the lusby's or myself.


Actually, I think he's still pretty far from the africanized areas....for the moment. 

I believe that you said it yourself earlier. When (if) the mechanism(s) are ever established it (they) will be more complicated than we ever imagined. Development time, hygienic behavior and grooming are only three suggested possibilities. There are likely other things we've never considered. So, why is it important that the beekeeper offer a SCIENTIFIC opinion as to why his (her) bees seem to survive varroa without treatment?


----------



## TwT

tecumseh said:


> t
> twt writes:
> when bee's aren't on small cell and aren't africanized and live without treatments of any kind it must be magic since their pupae times should be the same as normal bee's, I have not timed it but if shorter cell times is the reason my bee's live then they must magically shorten their cell times.
> 
> tecumseh:
> well first off I don't think you (given your screen location) are any more isolated from africanization than are the lusby's or myself.


Just where is it you think my screen location says I am near ahb? I am in north georgia, no AHB here, so how can you compare my location to yours or Dee's? , I mow by my bee's, run a weed eater and work them and no problems, If I have them and they are AHB'S we need to breed from to rid ourselves of the mean one's. but I do know my hive's aren't ahb.


----------



## tecumseh

beemandan writes:
Development time, hygienic behavior and grooming are only three suggested possibilities. There are likely other things we've never considered. So, why is it important that the beekeeper offer a SCIENTIFIC opinion as to why his (her) bees seem to survive varroa without treatment?

tecumseh:
I would suggest to you dan that the mixture of the three possibilities (that you list) could get quite complex. multiple allel or additive genetics (anything beyond simple recessive/dominant genetics) would mean that no one would ever be able to even recognize a 'winning' combination from a 'losing' combination (read jarred take on the apple to get some feel for this magnitude of this problem). at one time we though that hygenic behavior was somewhat more complex than simple recessive/dominant genetics and was associated with two allels. now we know (given more modern genetic techniques) that this behavior is associated with at least 7 allels. do the math... hopefully with the aid of a good computer. 

as to the last question... it is really about whether you have a desire to approach the problem systemically.... edison for example (who most folks think of as a great inventor) used the style that you seem?? to be promoting. this means that he had to be willing to test and retest everything that ever came to his mind to approach a solution to the problem. the limitation was that it only allowed mr edison to tackle fairly simple problems (and then only with a great investment in time and resources). 

the simplist statement of the question is reduced to, 'how' is this working? this effort is undertaken to try and discern cause (as in cause and effect) from simple association (you see this and that, but in reality they only occur together and are not interrelated whatsoever). 

twt writes:
you are very wrong my friend, I am in north georgia, no AHB here or do you just not believe the scientist?

tecumseh:
I believe that most scientist when they have funds and are looking for something that is important to them (if they desire to preserve their reputations... which is professionally all they have) tell you not only what they know but what they don't know (statistical tools employed by most all science folks points to these two questons directly).

what are the possibilities that you have an EXACT history of the bees that are in your hives? or are the bees within your hives 'linage' more a matter of faith? 

and a point of common human behavior.... most folks will never see something they either don't, or will not, look for. proper science requires something a bit more than simple faith.... which is to say. that even when 'science' is fairly well certain that something does work in a particular way it is still tested (although many times around the edges of the question at this point).

then twt writes:
listening to you would means everyone everywhere would have them just to prove your point

tecumseh:
and exactly what 'point' would that be twt?

ps... at one time I resided for several years in georgia and traveled the state extensively. never kept bees there... but I do have some understanding of the state, it's history, the differences in it's agriuclture and the differences in it's culture from place to place. I expect that georgia has grown some in the years since I left... I also expect that the cultural/agricultural characteristics have not.

over the years beemandan and twt I have seen a lot of snake oil sold to beekeepers commonly employing the same kind of loose association technique you both seem to favor. if you favor snake oil over real results then (I suggest) just keep on doin' what you do.


----------



## TwT

tecumseh said:


> beemandan writes:
> 
> 
> over the years beemandan and twt I have seen a lot of snake oil sold to beekeepers commonly employing the same kind of loose association technique you both seem to favor. if you favor snake oil over real results then (I suggest) just keep on doin' what you do.


fair enough, but like I said in this or another post, I have not studied my bee's but something keeps them going, what it could be I just think its the bee's themselves and nothing to do with hatching times, most of the drones that I see in bur comb when I open up hives dont even have mites on them, some do but very few and sometimes none at all, something is going on in there and I am not worried to know as long as they live, I might give a few queens to UGA and let them study them since they have the time and know what they are doing.


----------



## iddee

>>>>and a point of common human behavior.... most folks will never see something they either don't, or will not, look for. proper science requires something a bit more than simple faith.... which is to say. that even when 'science' is fairly well certain that something does work in a particular way it is still tested (although many times around the edges of the question at this point).<<<<

I seen a headline a few years back. It went something like this:

Scientists find what Grandmas have known for a thousand years. Chicken soup cures colds.

It went on to say how they had segregated the substance in chicken fat that did it. 

Does that mean it didn't work before the scientists proved it. I don't think so.

Ted and Dan have found what works, and could care less how it should be written in the science books.


----------



## tecumseh

iddee writes:
I seen a headline a few years back. It went something like this:

tecumseh:
a closer reference might be bee sting therapy... which not that long ago some might have considered to be wives tales and wishful thinking.

then iddee writes:
Does that mean it didn't work before the scientists proved it. I don't think so.

tecumseh:
curious sentence iddee. scientist typically don't look (or find) things that don't exist. usually they look at a lot of stuff that doesn't explain before they find something that does.

finally iddee writes:
Ted and Dan have found what works, and could care less how it should be written in the science books.

tecumseh replies:
a pragmatic approach. a lot of science begins as alagory (story telling or some might call it discriptive science) which then directs research as to the how. of course I have no idea of the sample size ted and/or dan might represent... or how reproduceable their approach might when other variable are considered. 

I suspect??? just a bit of the varing view in regards to the 'treat or not to treat' question is fairly directly related to firm size (hive numbers) and use (purpose for which the bees are kept).


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> I would suggest to you dan that the mixture of the three possibilities (that you list) could get quite complex.


No question about it. I think that many things in our world depend on complex interactions. To isolate one and claim it is the ‘cause’ is often too simplistic. 


tecumseh said:


> as to the last question... it is really about whether you have a desire to approach the problem systemically


I’m a supporter of well designed scientific studies. On the other hand as an individual beekeeper I find myself more limited. I often find myself taking a more generalistic than a ‘systemic’ approach.


tecumseh said:


> what are the possibilities that you have an EXACT history of the bees that are in your hives? or are the bees within your hives 'linage' more a matter of faith?
> and a point of common human behavior.... most folks will never see something they either don't, or will not, look for.


I find it especially interesting that you would question twt’s assertion that his bees aren’t ahb. He lives in an area where they haven’t (yet) migrated. On the other hand you have defended Binford Weaver’s claim that his aren’t. And he produces his bees in an area that has a been ahb territory for quite a while. I don’t think you can have it both ways.


tecumseh said:


> over the years beemandan and twt I have seen a lot of snake oil sold to beekeepers commonly employing the same kind of loose association technique you both seem to favor.


What makes you think I’m selling anything? I’m only pointing out that, in my opinion, if a beekeeper has developed methods that allow him/her to keep bees without chemicals, I’d be the last person to suggest he/she change those methods. And I don’t demand that they offer a SCIENTIFIC explanation for their success.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*Keeping bees alive!*



tecumseh said:


> iddee writes:
> 
> I suspect??? just a bit of the varing view in regards to the 'treat or not to treat' question is fairly directly related to firm size (hive numbers) and use (purpose for which the bees are kept).


Very good point.
I have growers that have come to depend on DEPENDABLE, strong, healthy hives for pollination.
You can see the confidence in their manner not only about our bees, but of the other beekeepers that work with us. I know of many good beekeepers that provide similar quality and service here in Oregon.
On the other hand, we all know a few out there that have a good year here, a bad year there; strong hives here, crashing hives over there....
Growers don't need to be dealing with that. They have their own problems to deal with.
So I do have an area behind my barn for "tinkering" around with a few hives, but as for the rest, they are going to run at full strength, produce nucs and packages, and winter well to do it all over again in the new year.

Also, someone posted earlier on something about treated bees getting "weaker and weaker".
I have seen none of that.
Our bees look really good for almonds. If I see problems, I'll take the blame. I do not blame bees for failure in management.

Speaking of management:
One problem that I see plaguing some beekeepers is that they change to many aspects of their program, every year.
How do you EVER know what works or doesn't if you change everything you do, every year?!!!

We hold very tight procedures and feed and medication regimins.
Rotation is required in some chemical applications, yes. But strict and careful testing is part of that.
For most everything else, if it is working and has worked well for years, be careful with changing anything without thorough testing and documentation.


----------



## tecumseh

beemandan writes:
I find it especially interesting that you would question twt’s assertion that his bees aren’t ahb. He lives in an area where they haven’t (yet) migrated. On the other hand you have defended Binford Weaver’s claim that his aren’t. And he produces his bees in an area that has a been ahb territory for quite a while. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

tecumseh:
perhaps you might wish to reread my 5500 post and point to me where I said Binford Weaver's bees were not africanized (hybridized) or even where I might have suggested that Binford said they there was absolutely no possibility that his bees were not hybridized. I would suggest that where ever twt got his bees there is a definite POSSIBILITY that the initial stock was africanized even if he did get them from B Weaver. ps.... I do believe via experience and more than a bit of chatter with KNOWLEDGEABLE commercial beekeepers that the africanized problem was around a bit longer than some folks might think (taber wrote a bit on his experience which reinforces this view). so even the ploy of... I got them bee 30 years ago and have kept them up 'a holler ever since' might not insure you againist africanized bees.

and really I was not insisting that twt's bee may or may not be hybridized. I was asking what mechanism(s) those that think small cell works (which I take is what both of you utilize?) operates upon. I guess the impression I hold at this time is that small cell is based upon BLIND FAITH and a bit of smoke and mirrows (excellent salemanship by someone else).

then beemandan writes:
What makes you think I’m selling anything? I’m only pointing out that, in my opinion, if a beekeeper has developed methods that allow him/her to keep bees without chemicals, I’d be the last person to suggest he/she change those methods. And I don’t demand that they offer a SCIENTIFIC explanation for their success.

tecumseh:
you seem to have internalized my snake oil salesman comment.... humm. so quite evidently BLIND FAITH works for you.

a couple of Harry snips..
I have growers that have come to depend on DEPENDABLE, strong, healthy hives for pollination.

One problem that I see plaguing some beekeepers is that they change to many aspects of their program, every year.

Rotation is required in some chemical applications, yes. But strict and careful testing is part of that.

tecumseh:
at your size of operation harry I would suspect (experience suggest) that getting past the state scales with a valid health certificate is a primary concern. of course for those of us that need not ship bees across a state line this is a concern that is easily tossed out the window. I would also suspect??? being able to relaible fill contractual agreements with folks that are going to use your services next year and the year that follows would be a fairly high level of concern for anyone that pollinates. 

you second and third snipped sentence is what much of my quite obviously fruitless dialogue points toward. folks that for no better reason than they have been sold the one and true way are now True Believers themselves. well actually they have just BOUGHT into the newest fashion de jour... which will change tomorrow.

and a final Harry snip:
Also, someone posted earlier on something about treated bees getting "weaker and weaker".

tecumseh:
could happen of course. some time (I suspect) the 'weaker and weaker' could be reason and sometime excuse. with the multitude of things that can happen with bees yes this is always a possibility. I cannot image some person who experienced this would not have composed a list of things that might have contributed to the problem. testing of course might toss a thing or so off the list or it might add other possible concerns.

for myself (and likely somewhat a product of my economic background) I pretty much know that what I do today only shows up six months to a year down the road (lagged time effect). so for anything I might attempt any results or success is a "let's wait and see thingee". it is also why I don't (and likely will not) change how I do things in some radical way just to look fashionable or trendy. when I do alter something, I will likely insist on having some idea of HOW it works before I set upon a path of changing anything.


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> and really I was not insisting that twt's bee may or may not be hybridized. I was asking what mechanism(s) those that think small cell works (which I take is what both of you utilize?) operates upon.


No. I don't use small cell and twt has clearly indicated that he doesn't either. I treat some of my hives for varroa. I used Apiguard this season.



tecumseh said:


> I guess the impression I hold at this time is that small cell is based upon BLIND FAITH and a bit of smoke and mirrows (excellent salemanship by someone else).


We're closer to agreement here.

If I understand your general complaint its that if a beekeeper keeps bees without chemical treatments successfully, then they are under some obligation to determine a specific cause for that success? That is my main disagreement in this particular discussion. I don't believe that they have that obligation. Most of us would have some curiousity but no obligation exists...in my opinion. Twt, if my memory serves only pointed out that he doesn't treat his bees. He, like I was not selling....or buying anything...snake oil or otherwise.

If on the other hand someone is promoting a specific method to others then, I'd agree that they need to understand why that particular technique works.


----------



## deknow

tecumseh said:


> .... edison for example (who most folks think of as a great inventor) used the style that you seem?? to be promoting. this means that he had to be willing to test and retest everything that ever came to his mind to approach a solution to the problem. the limitation was that it only allowed mr edison to tackle fairly simple problems (and then only with a great investment in time and resources).


yes, edison is one example of this kind of approach....another might be john chapman (johnny appleseed). breeding for a good apple is as difficult (if not more difficult) than finding the best filament for a light bulb...or even breeding a better bee. apples don't breed true....and you have to wait for a tree to mature to fruiting before even getting preliminary "data".

(i'm leaning heavily on michael pollan here...the first section of 'botany of desire').

john didn't care about 'eating apples' (there were variety of 'old world' varieties available...and grafting was done in those days), but for making hard cider (the only available source of 'sweet' in many areas...and sometimes the only safe thing to drink). because of this, he was happy to use as his seed bank, the piles of seeds outside of cider mills. he traveled ahead of the westward expansion, planting seedlings, and making partnerships with locals who would sell the small trees to settlers moving westward with which to start their own cider orchard...and give him his cut when he came back around.

of the many thousands (millions?) of trees he (and i assume others) planted in this way, a very, very few trees in the resulting orchards produced good eating fruit. it's essentially grafts from these few trees that make up the 'new world apples'. this didn't come from complex computer models, it came from letting this kind of complex genetics do it's work, and be evaluted by humans.

perhaps we need, in addition to people breeding from untreated survivor stock (regardless of cell size), the equivalent of the apple competitions that used to exist....a better way to identify the best this kind of vast breeding program has to offer. an equivalent might be larger breeding operations offering cash prizes for extraordinary hives.

i do agree that the genetics (especially when working with multiple drone fathers) of bees is complicated...perhaps too complicated for us to think that we know enough (or can learn enough in the short term) to manipulate these factors positively.

as i've said before (and will say again), the research we have been doing on the microbial environment inside the hive is fascinating....perhaps more complex and important than the genetics of the bees themselves. the 'soft treatments' like formic acid might be more harmful than some of the 'hard treatments' in this regard. there also seems to be some research that shows that bees fed sugar syrup lack some of the necessary gut bacteria over the winter, whereas those feeding on honey maintain these populations.

wrt africanization, it is well known that the usda supplied breeders in this country with the same genetics used in brazil. wrt africanization in the lusby operation, it is my understanding that 3 labs analyzed the samples...and one of the 3 returned positive for africanization. i don't know the answer about her bees (although i have worked with them), but i do know that if you have a 'lab test' that can't be repeated from one lab to another, it is useless. this seems irrelevant anyways.....who cares. defensive ehb colonies should be culled. defensive ahb colonies should be culled. what do we get from testing for ahb to decide the fate of a hive? it is uncomfortably close to deciding what punishment one should receive for robbing a liquor store based on their skin color....or their degree of 'africanization'.

deknow


----------



## deknow

also, wrt 'science' and 'proving the mechanism'....

we don't have a proven mechanism for how gravity works....it is not magic, it is repeatable and something we can rely on.

wrt small cell...the studies that have been done on this by the 'researchers' have been sorely lacking. given (as others have suggested) that there are likely many interrelated factors involved in bees surviving, it makes no sense to take one isolated aspect and test it in isolation...at least not as a first step.

there is no doubt that the lusby's operation is worth looking at....and sc is just one aspect. why not replicate it as closely as possible to see if as a whole it is reproducible? this operation does seem to work as a whole, so why expect one aspect of it to 'work'...in less than one season no less.

if i were to say that eating earthworms cures cancer (and had some demonstrable examples to demonstrate success), isolating one protein, feeding it to cancer patients, and seeing no positive results proves nothing except that that particular protein in isolation doesn't cure cancer...perhaps the active compound is a different protein...perhaps it's a combination...or perhaps it never works from laboratory raised worms because it's the microbes in from the soil in the gut of fresh dug earthworm that are responsible.

as far as the 'mechanism(s)' by which sc might operate...there are a number of candidates. higher density of bees in the hive/on the comb, shorter capping time (as measured by michael bush), less body weight is easier to fly with equivelent flight muscles, less jgh and/or food placed in the smaller cell. it's worth noting that one would have a hard time naming a human disease who's effects aren't worsened via being overweight...that an overweight human population is not likely to be as healthy as one that is not. in this sense, to an overweight human from an overweight population, losing a few pounds is indeed a 'magic bullet' for many of their health problems.

another note (since probiotics were mentioned earlier in this thread) is that jeff pettis in a recent talk to our county bee club noted that there was some work going on wrt probiotics...the preliminary results showed that they did have a positive effect on caged bees...but no effect on actual colonies of bees.

deknow

pasted here is a recent post from dee on the organic list:



> Since Dr Loper sampled my honeybees last fall for analysis for Dr Bromenshenk
> I decided to give him a phone call and invite him out with 4 more yards to
> work thru so he could see how bees were doing and timing would be similar to
> last fall in a way, as last saw the yards in August and was setting them up to
> continue coming on and try to get fall honey/stores for wintering successfully.
> 
> 
> Figured this would be the polite thing to do, not knowing how many beekeepers
> after sampling invite same people doing work back next year for updates and
> comparisons to see if situation improved or worsened.
> 
> Also I had informed you all here that I had worked first two yards and gotten
> a barrel of honey apiece.....................
> 
> Anyway we worked the bees and he liked what he saw,............and seemed to
> agree with me I have NO reason to give in on what I do as my bees seemed
> healthy......saw no foul, chalk, sickness etc, I had reused same equipment, and
> yes....he helped me take another barrel of honey or should I say Dr Loper helped
> me get in 23 deeps of honey for the day. Still have to extract over weekend.
> 
> Also two of these yards were were I had reported here 5 frames of brood and
> bees had been taken from 3rd deep back in May thereabouts which made them
> harder to work back up.................and got me buying that 38 special
> smith/wesson I talked about getting mad for awhile.
> 
> So what is CCD for getting over???..... for organicbeekeepers with zero
> treatments, and not doing artificial feeds (which I don't)........etc.??? Why
> are
> other beekeepers hurting?


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> tecumseh:
> you seem to have internalized my snake oil salesman comment.... humm. so quite evidently BLIND FAITH works for you.


I love it when you use these meaningless, semi-coherent phrases. It sounds cool but just doesn't have any substance.
Absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## NasalSponge

Apart form the personal attacks, this has been a fascinating read.


----------



## beemandan

NasalSponge said:


> Apart form the personal attacks,


How did I miss those? Sheesh!! Now I've got to go back and read all of the posts again.


----------



## TwT

for the record I got most of my bee's from removals, I did about 3 years ago buy some PBA queens from Dann Purvis to cross into my removal hives.


----------



## tecumseh

deknow writes:
yes, edison is one example of this kind of approach....another might be john chapman (johnny appleseed). breeding for a good apple is as difficult (if not more difficult) than finding the best filament for a light bulb...or even breeding a better bee. apples don't breed true....and you have to wait for a tree to mature to fruiting before even getting preliminary "data".


tecumseh:
jared diamond 'guns, germs and steel' talks about apples directly and the problems of determing productive offspring when the genetic are not of the simplist form (dominant/recessive). I think it was apples where grafting (sound familar) became the preferred mechanism for replicating productive individuals.

beemandan writes:
I love it when you use these meaningless, semi-coherent phrases.

tecumseh:
I find it curious that I can make a general statement about things that have (frequently) occurred in the long distant past (likely before some here were born) and a few souls alway seem to think I am in some way talking about them? seems a bit me, me, me.. to me. 

I find it curious that some folks don't mind stating that I said something that I absolutely did not say and then seem unremorseful about their embellishments. then a few pages later, the pattern is repeated again. how absolutely unclever.


----------



## deknow

tecumseh said:


> deknow writes:
> I think it was apples where grafting (sound familar) became the preferred mechanism for replicating productive individuals.


this was entirely my point. in john chapman's time, grafting of apples was known and practiced...if one wanted eating apples, this is what one did. by planting seeds instead, there were enough individual combinations that some stood out as good eating apples...despite not really trying to produce eating apples. "rolling the genetic dice" as pollan puts it.

this is where we got the 'new world apples'....not from grafting...grafting is how these new apples were propagated.

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

I can never figure out why AHB always comes up in a discussion of small cell. Maybe Dee's are, maybe they are not. Mine are not. No other small cell beekeepers I know of are.

If more of you would set up an observation hive, put some bees on Honey Super Cell or small cell foundation, measure some cell size, measure some capping and post-capping times we could use some actual observations in this discussion instead of speculation. A few people on Beesource have and the only results I've seen posted by anyone, correspond with my observations (and Huber's). Shorter on both counts by a day. Did anyone ever do this on small cell with different results?

Also, just because you don't know a mechanism doesn't mean something doesn't work. They are still working out the mechanism of how aspirin works and weren't even in the ballpark of explaining it in the 1970's and yet humans all over the planet have been using it (in the form of willow bark) for as far back as we can find records in every culture. If we insisted that no one could actually be getting help and no one could use it until we could explain it there were literally Trillions of headaches that would have gone untreated and the people would have had to just suffer because we couldn't explain it. Just because people didn't know the mechanism did not mean it did not work nor did it mean it was "magic".

All through time you could eat food that is less processed and stay healthier than eating food that was more processed. What is the mechanism? There are probably many including removing things that contain nutrition (wheat germ etc.) and removing things that don't contain any nutrition but that change how you digestion works (fiber). The "scientific" view would hold that since fiber has no nutritive value it can't be important.  I hear statements like this all the time. But reality is it works and always has regardless of whether or not we understand it.


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh:
*you seem to have internalized my snake oil salesman comment.... humm. so quite evidently BLIND FAITH works for you.*

beemandan writes:
I love it when you use these meaningless, semi-coherent phrases.

tecumseh:
I find it curious that I can make a general statement about things that have (frequently) occurred in the long distant past (likely before some here were born) and a few souls alway seem to think I am in some way talking about them? seems a bit me, me, me.. to me. 

That was a general statement about things that have occurred in the distant past? You weren’t referring to me? How could I have gotten so confused? (or at least one of us is confused)

No remorse on my part for making untrue statements? I’ll tell you what. I don’t plan to reread your 5500 posts looking for clues but if you will simply state that you believe that Binford Weaver is selling Africanized bees and queens, then I’ll happily apologize. Just a simple yes or no will do.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> I can never figure out why AHB always comes up in a discussion of small cell.


You're kidding, right? Lets see. Dee Lusby started the small cell movement. She is located in an area that is well established with AHB. The natural sized cell for AHB is likely around 4.9mm. Its pretty hard to separate small cell from AHB given those points...wouldn't you say?


----------



## iddee

Hey, Guys, look what I found. I bet you didn't know it was closed, did you?

http://www.beesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=244


----------



## beemandan

Hey Dr Tec....I'm thinkin' that we've had a couple of posts deleted.....I reckon that we're gettin' too frisky for the neighborhood.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> You're kidding, right? Lets see. Dee Lusby started the small cell movement. She is located in an area that is well established with AHB. The natural sized cell for AHB is likely around 4.9mm. Its pretty hard to separate small cell from AHB given those points...wouldn't you say?


....yet, look at the timing. the lusby's started their look at cell sizes and regression in 88/89, and were already seeing improvements _before_ the arrival of ahb in their area. most of the 'testing' for ahb in that time was by size...so it's interesting that the 'ahb' was first seen in the vicinity of these hives that were already (before ahb) on smaller cell sizes.

also, my understanding is that when tested by 3 labs worldwide, only the one in the u.s. returned positive for africanization. what good is a lab test that can't be repeated from one lab to another?

deknow


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> ....yet, look at the timing. the lusby's started their look at cell sizes and regression in 88/89, and were already seeing improvements _before_ the arrival of ahb in their area. most of the 'testing' for ahb in that time was by size...so it's interesting that the 'ahb' was first seen in the vicinity of these hives that were already (before ahb) on smaller cell sizes.
> 
> also, my understanding is that when tested by 3 labs worldwide, only the one in the u.s. returned positive for africanization. what good is a lab test that can't be repeated from one lab to another?
> 
> deknow


I will suggest that ahb were probably in the Lusby's area before they were confirmed there. I would also suggest that it'd be very difficult, if not impossible to have pure european bees from open mated queens in an area with a large feral ahb population. 
It was my understanding that the other labs were unable to unequivocably state that her bees weren't ahb. Am I mistaken?

Having said all of that, my reply to MB was only to challenge his statement that he couldn't understand the association people made between small cell and ahb. He really does understand, I'm sure......


----------



## beemandan

BULLSEYE BILL said:


> 'Don't promote what you don't intend'. Maybe I can't explain it but, 'It work's for me'.  I hope it helps you.


Not to put too fine a point on it but I'm thinkin' its more like 'Do not pretend what you do not intend'


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> I will suggest that ahb were probably in the Lusby's area before they were confirmed there.


...if it were anywhere but tucson...a place where there was (and is) an active bee lab that stood to get funding to deal with the ahb "problem". also, at that time, the lab (dr erickson specifically) was looking at the "lus bee" wrt to thelytoky...published in '91. it would be hard to imagine that if these were in fact ahb that no one at the lab noticed.
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/bsmay1991.htm



> I would also suggest that it'd be very difficult, if not impossible to have pure european bees from open mated queens in an area with a large feral ahb population.
> It was my understanding that the other labs were unable to unequivocably state that her bees weren't ahb. Am I mistaken?


i haven't seen the primary data (lab reports), so i can't really say....but if you (or your child) were diagnosed with plague from 1 lab, and 2 other labs couldn't confirm or deny, would you assume you had plague? what would you think of the lab tests that couldn't be replicated from one lab to another?



> Having said all of that, my reply to MB was only to challenge his statement that he couldn't understand the association people made between small cell and ahb. He really does understand, I'm sure......


understood...but remember, there are far more beekeepers that have read michael bush's website than have read dee's writings on small cell....and michael is not in an ahb area, and uses/has used all kinds of stock on sc with similar results...

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

>You're kidding, right? Lets see. Dee Lusby started the small cell movement. She is located in an area that is well established with AHB. The natural sized cell for AHB is likely around 4.9mm. Its pretty hard to separate small cell from AHB given those points...wouldn't you say?

There are several thousand people at least that are doing small cell. ONE of them (Dee) MIGHT have AHB and was doing it LONG before there was any intimation that there were AHB in the area. Almost all the rest of the small cell beekeepers live in areas where there are no AHB and there is no indication they have AHB. No, I am not kidding. I don't understand why the subject comes up at all. Are the rest of us succeeding because Dee has AHB?


----------



## tecumseh

twt writes:
for the record I got most of my bee's from removals

tecumseh:
I use to do a good bit of that myself... now with the shb, success in doing this is a bit more (a large understatement) difficult. so I have curtailed that method of obtaining stock.

when I did removals I always had a sample tested by the state bee lab. these sample (over time there must have been 30 or so) represent what I suspect is a pretty good estimate of afb influence in my area. about 1 in 12 showed some signs (degree) of hybridization. I never captured a true ahb swarm here. 

I was tempted to keep some of these (in one isolated yard) but a very personal experience reinforced the notion that I really didn't want to do that. 

I really don't know what PVA queens might be? however..... if you had simply made splits from the original stock this would have been more like natural selection... when you brought in the pva stock you drifted away from being a 'purist' in regards to natural selection.

another [edit by mod] says:
'IGNORE is your friend'

tecumseh:
perhaps so... it also firmly reinforces the notion that some folks confuse a monologue with a dialogue. quite evidently some folks ideas or their presentation of idea are really not viable in real air.

and just for the record... after some fairly extensive TESTING to determine disposition I would suggest that the season of the years has some to considerable influence on the breeding of naturally mated queens in afb or the edges of afb territory. there does appear to be some positive effect from all those commercial bees that set around me as does the process of reving the girls up early for a bit of early season splitting and queen rearing. fall queen rearing appears to be a bit more problematic here.


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> it would be hard to imagine that if these were in fact ahb that no one at the lab noticed.


Why would that surprise you? 


deknow said:


> i haven't seen the primary data (lab reports), so i can't really say....but if you (or your child) were diagnosed with plague from 1 lab, and 2 other labs couldn't confirm or deny, would you assume you had plague? what would you think of the lab tests that couldn't be replicated from one lab to another?


I may be absolutely wrong on this but I think DrT may have pointed out the difference between testing for plague and ahb. I expect that analysis for the plague (or most human diseases) is a question of finding any of the causative agent. AHB testing is probably a question of 'degee of hybridization'. I expect that the results can be 'replicated from one lab to another' but its the interpretation of those results that varies. Again, this is only a layman's opinion....so please don't innundate me with studies and quotes. Just tell me I'm mistaken.
When any recognized lab states that Dee's bees are not africanized, she'll be shouting it from the rooftop.... in my opinion.


----------



## tecumseh

somebody writes:
Just tell me I'm mistaken.

tecumseh:
you are mistaken.


----------



## tecumseh

somebody writes:
I reckon that we're gettin' too frisky for the neighborhood.

tecumseh:
evidently I missed that one.... and yes I suspect you are correct.

ps... just to be accurate, I ain't no doctor. the only doctor in the house is mizz tecumseh... who is also in real time and experience the 'science' expert in the household. my approach (talent) has always been more about pragmatizim and application.


----------



## sierrabees

<bees are not humans. i love my bees...but i'm not attached to any one particular genetic line (or hive) of bees. i see losing a hive as progress towards better genetics. this is a long term game, not a short term (ie, 'this year's harvest') one.>

Have you read the book Collapse by Diamond? It makes it pretty obvious that it isn't in the human genetics to play the long term game. We are programed for the now and once we're gone who cares what we left behind.


----------



## sierrabees

<a pragmatic approach. a lot of science begins as alagory (story telling or some might call it discriptive science) which then directs research as to the how. of course I have no idea of the sample size ted and/or dan might represent... or how reproduceable their approach might when other variable are considered.>

The biggest differance between science and real life is that in real life you never can control and can seldome know all the variables. In my experience the most influencial variable in any research is the personal bias of the researcher.


----------



## sierrabees

<and really I was not insisting that twt's bee may or may not be hybridized. I was asking what mechanism(s) those that think small cell works (which I take is what both of you utilize?) operates upon. I guess the impression I hold at this time is that small cell is based upon BLIND FAITH and a bit of smoke and mirrows (excellent salemanship by someone else).>

I'm not sure of the source, but I believe I read something on M. Bush's site that had a reasonable hypothesis for a mechanism behind small cell. If I have the source wrong, I'm sure anyone with enough interest can find it. As I remember it the hypothesis revolved around reduced time in the larval stage providing less time for mite reproduction during each reproductive cycle of the bees.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Why would that surprise you?


well, labs live on funding. "problems" make funding happen. the tucson bee lab stood to gain quite a bit of funding by finding ahb in their area....which is the same area where dees bees were/are. in the cited 1991 study, dr erickson (who i believe was in charge of the lab at the time) talked about working directly with dees bees....even assigned them their own name, "lus bee", and published results that showed them having some differing characteristics from other bees in the study. it isn't as if this lab wasn't both looking for ahb in the area _and_ working with dee and ed's bees.



> AHB testing is probably a question of 'degee of hybridization'. I expect that the results can be 'replicated from one lab to another' but its the interpretation of those results that varies.


well, one must look at what tests were used...and what they mean. any investigation into 'degree of africanization', one must first have a definition of what 'africanized' is. these tests...whether they are FABIS (where wing veneration is measured) or really looking at dna (which seems to be talked about more than it is actually done), one must compare the results with a 'database'. what wing venerations are 'african'...what genes are 'african'...and what is 'european'. even the usda says that these databases must be fine tuned to the location.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/fabismanual.htm


> The sensitivity of this technique necessitates a warning. Ideally, users should verify that the European bees in their area are similar to the European bees in this study before these procedures are used to detect Africanization. If the European bees are not similar, especially if they are smaller, locally collected baseline data may be used to develop new discriminant functions or at least be considered in evaluating results. Such new functions would be more appropriate to the users' needs.


note especially the implication above that 'smaller' bees (uhhh, like dees sc bees, or the feral bees that dr erickson refers to in 1989 as being smaller than commercial stock in the area) require 'consideration'....and also:



> ...the accuracy of the method has been verified for European bees from the U. S. and Africanized bees from Venezuela.


note that THE USDA DOES NOT CLAIM TO HAVE VERIFIED FABIS FOR AHB IN THE U.S.

either way..even if real dna tests are done, one must really know quite a bit more about the dna in the population than we actually know. remember, all these 'races' of bees are part of one species.

...and again, the idea that a hive defensive enough to 'test for ahb' has it's fate resting on the results of the test is silly. there is a lot of accusationtions about dee's bees that gets tossed around. i've worked with them, and so has my wife. i care not what the wing venerations look like under a microscope...i care about their survivability, their productivity (for both of these...see my previous post), and their temperament.

deknow


----------



## sierrabees

I remember a post from Odfrank a couple years ago that he had big time losses from CCD on both his small cell and non small cell hives. If your out there Oliver, it would be interesting to know if you are still trying small cell or if you have given up on it. I'd like to see your opinions on some of the ideas in this thread.


----------



## tecumseh

deknow writes:
...and again, the idea that a hive defensive enough to 'test for ahb' has it's fate resting on the results of the test is silly. there is a lot of accusationtions about dee's bees that gets tossed around. i've worked with them, and so has my wife. i care not what the wing venerations look like under a microscope...i care about their survivability, their productivity (for both of these...see my previous post), and their temperament.


tecumseh:
personal experience.. I like that.

testing: to the best of my current information...first their is the fabris score and then their is a dna test. the fabris score* delinates obvious european from questionable samples. the dna test then gives you a 'likely hood' of hybridization after the data of the above two test are pumped into an data based and crunched. the test is considered 'conservative' and leans in the direction of known european data base markers. what is normally passed on the final analysis is a classification system.... european, hyrid european-african, hybrid african-european. the likelyhood statement necessarily only applies to the latter two classifications.

*the fabris score are physical measurement and nourishment issues will directly effect these....

the criticism (which I was told) was held by the lady here who developed the bee brood hormone... is that their is no correlation between any of the above test and defensive behavior. which does make some sense in that even pure europeans bees (the german and cypris bees for example) had reputations of being fairly hostile. I do suspect that the african bees bloodlines were here earlier than some might think... and if so distribution may be a bit wider than some might think possible.


----------



## Robert Brenchley

I've had another complaint about this thread; that makes three so far. It only seems to be the odd one or two people making some off-colour comments, and I'd hate to have to bring the thread to an end over something so petty. Soplease will those people be a bit more careful what they post? If in doubt, leave it ten minutes, and post when you've cooled down. A reasoned attack on someone's argument is fine, that's what it's about. Attacks on the person are never fine.


----------



## beemandan

Robert Brenchley said:


> It only seems to be the odd one or two people making some off-colour comments,


Who are you calling odd?


----------



## odfrank

*here i am*



sierrabees said:


> I remember a post from Odfrank a couple years ago that he had big time losses from CCD on both his small cell and non small cell hives. If your out there Oliver, it would be interesting to know if you are still trying small cell or if you have given up on it. I'd like to see your opinions on some of the ideas in this thread.


I produced my first crop on small cell bees this year after years of trying. Three hives, one of which was queenless at extraction time and combined with the other two, produced 370 lbs. This was at a small cell only site. 

I hived two swarms on small cell, which at first thrived and then died out about September, one leaving a crop. 

I restocked my Gargantuan small cell hive (14- 17.25" square frames) and re- did the combs they built poorly last year before dying. They are thriving, but made no crop. My Gargantuan large cell hive made about 200 lbs. (not yet harvested).

I have a small cell hive at another site I have not checked in months. 

I have four deeps of small cell combs from dead outs stacked on other hives. I have several boxes of small cell comb I drew out this year as honey supers. The small cell hives die out as much or more than the large cell hives. With the amount of comb that has to be rejected, and the fact that they do not thrive any better than large cell, I have in 4? years failed to see an advantage in small cell.


----------



## beemandan

From a recent exchange with MB. I’m all for experimenting. I tried small cell myself. I object to the small cell advocates who tell new beekeepers how simple it is to convert.


beemandan said:


> You and I have had this dialog before. Either I didn’t make enough of an impression for you to remember or you just want me to repeat myself. My experience with small cell could not have been more different than yours. I have a diverse mix of races in my yards, Italians, Carniolans, ferals, Russians, etc. Most of my bees are a mix of those. My bees have no pedigree. I read Michael Bush’s recommendations to ‘move your bees to small cell and stop treating. Its as simple as that.’ I did as you advised. Some never successfully managed 5.1mm. Of those that did, many could never get the ‘hang’ of 4.9. Of those that figured out 4.9, many ‘forgot’ by the next season. The comb they drew was a disaster, unsuitable for anything in many cases. I put some drawn small cell in the hives that couldn’t draw 5.1 and in several cases the queens refused to lay in the small cell. For the first time ever I had EFB-like symptoms. Brown, dying larvae. Only in my ‘regressed’ hives. I replaced queens to no avail. Those colonies limped along for a season and a half before I broke down, and for the first time ever used terramycin in my own hives. All the while my conventional cell hives boomed along.
> 
> Of course you're also forgetting the latest. It'll take years (how many depends on who you ask) for your small cell bees to become effective at managing varroa. Also, there can't be any conventional hives within your small cell hive's forage range. Otherwise the mites migrate to the small cell hives.
> 
> Do you really think this is the kind of stuff you want a newcomer to have to add to the lessons they need to learn?


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> I object to the small cell advocates who tell new beekeepers how simple it is to convert.


i don't think it's simple...it's a pain, and i think the best/fastest way is also not cheap (ideally, a package on 20 frames of hsc to get them regressed).

that said, it's much less work if a beginner does this at the outset rather than starting with 5.4mm and then converting. our own experience (based on several seasons of trial and error) is that we couldn't keep our bees alive without treatments until we regressed. given that there are many new beekeepers (at least in our area) who don't want to treat, it's a shame when they come to us towards the end of their first or second season wanting help with mites, etc....and given our experience and their situation, there isn't anything we can really suggest (outside of the conventional treatments...which they don't want to use).

is small cell the answer? i dunno. i suspect (based on research we have been doing) that the microbial culture in the hive is really important for colony health...and that 'soft treatments' like formic acid are particularly harmful in this respect. it could well be that much of the sc success is due to keeping the hive treatment free for long enough for a stable (and mutually beneficial) microbial culture to be established (much like establishing the microbial balance in an aquarium)....without interfering with treatments, artificial feeds, etc. perhaps the process of regression is simply 'marking time' while this culture is established. 

regardless, i know there are several people on this forum who aren't treating at all with lc...but what seems to be missing from these accounts is a reproducible method for others to follow. the 'sc regression' method has been tried by many around the world...not with universal success, but with many being successful. what the important factors are i can't say...but the sc regression is the closest thing to a reproducible 'recipie' for keeping bees without treatments we have.

deknow


----------



## Joseph Clemens

sierrabees said:


> I'm not sure of the source, but I believe I read something on M. Bush's site that had a reasonable hypothesis for a mechanism behind small cell. If I have the source wrong, I'm sure anyone with enough interest can find it. As I remember it the hypothesis revolved around reduced time in the larval stage providing less time for mite reproduction during each reproductive cycle of the bees.


I believe the small-cell hypothesis is that disruption of the mites life-cycle happens due to both the duration the larvae spend in their cell prior to capping, and the duration spent in the sealed cell prior to the adult bee emerging. That the cells were capped before the pheromone signal, which the mites were anticipating, could develop (a signal that indicated the cells were soon to be sealed); and that the small-cell brood matured and emerges too soon for the mites to complete their own reproductive cycle.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

deknow said:


> i don't think it's simple...it's a pain, and i think the best/fastest way is also not cheap (ideally, a package on 20 frames of hsc to get them regressed).
> 
> that said, it's much less work if a beginner does this at the outset rather than starting with 5.4mm and then converting. our own experience (based on several seasons of trial and error) is that we couldn't keep our bees alive without treatments until we regressed.(snip)
> 
> 
> 
> regardless, i know there are several people on this forum who aren't treating at all with lc...but what seems to be missing from these accounts is a reproducible method for others to follow. (snip)
> 
> sc regression is the closest thing to a reproducible 'recipie' for keeping bees without treatments we have.
> 
> deknow


I think you are spot on with many of your observations but what is glaring obvious to me is the path that led to the success. Looking back to my experiences and listening to most of the posters that have had success I see that we have commonalities that bind our results.

Yes SC plays a part in it, not in all cases, but the big difference is the selection of the stock. Myself, JC, MB, BW, BB, and others have stated the use of feral bees in their root stock. I believe that we have been somewhat lucky in the helping hand that we have given mother nature in the natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The recurring theme of using bees from swarms, cut-outs, and propagating the bees in our yards that did not die is a major factor. I also believe that there has been a reoccurance in postings of mild treatments in the initial stages that was dropped soon after the bees showed that they could survive. We all had significant losses in the first years that seemed to lessen to about a 10% average winter loss later on.

There have also been those that have tried boosting their stock with stock from breeding programs like the NWC, Minn Hygienic, or Weaver, but I don't see that as a major part of the recipe.

Another factor is the keeping of clean hives, personally I like to get that old nasty wax out of there so not to promote breeding beds for pathogens.

In review;
Feral and or survivor stock.
Perhaps inbreeding from some known stock.
Mild treatments when necessary for a limited time.
Clean hives.
And the major factor, sticking through the hard times with major losses until they stabilize.


----------



## adamf

*Not Rocket Science by any means*



BULLSEYE BILL said:


> Myself, JC, MB, BW, BB, and others have stated the use of feral bees in their root stock.


What is a "feral" bee? One must assume that the "feral" population and the tolerant population are dynamicly related after several years of intense selection pressure (NOT TREATING).



BULLSEYE BILL said:


> In review;
> Feral and or survivor stock.
> Perhaps inbreeding from some known stock.
> Mild treatments when necessary for a limited time.
> Clean hives. And the major factor, sticking through the hard times with major losses until they stabilize.


Breeding mite-tolerant bees that will survive with low or no treatments is really straighforward. One simple rule has to be followed: mating control, either through isolation or the use of II. Once you have that covered, only breed from stock that performs well without treatment.

Again, here's a url to work that was conducted and concieved for *beekeepers *to move toward varroa tolerance:

http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/publ/tolerant2.html

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## beemandan

deknow, If it were presented to beginning beekeepers as you described in your last post I'd wouldn't be so troubled. 
Sadly, I have yet to see it presented to those newcomers in anything so honestly and fairly worded.


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

"it could well be that much of the sc success is due to keeping the hive treatment free for long enough for a stable (and mutually beneficial) microbial culture to be established (much like establishing the microbial balance in an aquarium)....without interfering with treatments, artificial feeds, etc. perhaps the process of regression is simply 'marking time' while this culture is established................."


Dean,

I think you have found the common bond with those of us LC who are finding success.


I don't treat

Jack


----------



## TwT

deknow said:


> it's much less work if a beginner does this at the outset rather than starting with 5.4mm and then converting. our own experience (based on several seasons of trial and error) is that we couldn't keep our bees alive without treatments until we regressed.


wouldn't they have to start with small cell bee's for them not to convert over? very, very few sale small cell bee's and most new beeks don't buy them, any others would be converting wouldn't you say?


----------



## BEES4U

*Off Shore Islands*

Place Avalon located 16+ miles off shore from Los Angeles.

I went out to this island for some field trips in the spring and noticed the local honey bees, Italian stock, working the local flora. I do not know if the bees are still viable or not.
There was a large northern California queen breder that was trying to get permission to use one of the outer islands in the Channel Islands about 40 years+ago. It did not work out.


Breeding mite-tolerant bees that will survive with low or no treatments is really straighforward. One simple rule has to be followed: mating control, either through isolation or the use of II. Once you have that covered, only breed from stock that performs well without treatment.

It's going to take some time to get the right genetics into an area before you can get any results.
Thats why I flood the mating area with desirable drones to off-set the others.
I know of a large queen breeding operation located in northern California that uses over 500 Pierco green drone combs to have some control over proper mating.
You have to remember that the drone producing hives are just as important as your cell builders!
VHS is a very important way to go in flooding the DCA's
We just do not have a "silver bullet". :thumbsup:But, we do have IPM and that's a way to go into the future.
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## deknow

TwT said:


> wouldn't they have to start with small cell bee's for them not to convert over? very, very few sale small cell bee's and most new beeks don't buy them, any others would be converting wouldn't you say?


....i didn't say they wouldn't have to regress, or 'convert over'...they do. the point is, if you are starting from a package (no comb), it's easier to dump them on hsc from the outset than to start with 5.4mm foundation, then try to regress...the more lc comb and equipment one has, the more work it is to regress the bees.

if one starts with 2 deep boxes of hsc, uses queen excluders on all entrances to keep them from absconding until there is capped brood present, and feed until they have some decent stores (remember, since starting with fully drawn comb, you don't need to feed for comb building, just for stores and brood rearing). this is pretty straightforward, even for a beginner...and a pretty good chance that one could get some honey crop the first year (since the comb building for the first 2 deeps is eliminated).

my gut tells me the following:

1. sc bees have advantages over lc...that the process of getting the bees off treatments is easier with sc bees. there are enough examples of putting commercial stock (not feral or survivor stock) on sc with no treatments that are successful (remember, michael bush has done this on many occasions...in addition to his use of feral stock). so a quick regression to sc (with hsc) gives a bit of a head start for what follows.

2. the genetics of the bees are probably less important than the makeup of the hive's microbial culture for keeping bees without treatments. treatments (and even feeding sugar) interfere with establishing this culture. one must stop treating, and do nothing to simply 'save the bees' that will affect the microbial culture. this is why starting by regressing to sc seems to help.

deknow


----------



## adamf

*Isolated Mating Areas*



BEES4U said:


> Place Avalon located 16+ miles off shore from Los Angeles.
> I went out to this island for some field trips in the spring and noticed the local honey bees, Italian stock, working the local flora. I do not know if the bees are still viable or not.
> There was a large northern California queen breder that was trying to get permission to use one of the outer islands in the Channel Islands about 40 years+ago. It did not work out.


There was a fellow here in MD the mid-90's who was going to use an island in the Chesepeake bay for his mating area. Other have proposed using barges moored more than 2 miles out in the water, as mating stations. That always sounded interesting! Working bees on a barge.

Good call about the drone population--as much attention needs to go into your drone production colonies and their placement as your queen operation to move a population toward being tolerant. The "Tuscon Recipe" breeding described in the paper I cited last post, was performed in a very isolated area in Arizona.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## tecumseh

deknow writes:
my gut tells me the following:

1. sc bees have advantages over lc...that the process of getting the bees off treatments is easier with sc bees. there are enough examples of putting commercial stock (not feral or survivor stock) on sc with no treatments that are successful (remember, michael bush has done this on many occasions...in addition to his use of feral stock). so a quick regression to sc (with hsc) gives a bit of a head start for what follows.

2. the genetics of the bees are probably less important than the makeup of the hive's microbial culture for keeping bees without treatments. treatments (and even feeding sugar) interfere with establishing this culture. one must stop treating, and do nothing to simply 'save the bees' that will affect the microbial culture. this is why starting by regressing to sc seems to help.

teucmseh:
sometimes when you gut tells you something, that something is 'it's time to eat'.

in regards to 1.

how can something you not do be easier one way or the other? I am not certain what you mean (where is the line is drawn) in regards to 'commercial stock' (ie... what does that term mean to you)?

in regards to 2.

why would feeding (there could be a number of options here) interfer with microbial population within the hive? just casually, sounds a bit far fetched.

it would seem to me (at this point in time) we know only a little about the feeding requirements of bees... even less about microbial population within a hive. although information in this regards is limit (I suspect?) my guess is they are likely some that are beneficial and some that are not. the latter (bad microbes) may be easier to recognize and are most likely better known than the first.


----------



## deknow

tecumseh said:


> how can something you not do be easier one way or the other? I am not certain what you mean (where is the line is drawn) in regards to 'commercial stock' (ie... what does that term mean to you)?


i'm confused (and perhaps i confused you). if bees on sc have even a 1 or 2% advantage over lc bees, then regressing them to sc size before discontinuing treatments may well translate into a higher rate of success...a larger number of colonies surviving long enough to establish a stable microbial culture.



> why would feeding (there could be a number of options here) interfer with microbial population within the hive? just casually, sounds a bit far fetched.


well, for one, the ph of sugar syrup (and/or hfcs) is different than that of honey. there is a study (not yet published, but mentioned in a few places) that shows that colonies overwintering on sugar syrup loose some of the microbes that live in their gut over the winter. this might have long term consequences...or it might just affect the wintering cluster until it can re-innocculate it'sself. this is hardly far fetched.



> it would seem to me (at this point in time) we know only a little about the feeding requirements of bees... even less about microbial population within a hive. although information in this regards is limit (I suspect?) my guess is they are likely some that are beneficial and some that are not. the latter (bad microbes) may be easier to recognize and are most likely better known than the first.


stay tuned...lots of information (more than you think is known) is forthcoming in ramona's talk at the nebraska conference. the 14th is the last day to register...so get on it!

deknow


----------



## NashBeek

*I don't treat*

Guy's;
In my opinion this dead horse has been beaten to death, I just started back keeping Bee's after a 20 year absence and I read several and numerous books and as a new beginner i did not think about what cell size to use but what race was most resistance to mites.
Michael Bush, Bullseye Bill, Riverrat and Iddee are the ones that I look to for information. these guys have about 4000 more post than either of you so who are you going to believe?


----------



## beemandan

Lee Womack said:


> Michael Bush, Bullseye Bill, Riverrat and Iddee are the ones that I look to for information. these guys have about 4000 more post than either of you so who are you going to believe?


You base credibility on the number of posts they've made? I aint even going to waste my breath.


----------



## NashBeek

*I don't Treat*

Beemandan;
I used the number of post that these men have as an indicator of there knowledge about Beekeeping and their service to this Forum. I am glad that you are not going to waste your breathe because what you keep ranting about is boring and you think that you are the know it all of Beekeeping!:doh:


----------



## TwT

Lee Womack said:


> Beemandan;
> I used the number of post that these men have as an indicator of there knowledge about Beekeeping and their service to this Forum. I am glad that you are not going to waste your breathe because what you keep ranting about is boring and you think that you are the know it all of Beekeeping!:doh:



beemandan might have been keeping bee's for many years and never used the internet much before and just logged on to this site not long ago, and you are going to judge a person by this???:no: , there is 2st and 3rd year beekeepers here with a few thousand post, you should listen to them also :scratch:  I am sorry but that is the worst reasoning I heard on this site yet..... them guys are good and know what they are doing but does that make one right just because they said it? every one lives in different location so and some things work a little differently.


----------



## NashBeek

TwT; I said it was a good indicator of their knowledge and since most are Moderators and are trusted by Barry I think that's a reasonable assumption. You are right the number of post indicates nothing in itself, you might not even know anything about Beekeeping you have over 1300 post but personally I'm going to listen to Iddee, MB and the moderators and who knows you might even come up with a good Idea!


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Lee Womack said:


> Guy's;
> 
> Michael Bush, Bullseye Bill, Riverrat and Iddee are the ones that I look to for information. these guys have about 4000 more post than either of you so who are you going to believe?


Now that was funny. lol


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

Just building up my "posts" number


----------



## Tom G. Laury

*I've been called*

Dumber than a post


----------



## deknow

Jack Grimshaw said:


> Just building up my "posts" number


...pretty soon you will be authorized to talk to yourself 

deknow


----------



## keystonepaul

I've got nothin to add. My first bee will be, well, my first bee. and if I stick to one bee I'll have a few more posts than bees!! keystonepaul


----------



## odfrank

deknow;stay tuned...lots of information (more than you think is known) is forthcoming in ramona's talk at the nebraska conference. the 14th is the last day to register...so get on it!deknow[/quote said:


> What are you're and Ramona's beekeeping background, education and qualifications (to be talking at a conference)? I only know that you have worked bees with Dee Lusby.


----------



## sierrabees

<why would feeding (there could be a number of options here) interfer with microbial population within the hive? just casually, sounds a bit far fetched.>

In virtually all vertibrate species changes in diet change the population ballance of the gut bacteria. It is reasonable that something similar would happen in honey bees. The collection of pollen and nector exposes the bees to a wide range of bacteria which eventually would end up populating the brood cells. Narrowing that range by feeding, therefore reducing the amount of worker time in their natural outside environment certainly must effect the bacterial ballance. I doubt that enough is known to say if those effects are positive or negative, but in the last century man has proven his ability to generate negative effects exceeds his ability to generate positive effects on the environment.


----------



## deknow

> The collection of pollen and nector exposes the bees to a wide range of bacteria which eventually would end up populating the brood cells.


the spirit of the above is correct, but the specifics are off a bit. many of the microbes that are part of the pollen fermentation process are not found in pollen, and nectar is virtually sterile....the bees inoculate with bacteria, fungi, molds, yeasts, etc. 

the larva has one total defication just before pupating...not before this point so it doesn't soil it's food supply. this leaves the developing bee pretty much sterile...it starts to pick up microbes as it emerges, and is inoculated by other bees from sharing food and the environment.

in any case, ...this is really the tip of the microbial iceberg. we will post much more about this after the conference.

deknow


----------



## deknow

odfrank said:


> What are you're and Ramona's...qualifications (to be talking at a conference)?


we were invited.

deknow


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*Now I'm the wiser.*



Lee Womack said:


> Guy's;
> In my opinion this dead horse has been beaten to death, I just started back keeping Bee's after a 20 year absence and I read several and numerous books and as a new beginner i did not think about what cell size to use but what race was most resistance to mites.
> Michael Bush, Bullseye Bill, Riverrat and Iddee are the ones that I look to for information. these guys have about 4000 more post than either of you so who are you going to believe?


Thanks for all of the input, fellow beekeepers!
But why did you make me wait for over 150 posts to get the final answer?
If I had only saved all of the years of time and energy of maintaining colony health....
All wasted time.
If only I had posted more....


----------



## tecumseh

sierrabee writes first:
In virtually all vertibrate species changes in diet change the population ballance of the gut bacteria.

and then...

I doubt that enough is known to say if those effects are positive or negative, but in the last century man has proven his ability to generate negative effects exceeds his ability to generate positive effects on the environment.

tecumseh:
don't you suspect that there may be a significant difference between a vertibrate and an invertibrate species? basic bioliogy might suggest you may be making a comparison here, where there is none.

your second snipped comment I would agree with completely.

however the notion that feeding in some way ALWAYS adversely affects bees still seems a bit far fetched to me. studies have suggested on numerous times that feeding a small number of bees (typically caged) pure sucrose extends their life somewhat over those being fed honey.... those fed hfcs seem to die a bit quicker than those being fed sucrose or honey.

quite obviously... not feeding starving bees does have a very definite adverse effect.

harry writes:
If I had only saved all of the years of time and energy of maintaining colony health....
All wasted time.

tecumseh:
very, very sad harry (uh huh). you know you could have been someone harry if you had just made more post (and here it seems like in many academic circles the quality means nothing and the quantity counts for everything).

quite evidently if you had of just hung around here longer and spent less time attending your bees you would so much the wiser harry.

and speaking of wisdom... I think it was my old undergraduate mentor who said... 'a word to the wise is sufficient'. I think this is a excellent point in time to consider and abide by his wisdom.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Hey big T, with 5600 posts, you must be the next author of abc-xyz.


----------



## Oldbee

*Feeding and gut microbes.*



Keith Jarrett said:


> Hey big T, with 5600 posts, you must be the next author of abc-xyz.


But at least half of those 'posts' are in 'Tailgater', lol.

Feeding: "However the notion that feeding in some way ALWAYS adversely affects the bees still seems a bit farfetched to me". -tecumseh.

Yes. A beekeeper would almost have to remove most of the honey after the flows/in the fall and feed heavily to have a major negative affect, I would think. If you feed only a few gallons [2-3] of 2 to 1 to supplemment and get up to the weight for winter stores, this would be OK. Of course I DON'T know how syrup is used or distributed in a hive once it's fed in the fall, but I think it would dilute the affects of some fall nectars that are not always so good for winter stores, [I have read] like aster or even goldenrod.


----------



## iddee

>>>>Hey big T, with 5600 posts, you must be the next author of abc-xyz.<<<<

>>>>(and here it seems like in many academic circles the quality means nothing and the quantity counts for everything).<<<<

I won't say a word......NO, not one word!!! :shhhh:


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

iddee said:


> >>>>(and here it seems like in many academic circles the quality means nothing and the quantity counts for everything).<<<<
> 
> I won't say a word......NO, not one word!!! :shhhh:


Oh, tell me it ain't so, Joe!  
And the next line in the movie was... 

Lee; thanks for the vote of confidence. When I share, and unfortuneatly it does become boring answering the beginner questions and I find myself doing less of it, I share my experiances. I try not to speculate or argue, I don't have any degrees or paper showing that I am a master beekeeper, and I only have a hundred or so hives all clean and healthy. Don't count out the wisdom of fellow beekeepers who do not voice their opionions and ideas very often here on beesource, but listen and reason what everyone says, take the reasonable and try it for yourself. Then keep doing what works for you and then you will be sucessful.


----------



## sierrabees

tecumseh says:
don't you suspect that there may be a significant difference between a vertibrate and an invertibrate species? basic bioliogy might suggest you may be making a comparison here, where there is none.

Thanks for the reccomendation. I have actually had a little basic biology, plus four years post graduate work leading to a doctorate in veterinary medicine and over twenty years of practice in the field.


----------



## sierrabees

Sorry, my last post was a bit brusque. What I was talking about was the microbial population of the Hive. Even if pollen and nector are sterile, which is nearly a physical impossability since they are exposed to the air, the act of collecting could not occur without the bee also collecting bacteria from the environment which it would transmit to the hive. It is the enzymes produced by the bee and the osmotic preasure of ripened honey that produce the antibacterial properties of honey, not just sterile Lego blocks put together in a sterile manner.

One thing about my career was that working with an extremely wide variety of species one learns to think outside the box a little bit and extrapolate. The lesson learned is that all living things share many common features and likewise have many differances. This is true between individuals of the same species, different species, different genera, or even differant phyla within the animal kingdom. If one went on the assumption that you can't compare two differant species we would have practicly none of the medicines we have today and few of the surgical techniques could have been developed to the point where they could be tried on humans. In fact, if you couldn't make comparisons you wouldn't have the field of biology at all. A good course in embryology might help you to see some of the similarities between differant creatures.


----------



## deknow

sierrabees said:


> Sorry, my last post was a bit brusque. What I was talking about was the microbial population of the Hive. Even if pollen and nector are sterile, which is nearly a physical impossability since they are exposed to the air, the act of collecting could not occur without the bee also collecting bacteria from the environment which it would transmit to the hive.


hi doug....i'm too busy (and tired) at the moment to list a bunch of citations. pollen does contain microbes (and as you say, this isn't the only source of microbes)...but nectar is mostly microbe free (which i agree is surprising).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1761998


> Nectar is a metabolically rich biological fluid containing sugars, vitamins, amino acids, organic acids, and metal ions, all of which are utilized by microbes for growth. Because flower visitors are not sterile, they can potentially transfer any microorganisms that they carry during pollen transfer. This raises the question of why the female gynoecium is only rarely infected by microbes. It would seem that there must be an active defense system in nectar to reduce such infections. In examining this matter, Carter et al. (pp. 389–399) have been studying the proteins that accumulate in the nectar of plants. Over the past decade, they have identified a group of five or more proteins called nectarins that accumulate in the nectar of ornamental tobacco plants (Nicotiana langsdorffii × Nicotiana sanderae). These proteins function in the nectar redox cycle, a novel biochemical pathway that produces very high levels of hydrogen peroxide (up to 4 mm). In the present contribution, the authors evaluate the protective role of hydrogen peroxide in plant nectars and identify the source of superoxide that feeds into the nectar redox cycle. To determine whether hydrogen peroxide had a protective function in nectar, they examined nectar alone to see if it could inhibit bacterial growth. After an overnight incubation, nectar caused a dramatic zone of clearance in a field of Escherichia coli, demonstrating that tobacco nectar does indeed inhibit bacterial growth. To determine whether this growth inhibition was due to the presence of hydrogen peroxide in the nectar, they preincubated nectar with catalase and repeated the experiment. Catalase eliminated the bacteriocidal effects of nectar. Further studies indicated that superoxide production was localized near nectary pores and inhibited by diphenylene iodonium but not by cyanide or azide, suggesting that NAD(P)H oxidase is the source of nectar superoxide.


----------



## deknow

this link was just posted on bee-l. this is a must read.

http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/villaferal2008.pdf

deknow


----------



## odfrank

deknow said:


> this link was just posted on bee-l. this is a must read.
> http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/villaferal2008.pdf
> deknow


That link seems corrupted.


----------



## deknow

odfrank said:


> That link seems corrupted.


yeah...there appears to have been a problem...some could read it, some couldn't. try again, it's been reuploaded and fixed.

deknow


----------



## db_land

Deknow, thanks for posting this article. It confirms my own anecdotal observations about the feral bee population here in NC.


----------



## dickm

sierrabees said:


> tecumseh says:
> don't you suspect that there may be a significant difference between a vertibrate and an invertibrate species? basic bioliogy might suggest you may be making a comparison here, where there is none.
> 
> Thanks for the reccomendation. I have actually had a little basic biology, plus four years post graduate work leading to a doctorate in veterinary medicine and over twenty years of practice in the field.


Do you have any experience with vertEbrate and invertEbrate species?

Dickm


----------



## Fenc'in Bee

*Microbes and Hive Health*

I have a question for those who have been keeping bees without treating for varroa, whether you use LC or SC does not matter. How often on average do you open your hives per year? Once a month, only in the spring to add supers and the fall to collect honey,etc? The reason I am asking is that I have been reading alot about the bees maintaining their hive environment. When we open the hive their program gets disrupted. 
Thanks,
Nevin


----------



## sierrabees

dickm said:


> Do you have any experience with vertEbrate and invertEbrate species?
> 
> Dickm


I started keeping bees in 1982 if that counts. I have to admit that my veterinary experience consisted mostly of killing or preventing invertibrate paracites, but that did require studying the complete life cycles of well over 100 different species. The main thing I learned from that experience is that there are always more unknowns than there are things we understand, and the more we learn the more questions we leave un-answered(or get the wrong answer to). I am not greatly impressed by credentials, my own or anyone else's. I have heard more wisdom over the years from people of limited education and large experience than I have heard from academics and experts. In the end it is up to each of us to filter what we hear and what we read so we can fit it into our own picture frame.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

sierrabees said:


> I have heard more wisdom over the years from people of limited education and large experience than I have heard from academics and experts. In the end it is up to each of us to filter what we hear and what we read so we can fit it into our own picture frame.


And that my friends is the greatest truism that you will ever hear here on BeeSource!


----------



## db_land

*Intervene as little as possible*

Hi Fenc'in Bee,
I keep between 40-50 hives on small-cell and open the hives as little as possible. I'm too lazy and have too much else to do. The only time I go into a hive (beyond the honey supers) is if I suspect something is wrong or it's about to swarm and/or I want a split. The "average" across 50 hives over a year would be about .1. On the other hand, I don't believe opening (unless done way too often) or not opening has anything to do with survival and mite/virus loads. My bees are all ferals from swarm collections or removals and I suspect they are naturally resistent to mites and the mite borne diseases including nosema. It could be that small-cell causes expression of certain mite resistence genes or that the smaller bees are more compact and better able to deal (as in bite/remove) with mites. Whatever the reason, it sure is great not counting mites and not treating with anything ever.


----------



## TwT

Fenc'in Bee said:


> I have a question for those who have been keeping bees without treating for varroa, whether you use LC or SC does not matter. How often on average do you open your hives per year? Once a month, only in the spring to add supers and the fall to collect honey,etc? The reason I am asking is that I have been reading alot about the bees maintaining their hive environment. When we open the hive their program gets disrupted.
> Thanks,
> Nevin


Regular cell here! I go completely through my hive about 3-5 times a year, now I open the hives and pull a few frames other times about 3-5 times also but my hives can go 3-4 and sometimes 5 months with out being touched at times, usually when I inspect them is in spring and fall other than that I just pull honey in the summer month's. mostly I just look at entrances and see whats going on. thats just my way


----------



## Michael Bush

If I weren't raising queens I wouldn't be opening them very often. But raising queens I'm in many of the hives very frequently. It does not seem to hurt their health any, but of course it does disrupt the hive and it takes a little while for things to settle back to normal.


----------



## sierrabees

<Yes SC plays a part in it, not in all cases, but the big difference is the selection of the stock. Myself, JC, MB, BW, BB, and others have stated the use of feral bees in their root stock. I believe that we have been somewhat lucky in the helping hand that we have given mother nature in the natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The recurring theme of using bees from swarms, cut-outs, and propagating the bees in our yards that did not die is a major factor. I also believe that there has been a reoccurance in postings of mild treatments in the initial stages that was dropped soon after the bees showed that they could survive. We all had significant losses in the first years that seemed to lessen to about a 10% average winter loss later on.

There have also been those that have tried boosting their stock with stock from breeding programs like the NWC, Minn Hygienic, or Weaver.>


I'm going into year four of no treatments. My improvement in survival is progressing very slowly, but at least I'm not losing the numbers I lost with old comb and treated hives. One thing I have observed though. I have introduced queens from reputable comercial breeders three years in a row to nucs made up of bees from my survivor stock. My winter losses in the hives with the fancy bred queens are more than twice as high as my losses in the hives that are still queened by decendants of the swarm queens, or by the original swarm queens. In fact a larger number of these hives with "High bred queens" start the downhill spiral early in the fall and never build up the first(and last year)like I have always expected to see in the past. Kind of makes me think that the best queen breeder around is Old Ma Nature.

I'm not trying to say the the commercial breeders aren't doing a good job. I'm just starting to think that my beekeeping environment is too harsh for bees that are bred generation after generation the the California Riviera. It might be a lot like people who are born and raised in the city and then move out to a subsistance farm. A few will do well. Some will just manage to survive. The majority don't last a year.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*Why did I do it?!!!*

As always, I attended to my bees health issues this year, as any responsible beekeeper would.
I just did my math.
My winter losses so far from the peak number of last year is 2.14%
It looks like I will take ALL of my hives into almonds again this year.
Do you suppose I should try just ignoring my colony's health issues next year in hopes of a better outcome?
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.


----------



## adamf

*Aristotle!*



HarryVanderpool said:


> As always, I attended to my bees health
> issues this year, as any responsible beekeeper would.
> 
> I just did my math.My winter losses so far from the peak number of last
> year is 2.14%It looks like I will take ALL of my hives into almonds again
> this year.
> 
> Do you suppose I should try just ignoring my colony's health issues next
> year in hopes of a better outcome?
> Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.


Here's the definition of *syllogism*, that Harry is using in his logic:

"syllogism or logical appeal, (Greek: "conclusion," "inference"),
(usually the categorical syllogism) is a kind of logical argument in which
one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises)
of a certain form". (wikipedia)

Harry's syllogism:

His conclusion is that he has healthy bees and low losses because he has
mites/latent disease and that he has his bees on a regular treatment program.

I quote again from wikipedia:


"People often make mistakes when reasoning syllogistically.

For instance, from the premises some A are B, some B are C, people tend to
come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C.[5] However,
this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For
instance, while some cats (A) are black (B), and some black things (B) are
televisions (C), it does not follow from the parameters that some cats (A)
are televisions (C). This is because first, the mood of the syllogism
invoked is illicit (III), and second, the supposition of the middle term is
variable between that of the middle term in the major premise, and that of
the middle term in the minor premise (not all "some" cats are by necessity
of logic the same "some black things")."


To make a definitive conclusion that regular treatment of honey bees with
Varroa mites and latent disease, will result in low loss percentages, is
flawed (see the paragraph above).

Harry's good news that yearly treatment is keeping his bees in great
shape, is diluted in his inference that beekeepers who *do not treat
their bees* are remiss in their management because they will have
high losses. Every good beekeeper knows that yearly losses fluctuate
numerically.

Harry, great that you had such low losses-- yet you do not need to make a
flawed syllogism to support your opinion that beekeepers that manage their
bees without treating are remiss.

Adam Finkelstein

www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## deknow

harry,

i'm very sorry to hear that your bees have health issues that require treatment 

i'm sure it's profitable to be able to bring all your bees to the almonds.
there are, however, a number of "profitable" things that i won't do (selling crack, selling subprime mortgages, being a loan shark...)

do we call humans that need to be medicated in order to keep them from dying "healthy"? 

are bees that require medication in order to survive "healthy"?


deknow



HarryVanderpool said:


> As always, I attended to my bees health issues this year, as any responsible beekeeper would.
> I just did my math.
> My winter losses so far from the peak number of last year is 2.14%
> It looks like I will take ALL of my hives into almonds again this year.
> Do you suppose I should try just ignoring my colony's health issues next year in hopes of a better outcome?
> Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.


----------



## iddee

>>>>As always, I attended to my bees health issues this year, as any responsible beekeeper would.<<<<

I don't see where Harry said he medicated his bees. Attending to your health may be wearing more clothing when it's cold. 

Do you take vitamins? Eat a well balanced diet? Clean you home? All are attending your health. None mean you are unhealthy.

Just because one took medicine last year and got rid of their ailment doesn't mean they aren't healthy this year.

If a person doesn't attend their bees when there is a need, how can they be considered a beekeeper?


----------



## deknow

iddee said:


> I don't see where Harry said he medicated his bees. Attending to your health may be wearing more clothing when it's cold.


uhhh, bottom of page 1:


harry said:


> I Treat! I Treat!!!





> Do you take vitamins?


no



> Eat a well balanced diet?


yes...which is why i don't need to take vitamins



> Clean you home?


errr, my wife would say no



> All are attending your health. None mean you are unhealthy.


well, the bees do a pretty good job of feeding themselves the diet they need, and they keep the hive clean....but for some reason, they don't take supplements unless it is mixed with sugar/honey/hfcs, or put directly into the hive by the beekeeper.



> Just because one took medicine last year and got rid of their ailment doesn't mean they aren't healthy this year.


errr, i'll let harry speak for himself here....was "treatment" a one time thing, or does he treat every year? i expect i know the answer.



> If a person doesn't attend their bees when there is a need, how can they be considered a beekeeper?


if the bees "need" treatments every year in order to keep them alive, how can they be considered healthy? would you consider a population of humans that required regular "treatments" to stay alive "healthy"?

deknow


----------



## iddee

>>>>would you consider a population of humans that required regular "treatments" to stay alive "healthy"?<<<<

With the Billions spent every year for headache, cold, heartburn, ETC., would you say the US population is UNhealthy?
How much more unhealthy would they be without all those "treatments"?


----------



## Bizzybee

Provided people in the US were living as they should and eating a healthy diet they wouldn't need the drugs in the first place and their health would be FAR better without them. I have fought doctors for the past two years over drugs they have put me on that nearly landed me in the hospital on more than one occasion. I have suffered 100 times more from drug side affects than the problem itself has caused.

But then bees aren't human although some parallels can be draw from the example.

And the same can be said for using the quick fix as in that of simply taking a pill instead of focusing on the long term cure of problem. Which is the the root cause of the problem in the first place. And blocking the natural immunity against disease or compounding the problem by the use of antibiotics allowing the mutations of infections and or resistance. 

It could just as easily be said that by using treatments instead of caring for and or by adjusting our own practices in keeping bees to allow them to deal with the problems as an organism should. That then in fact they would be the poor beekeeper, opting for a quick fix and continuing with the ill fated practices being deemed as the proper way to keep bees.

So, name calling aside, where does the truth lie? Maybe somewhere in the middle as in most things? Probably so.


----------



## Michael Bush

>With the Billions spent every year for headache, cold, heartburn, ETC., would you say the US population is UNhealthy?

Yes. I would.

>How much more unhealthy would they be without all those "treatments"?

They would be much more healthy without the ones you've listed. The leading cause of liver damage in this country is Tylenol. (the one for the problem "headache" that you listed).

We've recently outlawed labeling cold remedies for children because we've proven they do nothing to help and they are a health hazard. Of course they are for adults as well, but we figure they can take their own risks. And of course, we have known this since they came out, but have been pressured by the pharmaceutical companies to leave them on the market and label them for children anyway...

Yes, I would say the US population is unhealthy. They have epidemic obesity and epidemic diabetes not to mention problems as side effects (such as liver damage mentioned above) from the "treatments" they take which do nothing for the underlying problem and only treat the symptoms.

But what does this have to do with bees, other than it's the underlying flaw in our basic philosophy on health?


----------



## deknow

iddee said:


> With the Billions spent every year for headache, cold, heartburn, ETC., would you say the US population is UNhealthy?
> How much more unhealthy would they be without all those "treatments"?


how do any of the treatments you mentioned improve the health of anyone, or any population. if i have a problem that causes a headache, heartburn, etc....does aleviating the symptoms make one "healthier"? i don't think so, i think it removes the motivation to "get healthy"...which is the underlying message that most of these symptoms are trying to communicate to us.

deknow


----------



## Omaejel

deknow said:


> how do any of the treatments you mentioned improve the health of anyone, or any population. if i have a problem that causes a headache, heartburn, etc....does aleviating the symptoms make one "healthier"? i don't think so, i think it removes the motivation to "get healthy"...which is the underlying message that most of these symptoms are trying to communicate to us.
> 
> deknow



I agree 100%. I had heartburn for years. I had to stop eating bananas drinking OJ. I would get terrible heart burn if I ate them. Then I happened upon my eye doc's sister who is a chiropractor. She put me on some natural enzymes and some hydrochloric acid in pill form that I take with every meal. I never get heartburn anymore. Turns out that my stomach is not making enough of the correct type of acid (hydrochloric) and the other stomach acids (phosphoric) was causing the heartburn. I had some other problems with digestion that these pills have also helped to get rid of. 

To make a long story short, I think there is much that "modern" medicine can learn from holistic medicine. Modern medicine does nothing but treat the symptom. A "modern" doctor would have prescribed one of the pills that stopped acid production in the stomach and I could have gone on with life and still had the inflammation in my body that the digestion problems where giving me. Maybe in years to come I would have developed other problems related to this, such as Crohn's. By giving me something that worked WITH my body naturally, my doctor has gotten rid of my symptoms by getting rid of the digestive problems and the inflammation. 

Another instance is my best friend's mother. She has rheumatoid arthritis and she could hardly even walk. Through working with a holistic doctor she no longer has to take her medication and she does yard work! I wish that "modern" docs and insurance companies would take a longer look at the alternatives. 

I admit that I was very skeptical at first, but I cannot argue with results. I have other cases in my family where holistic medicine has gotten results. 

I realize this thread has been hijacked, but I feel very strongly about this subject.

Also, just so i am not judged too harshly.. I do go to a regular doc too. I think there is room for both in keeping us healthy. This is also my approach to beekeeping. I try to approach beekeeping from a natural side.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*Recognizing disease & pests.*

Of course, no one will be able to help their bees and take corrective action if they do not recognize pests and diseases that affect ALL honey bee hives from time to tme.
Here is a great website to use as a beginning tutorial:

http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/pest&disease/pppdIndex.html


----------



## sierrabees

<With the Billions spent every year for headache, cold, heartburn, ETC., would you say the US population is UNhealthy?
How much more unhealthy would they be without all those "treatments"?>
__________________

Guess that depends on if you consider a dead man to be more healthy than a live man who takes medicine to stay that way. I've outlived every male in my family by nearly twenty years. The medicines that keep me alive are starting to cause diabetes and kidney disease. If I had died with my first coronary, I would have died with a healthy liver, pancreas, and kidneys. Does that mean I would have died healthy?


----------



## Bizzybee

But then bring it into the perspective of bee management. How much more healthy would the population be if those with heart disease, diabetes, cancer and the other list of hereditary life threatening diseases were allowed to die without breeding their genes into the population? It isn't going to happen in human society, the weakest are kept alive at all costs and allowed to participate in procreation. I don't expect that to change, and few I suspect would. But what is the cost to our heirs. 

Natural selection has all but been eliminated in the human race and we see the results of it everyday.

Condense the human life span to 45 days and consider the implications to society/colony support.


----------



## JBJ

*Treatment optional in breeding programs*

Well I have avoided this one for a while, but the winter doldrums are beginning to settle in here Southern Oregon. 

I feel that seeking a genetic basis for disease resistance is a very laudable and attainable goal. The only way I know to achieve this is through strong selection pressure; ie withhold the treatment for the disease or pest that one wishes to select for resistance/tolerance to, then propagate form the best of the survivors. Sounds simple, but it is not easy. There are limits to how much you can ask a population to tolerate at one time, so an IPM approach can go far to keep other pest and diseases in check while one progresses with the target breeding goal(s). 

We already have, or have had, bee populations that cope with many bee diseases well such as tracheal mites, Varroa mites, and foul brood. Look to Dr Steve Shepard's, Dr Sue Cobey, Dr Spivac's writings and work for verification here. I would also look at viral bee interactions. Since we automatically "don't treat" for virus (until Remebee comes on line) it should be relatively easy to find pockets of virus tolerant lines; as the Israelis have found with IAPV. Call it crazy, call it eugenics for bees, there is merit in looking for a genetic basis for disease in my opinion. 

Who wouldn't want a super bee that could dine on foulbrood, Nosema,devour mites, and withstand most virus all while pollinating and producing honey? Of course the virus will eventually mutate eliminating most susceptible lines in the next bee pandemic, but we can certainly breed back from the survivors. I know they nay-sayers will say it is an impossible goal, but it is love of the bee, the good name of honey, and our environment that motivate me to withhold many treatments. The honeybee of 100 years from now may be much more disease/pest tolerant than we have now, however we wont get there if we do not try


----------



## sierrabees

Busybee

I agree with your point. I handle my bees as a herd management problem, but you can't take the same approach with humans. I was just trying to point out that letting natural selection rule only applies to herd management. I'm sure it would apply to humans too but I don't think we would be able to handle that. We humans look at things from the perspective that, If it's good for me it must be good for everything. If it's not good for me it's just plain bad.


----------



## allrawpaul

*Just one more opinion.*

I think one useful observation that can be gathered from this conversation, that seems worth mentioning, is that it is allright to treat for mites when you find a colony having a bad time with varoa, but JUST TREATING THEM IS NOT ENOUGH. Chemically treating and then walking away has to be considered to some degree irresponsible, because everything we do has far reaching consequencing. By perpetuating bad genes in your hives, you are making it possible for your drones degrade every colony within several miles of you. To deal with varoa effectively, each floundering colony should be closely examined. If the hive is hopeless it should be immediately destroyed, otherwise, shouldn't at least the drone comb be removed and killed so those drones cant pollute the gene pool? (Incidentally, if it were possible to trap and kill the rest of the drones in hives needing treatment shouldnt we do that too? Does anyone do that?) The colony should then be immediately requeened with a feral survivor, a hygeinic, or mite tolerant queen of some kind. That means,(and it may not be immediately economically feasible for everyone) that every beek should be monitoring hives very closely and keeping plenty of nucs with replacement queens on hand which have been bred from his own untreated survivors or which have been obtained from commercial breeders who are producing mite tolerant queens. It seems like it would help a lot if we all asked ourselves, "What will be the environmental impact of my operation a hundred or thousand years after my death? What can I do to run a viable operation, that will cause as little harm as possible and that will be most beneficial to others and to this planet?" We may need some time to understand exactly what we are doing wrong and to make the transition from harmful practices to skillful practices.(Some treatments are clearly more harmful than others.) O course this forum is an excellent resource and thanks to everyone who contributes to these discussions! All the answers might not be immediately obvious, so we have to look closely, to study, to gain wisdom from observing the activities of the wise, and to find a way to run operations that will help the bees over the long term, and that will help other beekeepers and the environment immediately. I am not particularly quallified to ramble on this topic, so please, veterans, correct me and clarify what needs clarification. Thanks, Paul.


----------



## BEES4U

*Untreated breeder queens*

:thumbsup:I have 12 breeder queens from Glenn Apiaries that have not been treated for mites and so far they are doing fine.
I have a breeder queens's daughter queen that has performed remarkedly well--so far.
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## Keith Benson

Bizzybee said:


> Provided people in the US were living as they should and eating a healthy diet they wouldn't need the drugs in the first place and their health would be FAR better without them.


Hmmmm - so simply living as they should will eliminate all disease? I doubt that. People would still need drugs, but undoubtedly not the polypharmacy that people practice today..



> And the same can be said for using the quick fix as in that of simply taking a pill instead of focusing on the long term cure of problem. Which is the the root cause of the problem in the first place.


I agree - many drugs, particularly the OTC stuff is basically used to allow people to continue behaving in a way they should not. 



> And blocking the natural immunity against disease or compounding the problem by the use of antibiotics allowing the mutations of infections and or resistance.


A) not all pathogens can be overcome by an immune system in all individuals, no matter how optimized they are. B) many infectious diseases will cause damage and long lasting effects even if the patient survives. This is not an all or nothing game. There is a clear benefit in terms of health and longevity in societies where antibiotics are readily available. The caveat is that they should be used properly - and not for every sniffle.

If every infection were allowed to run it's course so as to stimulate the patients immunes system, some folks would die. Eventually we as a popualtion might habituate to it, but it takes a long time for this to happen. Mother Nature can be a bit ruthless about that sort of thing.



> It could just as easily be said that by using treatments instead of caring for and or by adjusting our own practices in keeping bees to allow them to deal with the problems as an organism should.


Should? Some will die. Now with bees, I can take that, people no, but we are on bees now. It also depends on your outlook. Some folks look at their bees as their responsibility and feel keenly that to stand by and let them die for the concept that they (bees as a whole) are better off for it is a difficult proposition.

I can sympathize with them, as there are creatures in my world whom I feel the same way about. So I do not treat, and I do let some colonies die (IF I was too busy, or stupid to see the fall before it got to bad to make some changes), but I can see why some do. Some also treat because in their POV the benefit outweighs the detriment of not making the mortgage payment, college tuition etc.

As far as the should thing goes though - one might argue that our brain is has eveolved to help us solve problems and that we should respond to these things by creating tools. Drugs are just that - tools.

Just a reminder - when it comes to my bees, I opt not to treat, I am merely suggesting it is not black and white.



> That then in fact they would be the poor beekeeper, opting for a quick fix and continuing with the ill fated practices being deemed as the proper way to keep bees. So, name calling aside, where does the truth lie? Maybe somewhere in the middle as in most things? Probably so.


Yep - it tends to. 

Keith


----------



## JBJ

"Some folks look at their bees as their responsibility and feel keenly that to stand by and let them die for the concept that they (bees as a whole) are better off for it is a difficult proposition." Kieth

Indeed, that is why I feel an integrated approach (IPM) will be the best sell in the long run. I hope we all as beekeepers want our bees to thrive, prosper, and be long term sustainable. The debate gets contentious when we consider the best way to achieve these goals, and we really need all three.

So say you do have a hive like Harry's (or a lot of hives) that is obviously failing to cope with mite pressures on its own; sure do the responsible thing, and clean the mites up in a way that will not taint the bees, keepers,comb, or honey. This is step one in proper animal husbandry. Step two: requeen at the next opportunity with some stock that tolerates mites better. Just cleaning the problem up and waiting for it to happen again is not doing the best we can for our bees. Over time, many will find fewer hives in there operation a reaching the treatment threshold. Over time if enough of us do this we can weed out the susceptible genetics and improve our populations as a whole. Resistant queens mated with susceptible drones will not get us all the way there either, cull inferior queens any time you can.


----------



## tecumseh

allrawpaul sezs:
Chemically treating and then walking away has to be considered to some degree irresponsible, because everything we do has far reaching consequencing.

and then jbj writes:
Resistant queens mated with susceptible drones will not get us all the way there either, cull inferior queens any time you can.

tecumseh:
I just got thru reviewing a very old article via steve taber on the use of chemical in attacking the varroa problem (at the time he wrote the article varroa was definitely on the horizon but not here yet) and he did the math to build the case that folks that dependent on a drug or chemical to counter the varroa were acting as extremely good breeder in building a better varroa mite. so yes I would agree with allrawpaul that total reliance on a chemical/drug treatment is irresponsible and in a bit longer time run is totally counter productive.

the simple sentence that jbj has written is often times the overlook but most important thing any breeder does to improve their stock. I would suggest the more critical and severe the culling criterion the sooner the problem will be resolved. as mr benson suggest mother nature often time requires an extremely severe culling criterion.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

*Old Sol Queens*



JBJ said:


> Indeed, that is why I feel an integrated approach (IPM) will be the best sell in the long run. I hope we all as beekeepers want our bees to thrive, prosper, and be long term sustainable. The debate gets contentious when we consider the best way to achieve these goals, and we really need all three.


John, I just want to say how much I appreciate your thoughtful, levelheaded approach.
Your comments are the voice of excellence in beekeeping, in my opinion.
This was the motivation for this thread in the first place; exposing the goofy extremes and such pointlessness.
We share your views, as do the overwhelming majority of succsessful beekeepers.
As for the snake oilers,,,,well, there has always been snake oil.


----------



## JBJ

*Hatching a plan*

Thanks for the kind words Harry. It has been a long haul to get to where we actually have hives that we can say we can say " I don't treat...". To get there we have had to take some losses on the way, some of them perhaps unnecessarily as we have learned. One thing for sure, if only 10% of your hives show VSH and mite tolerance, it would be irresponsible to let the other 90% die just to prove a point. One would do well in this situation to integrate their approach and sustainably "clean up" the problem and requeen with daughters from the tolerant hives or other stock.

For us it has been a constant effort to to identify tolerant bees, aka ones that survive without treatment, while maintaining enough of a population to successfully pollinate with. Each year we propagate from the best of the selected survivors and over time develop a larger population of hives that show the traits we are looking for. Some years it has been relatively easy and other years extremely challenging when losses are higher than anticipated and budgeted for. 

One thing for sure, the old adage "you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet" (extreme selection) applies here, however I would also add "you don't have to drop the whole carton on the floor" (unnecessary loss and abuse). Since we are on egg analogies; obviously one would not want to put them all in the same basket, referring to genetic diversity here.


----------



## Ross

God I love this place. Where else can you get this much entertainment for the price? 

For the record, I treat my hives --- with screened bottom boards. And I don't use foundation, because most of it is made with wax from treated hives. I've been free of all treatments for 7 years or so and I'm running 50+ hives these days. I seldom lose a hive. I'm foundationless for almost all of that time. I did treat once when I first started. I owe most of my success to Michael Bush. I'm in my hives several times in the spring, then maybe once a month after that, not all the way to bottom unless I suspect something. 

There are many successful beekeepers here. Almost all do something a bit different from the others. Some do nothing but assemble wood and add bees. Others regress and add screened bottoms. Others add OA or mineral oil and call it natural. Some add hard chemicals in strips, or heaven forbid, blue towels. Some lose 6000 hives in a year, others don't. I wonder what the guys that lost 6000 hives were using?


----------



## JBJ

I guess the price is right, at 50 hives... I remember those days having a high entertainment value also. 

The stakes get a little higher when the bees are how one provides for the family, makes the mortgage, and creates jobs. There is still entertainment to be had for sure, however treatment and management take on new dimensions when there are a lot of people and bees depending on your decisions. Congrats on your successes Ross.


----------



## tecumseh

ross writes:
I wonder what the guys that lost 6000 hives were using?

tecumseh:
yesss....

what were they doing or not doing?


----------



## GregB

You are responding to 2008 thread.
This makes it about *22 years ago* as of today. 
Many date-related issues.


----------



## A Novice

Thanks for resurrecting this thread.

It shows just how bad the behavior was during the TF wars.

Lots of self-righteous posturing and accusations.

i don't especially mind conflict (I am an incompetent introvert) but this was ridiculous.

For those who missed the excitement, it makes for interesting reading.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

WOW!!!
What a difference 14 years makes!
In 2008 one could have hives with a TREMENDOUS mite load, like the hive pictured in the first post and remedy the problem with properly executed intervention.
Those days are over.
After 14 years of queen producers selecting for hygienic behavior, (horizontal viral transfer) things are much, much more dire.
Mites are no longer the biggest problem.
The viruses that they vector, and our bees that are bred to horizontally transfer them in the hive is the #1 problem.
Oh,, AHEM,,, "in my opinion".


----------



## rbees

Greetings Harry…Yes…it’s amazing what 12 years have brought. I’m with you…even after almost 35 years..even much more when considering varroa originally hopped the species barrier the bees are still losing the war with respect to harm mites bring despite our best efforts. That said I don’t quite follow your reasoning. I think I understand the horizontal transmission mechanism as related to the increased virulence of the mite vectored viruses but I don’t quite follow the relationship between hygienic behavior selection.

Please elaborate.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

rbees said:


> Greetings Harry…Yes…it’s amazing what 12 years have brought. I’m with you…even after almost 35 years..even much more when considering varroa originally hopped the species barrier the bees are still losing the war with respect to harm mites bring despite our best efforts. That said I don’t quite follow your reasoning. I think I understand the horizontal transmission mechanism as related to the increased virulence of the mite vectored viruses but I don’t quite follow the relationship between hygienic behavior selection.
> 
> Please elaborate.


Hi Brother Rbees!!
GREAT to run into you again.
Take a careful look at the following:
Hygienic behavior kills honey bees - YouTube

Here is the original text.
Pupal cannibalism by worker honey bees - ProQuest

There is more by the way.
When will someone in industry or academia announce, "ALL STOP!!!" We need to take a new look at what we're doing.


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

Harry,I think it's too soon to blame hygienic behavior for the spread of viruses.

On a zoom with Jay Evans(one of the study's authors),I asked him about this and,as usual,I didn't quite get a direct answer.
Paraphrased,here are some points he made.
This needs more research. So far,Hygienic behavior still seems to have more positives than negatives.
Varroa,by far,is the greater and most serious vector and one that beekeepers can control.
The digestive system is more resistant to pathogens than the hemolymph. ( ie: ingestion vs injection )
The age of the bee may contribute to the seriousness of an infection( pupa vs adult.....again,more research)
This oral transmision MAY help explain why viral load may not decrease after a successful mite treatment(it can take 4-6 weeks to clear or the colony can still crash).
This may affect (or influence) how beekeepers repopulate deadouts (freeze,delay,sterilize,cull comb with dead brood etc.)


----------



## HarryVanderpool

I didn't suggest blame.
A very serious possibility has been identified and deserves urgent review.
You got the same response from Jay that I did.
Endless research (pay checks), zero urgency, no conclusions.
Meanwhile viral problems get worse and worse as the years go by.
I'm not O.K. with that.


----------



## Litsinger

... and we have to be very careful to separate general hygienic behavior from varroa-sensitive hygiene.


----------



## Cloverdale

Litsinger said:


> ... and we have to be very careful to separate general hygienic behavior from varroa-sensitive hygiene.


Hi Russ! Could you elaborate on what you stated above? Thanks, have a wonderful Thanks-giving with your family…Deb


----------



## William Bagwell

Litsinger said:


> ... and we have to be very careful to separate general hygienic behavior from varroa-sensitive hygiene.


Think you are referring to discussion of here, but in real life hard to do. Hygienic is much more widely available than many beekeepers realize. The study above is from last year, though I first became aware of it this spring. Weeks after picking up a package of hygienic Carniolans  Driving distance for me yet they claim to be "the #1 shipper on honey bees on the east coast and mid-west." *All* of their Italian and Carniolan queens are graded on hygienics. (No mention with Russians or Caucasains)

The hygienic genie is out of the bottle and Harry has a valid point. Need an answer now, not years down the road.


----------



## Litsinger

Cloverdale said:


> Could you elaborate on what you stated above?


Deb:

Happy Thanksgiving! See the links below which might help:



Litsinger said:


> Great paper- thank you for sharing. I found two of Spivak's and Danka's conclusions interesting





Litsinger said:


> @ 2:36:15 - 2:58:35 they discuss the distinction between general hygienic behavior and VSH and move to a discussion about host resistance and it's implications in bee breeding.





William Bagwell said:


> Think you are referring to discussion of here, but in real life hard to do.


While I'll readily concede that the cat might already be out of the bag regarding hygienic behavior selection, the two have very different methods of operation and different methods of selection.

General hygienic behavior is selected for via the freeze-killed brood assay - i.e. selection for the removal of dead pupae.

VSH on the other hand is selected for by utilizing the Harbo Assay- looking at the contents of pupal cells for the presence or absence of mite reproduction in cells containing live pupae.



Litsinger said:


> Good video from Cory Stevens outlining his approach to VSH breeding and technique for assessing VSH in his stock:
> 
> Selecting for Varroa Sensitive Hygiene (VSH) in Honey Bees
> 
> He also spends a good bit of time addressing the concern about poor brood patterns and proliferation of disease.


----------



## William Bagwell

Litsinger said:


> General hygienic behavior is selected for via the freeze-killed brood assay - i.e. selection for the removal of dead pupae.
> 
> VSH on the other hand is selected for by utilizing the Harbo Assay- looking at the contents of pupal cells for the presence or absence of mite reproduction in cells containing live pupae.


Lets try, ...discussion of and testing for, but in real life hard to keep physically separate.

VHS production queens can sell out in minutes, verses hygienic being avaible for months each spring. Other than a few very lucky swarm catchers, most beeks with a VSH queen know they have it. My point is that simple hygienic behavior is every where and many do not even realize they have it since they did not seek it out.


----------



## Litsinger

William Bagwell said:


> My point is that simple hygienic behavior is every where and many do not even realize they have it since they did not seek it out.


Fair enough- here's a good start:









Selection for Horizontal Viral Transfer


Here is the latest discussion about the threats posed by selecting for hygienic behavior: Pupal cannibalism by worker honey bees contributes to the spread of deformed wing virus - YouTube




www.beesource.com





I think the question is more nuanced than hygienic behavior is 'bad' or 'good' but takes in many factors such as timing and rate of the behavior, the pathogen in question, and the management paradigm.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

Take a look at any beekeeping literature.
Every single advertisement for queens has the words, "We select for hygienic behavior".
What does that translate to?
"We select our breeders based upon the results of the nitrogen test"
Does breeding bees based on those results enhance honeybees' natural hygienic behavior?
Or, are we selecting and breeding for unintended consequences?
It appears that the advertisements should say:
"We select for enhanced horizontal viral transfer".


----------



## JustBees

It's marketing, don't let the truth get in the way....


----------



## msl

hygienic behavior was a thing LONG before we got mites here

our biggest problem is horizontal transfer from hive to hive via hives crashing.. this spreads the more vruiant virus/mite combos allowing them to reproduce better then outhers

lets take a hard look at what was foundhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076318/



> We demonstrated that cannibalization of DWV-infected pupae resulted in high levels of this virus in worker bees and that the acquired virus was then transmitted between bees via trophallaxis, allowing circulation of _Varroa_-vectored DWV variants without the mites. Despite the known benefits of hygienic behaviour, it is possible that higher levels of VSH activity may result in increased transmission of DWV via cannibalism and trophallaxis.


they are saying that the bees will get DWV from eating an infected pupa, and they will spead it.....
but it stands to reason the infected pupa, if it were to live then would spread it as would the mites that emerged form the cell,
this was not tested, as there was no control to indicate the level of DWV transfer form bees/mites that emerge there is no way to see if VSH increases the viral load of the hive or not 

further more there was not a significant difference between bees that had contact with bees that ate infected pupa and the ones that didn't


> Overall DWV levels, which included wild-type DWV, DWV-GFP and GFP deletion variants of this virus, were not significantly different in both recipient groups (“Control” and “DWV-GFP”)


there were some difranes in the outher experments
add in


> Interestingly, hygienic bees are known to be more sensitive to cues from infected bees48, which might allow the removal and cannibalization of pupae with lower pathogen levels and, hence, lower risk for hygienic workers. Pupae with high DWV levels (above 9 log10 GE) are associated with _Varroa_ mite infestation.



so I would say way early to start running around yelling the sky is falling and VSH Is bad


----------



## William Bagwell

msl said:


> so I would say way early to start running around yelling the sky is falling and VSH Is bad


Typo? If not, will take all them bad VSH bees off your hands


----------



## squarepeg

msl said:


> our biggest problem is horizontal transfer from hive to hive via hives crashing.. this spreads the more virulent virus/mite combos allowing them to reproduce better then others...


long before the crashing the horizontal transfer is quietly picking up steam via drift of workers and drones, especially when hives are kept in nice straight rows.

when crashing finally starts to occur, the horizontal transfer gets a potent shot in the arm...


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> they are saying that the bees will get DWV from eating an infected pupa, and they will spead it.....


And then there's this:



Litsinger said:


> Research is discussed (and linked below) that suggests that mite-vectored DWV-B is the only strain of the virus that leads to clinical symptoms, as isolated in the brain of the infected bee. Further, it is suggested that the question ultimately is not what the mite load is in a colony per se, but how many mites within this cohort are vectors for DWV-B.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

Thank heavens for our blue-tooth, many of my fellow commercial beekeepers talk quite regularly even while working.
One phrase that worked it's way into our conversations several years ago, " Somethings wrong!".
We were all doing our very best and racking our brains, but despite our best efforts, something was amiss, and we knew it.
At the same time, hives even after harsh mite treatments and low mite counts continued along with viral symptoms.
After decades of beekeeping, something was wrong and we knew it, but were (are) at our wit's end at uncovering the problem.
Bees bred for horizontal viral transmission is a VERY, VERY plausible explanation of what we are seeing.
Nobody that I know is "running around yelling the sky is falling ".
The worst mistake we can make is to bury our head in the sand and ignore the FACT that honeybee health is swirling down the drain year after year.
Just wait until the USDA bee statistics come out for 2022. It ain't gunna bee purty!!


----------



## squarepeg

HarryVanderpool said:


> One phrase that worked it's way into our conversations several years ago, " Somethings wrong!".


i appreciate the perspective you bring to the discussion harry. for most of us here including myself we have neither access nor exposure to such conversations.

when randy oliver started making the case a new approach, which ulitmately led him to 'walk the walk' himself, he admonished high volume purchasers of commercially bred queens to put pressure on the queen suppliers to start selecting for bees doing a better job handling mites.

given this rising concern amongst you and your cohorts, and with respect to large scale queen suppliers, are commercials having serious discussions about this with the suppliers? are you hearing about any concerted effort on the part of any suppliers toward novel approaches and new innovations in the same vein as what randy is trying to do?


----------



## HarryVanderpool

I certainly do not have the final answer on any of this squarepeg, but my strong hunch is "unintended consequences".
Beekeepers are demanding traits from queen producers and, bless their hearts, they are trying their best to comply.
But OOPS!!!
Are we missing something?
Are our bees dying of disease or the cure?


----------



## squarepeg

understood harry and thank you. 

with my outside looking in view it appears that when controlling mites was less expensive and less labor intensive high productivity trumped and horizontal transmission was more of a nuisance than anything.

i agree with you that all indications are that varroa and the associated virused have taken advantage of that situation right before our eyes. 

maybe the pain associated with the 2022 statistics and the trend will at some point tip the scales and affect the conversations in that regard.


----------



## squarepeg

jim lyon, if you are following this discussion and feel inclined to opine, and as a large commercial operator who has been doing his queen breeding in house for many years, have you been able to make strides and measure success when it comes to mite mitigation via your selection process? are you able to see that your bees are faring better than your cohorts who purchase their queens from commercial breeders?


----------



## msl

William Bagwell said:


> Typo


no, just suggesting there is no edvince of causality and the blame may (or may not) be misplaced

as an example(and a bit of a walk in the weeds) I am seeing a huge amount of chatter about avivar failure the last 2 year and placing the blame on the manufacturer...
this is despite the mountain of edviance of amitraz resistance and the the abuse of it (off label blue shop towels) dateing before this became more wide spred



> Resistance to amitraz in Varroa have been reported in populations from different locations around the world, such as the USA (Elzen et al. 1999, 2000; Rinkevich 2020), Mexico (Rodríguez-Dehaibes et al. 2005), Argentina (Maggi et al. 2010), the Czech Republic (Kamler et al. 2016) and France (Almecija et al. 2020).





> Amitraz resistance was evaluated in commercial beekeeping operations in Louisiana, New York, and South Dakota with a long history of amitraz use. This research shows that amitraz remains an effective Varroa control product in many operations. However, apiaries across operations displayed a wide range of amitraz resistance from no resistance to high resistance that resulted in Varroa control failure.


 Detection of amitraz resistance and reduced treatment efficacy in the Varroa Mite, Varroa destructor, within commercial beekeeping operations

once again, like in the case of permethrin Novel Mutations in the Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel of Pyrethroid-Resistant Varroa destructor Populations from the Southeastern USA, we are seeing a separate mutation responsible for the restiance in the US and EU.



> The joint analysis of the data also suggests that the resistance have evolved independently at both locations. The mutation N87S was detected only in mites collected in France, while Y215H was detected only in the mites collected in the USA. This result is yet another example of the capacity of this species to evolve resistance to the same acaricide via multiple independent pathways. This was already described for the resistance to pyrethroids based-acaricides. In Europe mites carry mostly the mutation L925V in the VGSC, while those from the USA carry the mutations L925M and L925I (González-Cabrera et al. 2013, 2016, 2018; Millán-Leiva et al. 2021a).


This is important as it shows the pattern of a resistant "eve" mite than then spread, not the development of induvial resistant populations at the operation level... Ie it matters not what you do, but what the induristy doesand highlights just how fast change happens.... a few hobiest hives near you started with packages with resticnat mites bomb out and get in your operation... the fall treatment doesn't kill them and next spring you have restiance in a lot of your opperation, like some one fliped a switch



> To estimate when the mutation first evolved in the U.S. population, we compared the presence of Y215H in samples collected in 2020 with samples collected in previous years in several U.S. states (Millán-Leiva et al. 2021a). Results from Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana and Pennsylvania showed that the mutation was practically non-existent in 2016 but its incidence has increased since (Fig. 7, Table S1).











Resistance to amitraz in the parasitic honey bee mite Varroa destructor is associated with mutations in the β-adrenergic-like octopamine receptor - Journal of Pest Science


Varroa destructor is considered a major reason for high loss rate of Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. To prevent colony losses caused by V. destructor, it is necessary to actively manage the mite population. Beekeepers, particularly commercial beekeepers, have few alternative...




link.springer.com





but yes, lets blame the maker of apivar, they must have messed up there product the last 2 years and that's why its not controlling mites "all of a sudden".

Now like the VSH suggestion, this could be the case !!! but no one has presented any edvince to support that position despite its internet popularly

we always want to blame some one else.. its the queen breeders, some one spraying, the TF mite bombers or my nehobores treating causing poor gentilics, or....



HarryVanderpool said:


> At the same time, hives even after harsh mite treatments and low mite counts continued along with viral symptoms.
> After decades of beekeeping, something was wrong and we knew it, but were (are) at our wit's end at uncovering the problem.





HarryVanderpool said:


> but my strong hunch is "unintended consequences".


Lets float out chemical build up do to beekeeper applied treatments impacting the bees imune system


> While amitraz does not persist in the hive environment (Martel et al., 2007), its metabolite _N_-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-_N_′-methylformamidine (DPMF) does accumulate and was among the ten most commonly detected pesticides in wax, pollen, and the bees themselves (Mullin et al., 2010). This finding is somewhat surprising, as amitraz was withdrawn from commercial use in 1994 and not registered for apicultural use at the time of the survey (Johnson et al., 2010)





> he goal of this study was to investigate the physiological and immunological effects of the formamidine acaricide amitraz and its primary metabolite in honey bees. Using flock house virus as a model for viral infection, this study found that exposure to a formamidine acaricide may have a negative impact on the ability of honey bees to tolerate viral infection.







__





Loading…






www.sciencedirect.com







> During an acaricide treatment using Apistan (plastic strips coated with tau-fluvalinate), we analyzed the infection dynamics of deformed wing virus (DWV), sacbrood virus (SBV), and black queen cell virus (BQCV) in adult bees, mite-infested pupae, their associated Varroa mites, and uninfested pupae, comparing these to similar samples from untreated control colonies. Titers of DWV increased initially with the onset of the acaricide application and then slightly decreased progressively coinciding with the removal of the Varroa mite infestation. This initial increase in DWV titers suggests a physiological effect of tau-fluvalinate on the host's susceptibility to viral infection











Acaricide treatment affects viral dynamics in Varroa destructor-infested honey bee colonies via both host physiology and mite control - PubMed


Honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies are declining, and a number of stressors have been identified that affect, alone or in combination, the health of honey bees. The ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor, honey bee viruses that are often closely associated with the mite, and pesticides used to...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> so I would say way early to start running around yelling the sky is falling and VSH Is bad


Three things concerning this study stood-out to me:

1. There was no reference of clinical DWV signs as a result of oral input of DWV-infected pupae.

2. The importance of the timing of detection:

_'Importantly, in approximately half of the hygienically removed pupae the DWV levels were similar to those in the uncapped Varroa-free control. This could be a result of removal of infected pupae at early stages of infection, and it is known that hygienic bees have a lower threshold for detection of the infection scent.'

'Interestingly, hygienic bees are known to be more sensitive to cues from infected bees, which might allow the removal and cannibalization of pupae with lower pathogen levels and, hence, lower risk for hygienic workers.'_

3. The suggestion that pupal cannabalism might seek to select against virulence:

_'Efficient transmission and circulation of cannibalism-acquired DWV therefore, could depend on the survival of the infected bees, thereby selecting against DWV virulence.'_


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

Last week,NY Bee Wellness had a zoom with Adam Dolezal,Phd at U of ILL
In the meeting,he says he is not a virologist but a honey bee physiologist.
His lab: "My research lab studies how honey bees respond to stresses in their landscape, including pathogens, nutrition, and pesticides. I am particularly interested in how these factors interact to affect physiology and behavior."

Zoom:





At min 26,I ask the question(paraphrased) " virus susceptibility------ injection or oral?"

Interesting talk if you have the time. About 1 hr 10 min


----------



## Litsinger

Jack Grimshaw said:


> ... virus susceptibility------ injection or oral?"


Great presentation, Jack. Thanks for posting.

I thought the commentary about trade-offs at about the 46 minute mark was especially good too. Interesting to consider the seasonal variation of virus susceptibility.


----------



## msl

Jack Grimshaw said:


> " virus susceptibility------ injection or oral?"





> Virus diversity is markedly reduced in pupae but not in the associated _Varroa_ mites





> *Genetic diversity of the DWV population is determined by route of transmission rather than preferential amplification of virus in Varroa*
> The introduction of the parasitic _Varroa_ mite elevates the level of DWV-like viruses [20], amplifies particular strains that that are best defined as recombinant forms (RF) bearing the capsid determinants of VDV-1 and non-structural genome region from DWV [15], [16] and dramatically reduces the diversity of DWV-like viruses in a population [20]. Using complementary approaches including strain-specific qRT-PCR and sequencing together with next generation sequencing of the virus genome and host siRNA response to infection, we analysed individual pupae exposed to DWV during larval feeding and following mite exposure, and recapitulated horizontal transmission of virus by _Varroa_ using direct injection.
> 
> The C, NV and VL exposure groups all carried low viral loads and exhibited high virus diversity (Figure 4B, Figure 5). However, the virus populations carried were distinct, with the NV and VL experimental groups containing a diverse range of recombinant forms of DWV-like viruses bearing the capsid coding region of VDV-1 and the non-structural coding regions of DWV. In contrast, the VH group exhibited very high levels of a specific near-clonal (0.15% divergence in the regions sequenced) recombinant form of DWV (labelled RF4 in Figure 5). Due to the subsequent identification of the same near-clonal virulent virus in temporally and spatially distinct samples (see below) we henceforth designate this virus DWVV to discriminate it from other circulating recombinants forms. This suggests that the changes reported in virus levels and diversity at a regional scale [20] reflect events occurring within a few days (uncapped to the purple-eye stage) in individual mite-exposed pupae. Nearly identical, clustering tightly within the DWVV clade, were also detected in pupae from the C, NV and VL groups (Figure 5). Since these groups have significantly lower viral loads it implies that the high viral loads seen in the VH group cannot be solely attributed to their infection with a particular recombinant form of the virus.





> We directly injected white eye pupae (day 12–13 of development) maintained _in vitro_ (as described in [39]) with virus particles purified from groups C, NV and VH pupae as described previously [15]. As before, we determined the proportion of the DWV- and VDV-1-type CP coding regions in the inocula and injected pupae (following incubation to the purple-eye stage for 3 days) by qRT-PCR using strain-specific primers to the CP and universal primers to the NS region. Virus preparations from groups NV and VH contained higher and broadly similar levels of VDV-1-like CP coding regions. The amount of DWV-like CP coding regions was much higher in the virus preparation from the group C pupae (where it accounted for ∼12% of the population) than from either the NV or VH group pupae (Figure 6A). Pupae inoculated with buffer alone exhibited no significant increased accumulation of DWV-like viruses when compared with untreated pupae (Figure 6A). In striking contrast, irrespective of the source of viral inocula, pupae directly injected with virus preparations exhibited high virus levels characterised by markedly amplified VDV-1-like CP coding regions when compared to DWV-like CP sequences (Figure 6A).











A Virulent Strain of Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) of Honeybees (Apis mellifera) Prevails after Varroa destructor-Mediated, or In Vitro, Transmission


The globally distributed ectoparasite Varroa destructor is a vector for viral pathogens of the Western honeybee (Apis mellifera), in particular the Iflavirus Deformed Wing Virus (DWV). In the absence of Varroa low levels DWV occur, generally causing asymptomatic ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------

