# The big question of modern beekeeping: (all opinions welcome)



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

I've been inspired to write this post after reading the thread 'What actually works to convince Newbees to treat mites?' and also because of quotes like this one:



aunt betty said:


> There was a time when I had TF bees that stayed alive for many years. Was a teen aged bee haver.
> Had my bees and learned almost nothing about them because they took care of themselves. That was back in the good old days and the good old days are history.
> Point is that I'd maybe be the worst beekeeper ever if it were not for Varroa and SHB forcing me to keep em strong, well-fed, and healthy.


Please read this entire post before replying:

This is a classic example of the oldest beekeeping misconception available; everyone talks about 'the good old days pre-varroa and pre-SHB (Small Hive Beetle)'. 

*Here is my translation of the common belief among wise and classic beekeepers who I respect. *'European bees used to work, then began to die when varroa showed up, now we use chemicals to keep them from dying. Our queens that used to life for 3 - 4 years now barely live for one year and our colonies struggle from every predator on the planet but, boy oh boy, times used to be good.'

I hate to break the news but varroa mites and Small Hive Beetles are not new problems. These species have co-existed with bees for centuries. Yes, I said centuries. What does everyone mean then when they talk about pre-varroa and pre-SHB? They are all talking about *this* side of the globe with our superficial European bees. 

*What am I suggesting? Perhaps it's time for us to change our methods: I'm going to give my opinion about every one of those points I quoted above.*

*1) 'European bees used to work, then began to die when varroa showed up.'* Let's talk about some history here:

The first recorded case of Varroa in the America's was September of 1987. Interestingly enough, 5 years prior in 1982 the FDA approved GMO seeds nation wide. Any correlation? Maybe maybe not.

Biologist Johannes H. Bauer performed experiments on fruit flies testing an organic diet versus a non-organic diet. The flies on the organic diet performed much better than those on the non-organic diet. (View Article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130326121732.htm) If that goes for fruit flies, is it not also likely that bees near fields of GMO crops (which are non-organic) produce a weeker bee after generations? I think that is not unreasonable to believe. 

*My answer: *Is the core problem behind the failing of European bees GMO's and Varroa? *No.* 

Think about this. Let's assume you get sick with the 'common cold' and your symptom are a runny nose and a fever. *You can think one of two things about your sickness:*

1) The runny nose and fever are the problem so I must figure out a way to stop them.

2) The real problem is not the runny nose or fever, the real problem is the sickness deep within. That sickness is what I must fix.

I believe the same goes for our bees. We can fix the runny nose (varroa mites) and the fever (SHB or wax moths) but the core problem, I believe, is deeper than these symptoms. The core problem is that our hives 'immune system' cannot fight these 'infections'. Another issue to speak of has been the damage done by superficial breeding. European queens have been superficially bred by beekeepers for centuries. Those beekeepers bred trates they liked into the bees (high productivity and honey production) and bred out trates they didn't like (defensiveness and propolis production). This is one of many reasons standard European bees are failing like crazy. They don't defend their hive and they don't seal predators out. 



2) 'Now we use chemicals to keep them from dying. Our queens that used to life for 3 - 4 years now barely life for one year'.

Let's talk about my experience: I have queens right now that are three entire years old and lay on par with queens that are two months old. *How can this bee???* It's simple. 

Bees, like many creatures of the earth, are an actual wild specie. Believe it or not, they can survive without a beekeeper.

Now, you may be wondering why bees can survive mites, SHB, wax moths and other pests in the wild when those same pests seem to knock out domesticated hives all the time. 

Again, this ties back to our superficial breeding. We, as the beekeeping community, need to consider our methods, step back and realize that something is seriously wrong. Why do your bees not survive the winter? Why do your bees not survive mites? Why do your bees not survive SHB or the wax moth? 

Climate from region to region varies greatly! Even an hour north of my location here in Phoenix, we recieve snow in the State of Arizona. To say we can take one variety of bee, spread it all over the nation and say 'this is the bee that is all and can do all' I think is completely wrong. The European bee has varied and adapted to fit it's climate and conditions. We can't just send that bee variety all over the nation and expect superb results. 

*Think about this.* If you took a Zebra and said 'this is now going to be the internationally recognized horse type. Everyone should use this animal and stop using your native horses'. you then send Zebra's to everyone who would ordinarily use a horse and tell them to release their old horses or get rid of them. Everything goes well during the first summer and everyone is talking about how great the Zebra is because it is so much cooler than a horse. Then comes winter and thousands of Zebras freeze to death in the very stalls the old native horses used to stand. Other Zebras come down with strange diseases that no one has seen before, but there are a few that survive the winter and do begin doing well in their new climate. The people who have frozen Zebras have no idea what happened, the people who suffered from strange disease have no idea what happened but there are still a few people with the Zebras that survived saying they are the best things out there.

It's the same with our bees. *We have taken a bee native to a very specific climate and used it as the standard for basically most of North America.* You cannot do that and not expect them not to freeze to death or not to die from the heat and still others not to encounter some new disease they have never experienced before. 

There are bees native to your region that are perfectly fit to survive those native pests and these bees are perfectly equipped to surviving your individualized climate. All my experiences with feral bees have been positive ones on the spectrum of bee productivity and survival. True feral bees in your region are the best fit bee specie for you to use. *There is no industry standard bee, period.*


Now with regard to the queen only lasting one year, you can't just use chemicals and expect they don't damage bees inside the colonie. Your queen suffers the consequences along with all the bees, it's just that she is the only one you notice the difference in.

*Takeaways: *The standard European bee *should not *be used as it is being used today. The reason queens die after one year is the treatments used to kill mites and other pests.



3) 'Our colonies struggle from every predator on the planet but, boy oh boy, times used to be good.'

I've already talked about this point a little bit. We struggle from predators because we have bred the bees defensive nature out of them. True feral bees still have those defensive natures and tendencies which is why many TF beekeepers have success using them (feral bees) rather than the industry standard European bees. 

It is not untrue that times used to be good. I will agree that for a very long time the standard European bee has to some extent succeeded in it's quest to be the industry standard bee. However, times are changing and the bee has been potentially broken down by many different factors; GMO's could possibly weaken our bees, Neonics possibly weaken our bees, our own breeding has weakened our bees... Continue this trend since the 1980's and all of a sudden you have a runny nose and a fever. 

The problem is not the runny nose or fever (wax moths, varroa nor SHB) the core problem is the 'immunity' of the bees. Before our bees were introduced to those things that made them weaker, there were fewer problems. That is why I believe we need to go back to the basics, remember that bees can survive on their own and harness the power of feral bees which do not struggle from so many of these different issues.

*One thing I would like to point out:* I've heard some people talk about how they have done feral cut outs and the hive was really bad. May I suggest that was not truly a feral hive? Simply a hive that swarmed away from another standard European hive? Make sure you have a truly feral hive and not a European swarm.



I know that was a long read but I hope it inspires you to think. I would love to hear comments of all types (positive and negative) with regard to any of the topics discussed. I would especially like to hear feedback from TF beekeepers on this topic. 

*In closing*, I hope we are all mature enough to speak to these issues with respect for one another (as we all share common goals in the beekeeping community) even if we don't all agree. I am by no means the oldest of the beekeepers, nor am I the wisest. All of these ideas and concepts are based off of one theory of mine: The big question of modern beekeeping. If there are feral hives surviving without a beekeeper and without treatments, why is it so necessary for us as beekeepers to use treatments on our hives? 

I look forward to all of your thoughts.

Regards:


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

There are scores of native bees, but no native honey-producing bees in North America. All "feral" bees are just European honey bees that have escaped our kind care.

As far as I know the only other bee species that can produce harvestable hive products is the Asian honeybee, which doesn't exist here in the US at present. (And I would not be in favor of importing it, either.)

European honeybees are a remarkable species, and not as far as I can see under any threat of extinction because they are both very hardy and hugely valuable to humans. 

Enj.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I agree that "breeding" of bees or what I tend to think of a mass production of queens. Is the single greatest root cause of problems with bees today. You don't have to look very far to find examples of similar results in the actual breeding of other livestock. Genuine breeding of bees by it's definition. Which my translation of it is breeding results in breeds. Is not possible with bees and most likely never will be. Breeding is well known to produce as many or more problems in a breed than solutions. You live with it due to the desire for or benefit of those select few traits. In Bee breeding I believe we get the negatives without the benefits. The benefits or actually development of breeds do not happen due to the Honey Bees unique sensitivities to standard breeding methods.

I am not sure I agree the Varroa mite GMO's or Neonics have weakened out bees. Predators and harsh environment in general is nothing new. I still think it is mass production of queens that has caused the bee to be more sensitive and less capable of tolerating them. I also hold to no damage is acceptable. This does not mean I don't recognize progress toward that end. Neonics may not be a perfect answer. But is it an improvement. Even if the answer to that question is yes. That in no way is an admission that it is the answer. it is but an improvement but not an acceptable solution. Rather than be the enemy of Neonics. I think it would benefit beekeeping to be a partner with such efforts to continue to make gains on the goal. products that pose no danger to bees. Yet we set on our pedestals doing more damage to our bees than any other single source ever will and paint them to be destroyers of the earth. We criticize others for the progress they make when as beekeepers we would qualify as the poster child of environmental disaster and it's consequences. I think it would be beneficial to spend more time and attention on what we do or don't do and less on what others are doing.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

We know that feral bees had the stuffing knocked out of them by varroa when it first arrived so its not like they were pre adapted for it. So we know that varroa IS a new challenge. A few did survive and in some areas have made a comeback. We still don't know how far they have comeback to to point they are behaviourally and functionally the same. 

The biggest problem is the long distance movement of bees and their hitchhikers (pests/pathogens). It creates a dynamic adaptive environment where bees are always playing catch up. This together with centralized queen rearing where queens are introduced to new adaptive environments and expected to do well. Almost no chance of adaptation is possible in this scenario.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

I met a swiss beekeeper yesterday who claims to have never treated his bees for 34 years now ( his bees are not isolated ) and who claims all institutes know bees are able to survive without treatments.

He claims there are two kind of bees. He calls them „the hungry“ and „the breeding ones“. 
The „hungry“ are hives the beekeeper installs at a permanent place, which adapt their breeding to the location and are sometimes without brood but make not much honey surplus.
The „breeders“ are those which make much honey and are used to migrate with.
The „hungry“ are the resistant ones.
Depends on race mixing, hybrids, genes…he says.

It´s all about honey and profit in the bee world, he says.
So far nobody seems to have treatment free resistant production hives.
A whole industry of treatment tools would brake down.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I think a lot of the pressure on the bees is coming from the proliferation and adaptation of the 20 or so viruses affecting bees. Many of these are vectored by varroa mites. Geographic isolation that normally contains disease has been removed by the way we industrialize the bee usage and production as Iharder says.

It is hard to get traction in the adaptation game when the reproduction time of the separate viruses is measured in hours, the vector's (varroa) reproduction time is days, and the reproduction rate in the bee is functionally a year! Developing adaptive resistance is a serious logistics problem for the bee when we remove isolation and genetic diversity from the bee's arsenal.

I would like to hear what people would suggest is a practical plan to change the industrial model that is such a major influence, continent wide, on bee health. I guess really it is now a global issue! Hand wringing is easy to do. "They should do this or that". What would be do-able in non utopian terms?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> What would be do-able in non utopian terms?


Share our jobs so nobody is poor.
Better payment for everybody, tax to stock market profits and share of company profits. 
To have enough money means to be able to consume as you want to. 
This starts buying more local and quality oriented.

It´s utopia because people are greedy. Market rules.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

crofter said:


> I would like to hear what people would suggest is a practical plan to change the industrial model that is such a major influence, continent wide, on bee health. I guess really it is now a global issue! Hand wringing is easy to do. "They should do this or that"


I think "they" are ok with the current model, so change is not likely to happen anytime in the near future. We humans are rarely proactive, but we excel at being reactive after money is trumped by more pressing concerns, and usually those solutions come in the form of money making ones. Anyone seeing a pattern here? I think bees will be fine as long as there is relative isolation to be had. Bees in the industry, I can't tell you their future, but it doesn't look good.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Maybe our reactive instincts are just not adapting rapidly enough for the phenomenal "progress" of the last three hundred years or so. We are still very much driven by instincts that no longer serve a planet where co operation is looking more essential than competetivness. You think bees are hard to program! just try changing human nature! Like trying to herd cats


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The core assertion, "if feral bees survive without intervention, how can intervention be thought of as necessary" is a red herring.

Base survival of untreated domestic bees is about 35-40% year over year (as documented in numerous surveys of varying quality). Inversely, this represents mortality of 60-65% per annum.

Base survival in untreated feral colonies likely matches this mortality.

A feral population establishing daughter swarms at "wild" rate will maintain a feral population. This tendency is observed in the research which shows small, frequently swarming colonies are the norm in feral populations. If any selection has impacted feral genetics, it is swarm frequency and tendency -- both traits are strongly heritable and already present in the normal genome of the population.

A domestic industry (and hobby) cannot be maintained in an environment of annual losses of 65%, when the economic alternative is a 20% loss and $10 of miticide. Yes, one can play hero and conduct an "expansion model" where one attempts to outrun mortality by exuberant splitting, but this is not a sustainable model --- as indicated by Solomon Parker pleading for donations to sustain his vocation.


----------



## beestudent (Jun 10, 2015)

To the part about feral colonies, I believe the problem with finding feral colonies that are week, dying, or just plain bad, is the fact that they are dying off. That said, Feral colonies are still very good, but, feral colonies that survived such problems will be much stronger in the future. All of this is speaking of natural selection, the weak ones, unsuitable, not able to defend themselves from whatever that is in the area, die off, and the strong ones, able to defend themselves from such problems, survived and are thus, better suited to surviving in that specific climate.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> Base survival in untreated feral colonies likely matches this mortality.


 This is an unsupported factoid presented as reality. I could easily present documentation of long term feral colony survival in this area.

There are many factoids in the above comments starting from the thread starter. I suggest we all avoid them as much as possible.

Varroa resistance is genetic as proven by research at the bee lab and by Kefuss in France.

More than one trait must be expressed for high level varroa resistance to be shown, i.e. hygienic behavior alone won't do the job as shown by the work of Spivak.

Highly varroa resistant bees are available today from Carpenter, BeeWeaver, and others. There are negatives with most of these that preclude use in most commercial operations.

Here is my factoid. I have every reason to believe that a bee capable of commercial production can be bred including very high varroa resistance.

If you have local feral stock that is surviving and thriving sans treatments, by all means, keep local feral stock but don't expect it to perform like bees bred for honey production.


----------



## johng (Nov 24, 2009)

I don't think the bees we work today have been dealing with Varroa for centuries?? It's my understanding that Varroa is a new pest to Apis Melifera it's true that they have and still do coexist with Apis Cerana. I don't know all the answers but, if I could get rid of only one bee problem it would defiantly be Varroa! If you can keep Varroa levels low in a hive which ever way you choose the bees do a lot better.


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

enjambres said:


> All "feral" bees are just European honey bees that have escaped our kind care.
> 
> As far as I know the only other bee species that can produce harvestable hive products is the Asian honeybee, which doesn't exist here in the US at present. (And I would not be in favor of importing it, either.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. 

It is commonly known that the honey bee (Apis) was brought to the America's by the European's around the year 1622. According to ORSBA, it wasn't until 1853 that the European honey bee reached the West coast. Let's assume that in 1853 there was a moderate population of feral bees on the East coast. Those bees have been naturally surviving for 163 years! That is plenty enough time for the bees to adapt to their new environment and thrive. 

You are correct in saying that all bees were originally from Europe, but after close to 200 years, I'm going to call these feral bees. Some of those bees have not been tended by beekeepers for nearly two centuries, they are no longer domesticated in my opinion.

As for how remarkable the specie is, I believe it entirely! The European bees, as well as all bees are incredibly complex and amazingly smart creatures. I never claimed the European bee is facing extinction. The reason they are not is because of the beekeepers tending to them. Without the keepers you get a 60 - 65% loss on your standard European bees per year (according to JWChesnut who I replied to down below). I only believe our methods of queen rearing must change. If we change our methods we can strengthen the bee family to create a much more hygienic and defensive bee that is able to deal with problems on it's own.





Daniel Y said:


> I am not sure I agree the Varroa mite GMO's or Neonics have weakened out bees. Predators and harsh environment in general is nothing new. I still think it is mass production of queens that has caused the bee to be more sensitive and less capable of tolerating them. I also hold to no damage is acceptable.


*Thank you Daniel.* I agree entirely. I only suggested those may be possible weakening factors as suggested by the research done on fruit flies.




lharder said:


> We know that feral bees had the stuffing knocked out of them by varroa when it first arrived so its not like they were pre adapted for it. So we know that varroa IS a new challenge. A few did survive and in some areas have made a comeback. We still don't know how far they have comeback to to point they are behaviourally and functionally the same.


*Good point* and I do not believe the feral bees were already varroa resistant when they arrived. However, I do think the treatment of our hives has kept weak hives that would have otherwise died, alive and their poor genetic material with regard to resistance continues into new generations. This process leaves most keepers of standard European bees dependent on the treatments. 

*I would suggest that because Feral colonies have survived the past 29 years with varroa present in the America's, they are fully capable and able to deal with these new predators. If they were not able to do so, feral colonies would practically be non existent and that is simply not the case. *





SiWolKe said:


> I met a swiss beekeeper yesterday who claims to have never treated his bees for 34 years now [.] He claims there are two kind of bees. He calls them „the hungry“ and „the breeding ones“.
> The „hungry“ are hives the beekeeper installs at a permanent place, which adapt their breeding to the location and are sometimes without brood but make not much honey surplus.
> The „breeders“ are those which make much honey and are used to migrate with.
> The „hungry“ are the resistant ones.
> ...


Thanks for pointing that out Sibylle. The treatment industry has vested interest in selling their own products. If people begin figuring out that using certain varieties of feral bees they don't need to treat for mites, the treatment companies would have far fewer sales. 





crofter said:


> I think a lot of the pressure on the bees is coming from the proliferation and adaptation of the 20 or so viruses affecting bees. Many of these are vectored by varroa mites. Geographic isolation that normally contains disease has been removed by the way we industrialize the bee usage and production as Iharder says.
> 
> It is hard to get traction in the adaptation game when the reproduction time of the separate viruses is measured in hours, the vector's (varroa) reproduction time is days, and the reproduction rate in the bee is functionally a year! Developing adaptive resistance is a serious logistics problem for the bee when we remove isolation and genetic diversity from the bee's arsenal.
> 
> I would like to hear what people would suggest is a practical plan to change the industrial model that is such a major influence, continent wide, on bee health. I guess really it is now a global issue! Hand wringing is easy to do. "They should do this or that". What would be do-able in non utopian terms?


That is an excellent thought. Again it ties back into regional resistance.

Back in the day, the 'white man' brought smallpox to the natives here in North America. Smallpox was not nearly as devastating to the Europeans as it was to the natives because the Europeans bodies had adapted to dealing with it over time. 

Thank you for the comments about how to change the current process. I think Nordak, you bring up a very valid point. Because a better way could be costly and has possible problems, we often are willing to stick to our old methods because 'at least they work'. It really doesn't look good for the future of our bees. We continue to bread week bees and use one variety of bee as a standard for basically most of North America. As I mentioned previously, anyone want a Zebra instead of your native horse? ; ) It's just like Crofter said: Once you have that Zebra, you are never going to want to get anything again (even if the Zebra suffers from strange diseases and is not very fit for it's environment) because we as humans can be stubborn.







JWChesnut said:


> The core assertion, "if feral bees survive without intervention, how can intervention be thought of as necessary" is a red herring.
> 
> Base survival of untreated domestic bees is about 35-40% year over year (as documented in numerous surveys of varying quality). Inversely, this represents mortality of 60-65% per annum.
> 
> ...



*The first point: *I never said 'if feral bees survive without intervention, how can intervention be thought of as necessary'. What I actually said was 'If there are feral hives surviving without a beekeeper and without treatments, why is it so necessary for us as beekeepers to use treatments on our hives?' 

You are asserting that I think treatments serve no purpose and should not be used. That is not what I said at all. I know that without treatments, most 'standard European' hives would die because they are incapable of dealing with problems. I am asking the question 'how are these feral colonies surviving without treatments when all the while our 'standard European' hives are dying *with* treatments?' 

Those are humongous numbers and and I don't doubt that is true for a minute. *Using standard European bees that are incapable of dealing with mites and disease I would expect to find mortality rates as high as you described. However, let's use some logic here and figure out if those numbers are realistic for feral colonies.

According to the USDA's 2016 report on honey bee colonies, there are 2,594,590 domesticated bee hives in the United States. Let's assume way back in September of 1987 there were 1,000,000 feral colonies in the United States (when varroa was confirmed in the America's). Running an average of your 60 - 65% loss per year, there would have been as little as 350,000 feral colonies upon the close of 1988, 122,500 upon the close of 1989, 42,875 by the close of 1990. 15,006 by the close of 1991, 5,252 feral colonies by the end of 1992, 1,838 by the close of 1993, 643 feral colonies by the end of 1994, 225 by the end of 1996, 78 feral colonies by the end of 1995 and all feral bees would have been extinct by the year 2000 according to your numbers.

Because there is no denying the fact we find thousands of feral hives still surviving in the wild today, it is only logical to assume those numbers are not correct when talking about feral colonies. 

Summary: I agree that if you take your standard European bees and leave them, you have a high probability they will not survive. However, as we've been talking about, the standard European bee cannot live up to it's expectations and should not be the international bee type. 

In addition feral bees obviously do not experience a 60 - 65 percent loss. If they did there would be not feral bees left in the USA.





beestudent said:



To the part about feral colonies, I believe the problem with finding feral colonies that are week, dying, or just plain bad, is the fact that they are dying off. That said, Feral colonies are still very good, but, feral colonies that survived such problems will be much stronger in the future. All of this is speaking of natural selection, the weak ones, unsuitable, not able to defend themselves from whatever that is in the area, die off, and the strong ones, able to defend themselves from such problems, survived and are thus, better suited to surviving in that specific climate.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I believe over the past 29 years, feral bees have mostly been exposed to varroa and one of two things happened. They died or they survived. If they died that actually strengthen the feral variety. If they survived they are now more able to fight further infestations at a future date. 





Fusion_power said:



This is an unsupported factoid presented as reality. I could easily present documentation of long term feral colony survival in this area.

Varroa resistance is genetic as proven by research at the bee lab and by Kefuss in France.

...

If you have local feral stock that is surviving and thriving sans treatments, by all means, keep local feral stock but don't expect it to perform like bees bred for honey production.

Click to expand...


Exactly.

Because of our superficial breeding over the centuries, we have created a bee that does collect honey! However, without treatment that same bee will die 60 - 65% of the time (as JWChesnut pointed out). We may lose some honey production by using feral bees, but they will not just up and die without our intervention. It's like comparing the Zebra to the native horse. 


This is continuing to be a very thought provoking discussion. I can't wait to hear more thoughts and ideas. 

Regards:*


----------



## challenger (May 27, 2009)

Personally I doubt there are ANY feral colonies left. What does feral even mean? surviving bees from pre varroa? All honey bees were imported - ALL HONEY BEES WERE IMPORTED!
Bees can't adapt to things like varroa in a few decades. Sure some obviously have traits that allow them to take care of this pest but they are the exceptions by far.
If you don't want to treat then don't treat. 
So many times I read these posts, usually from new beekeepers, about why it is a mistake to treat bee. I feel a lot of these posts are just ways that these people are justifying their decision to go without treating. These huge rambling "know it all" posts proclaiming "evidence" about how bees are varroa proof are just fine. Carry on and good luck. I'll rely on my own experience and I will continue to treat. Then I'll one day read about how, " the wax moths got my hives"


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

challenger said:


> What does feral even mean?


"A feral animal (from Latin fera, "a wild beast") is an animal living in the wild but descended from domesticated individuals."


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

This article (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/wha...fference-between-domesticated-and-feral-bees/) and particularly the part titled "Back To Honey Bees" discusses the genetic differences between feral and managed bees.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> " the wax moths got my hives"


 I find it interesting that my bees are alive after 12 consecutive years with no treatments at all. I will agree with you that most newcomers who start with packages of treated bees will fail within 2 years. If they have the insight to start with treatment free bees, the likelihood of success is much higher.

We had a massive outbreak of wax moths this year but they did not succeed in overwhelming any of my bees. We had a massive outbreak of hive beetles this year. I had to combine 3 queen mating nucs and 2 large colonies that went queenless with other colonies when the hive beetles got the upper hand. Hive beetles are opportunists taking advantage of weak or disrupted hives. Queen rearing nucs and going queenless in mid-summer are an invitation for them. I'm still going into winter with 20 colonies of bees and I expect most of them to make it to next spring.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> I find it interesting that my bees are alive after 12 consecutive years with no treatments at all.


When you have superpowers, the hard part is staying humble.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Fusion_power said:


> I find it interesting that my bees are alive after 12 consecutive years with no treatments at all. I will agree with you that most newcomers who start with packages of treated bees will fail within 2 years. If they have the insight to start with treatment free bees, the likelihood of success is much higher.
> .


Congrats for being TF for 12 years, but there is no way that the likelihood of success is much higher starting out treatment free. Most newcomers fail, especially those who think TF is the best way to start out. People need to learn how keep bees; bees that are healthy and thriving. After getting several colonies established, then try TF if you want. People buying hives and leaving them to rot because it is "natural to leave them alone" is a huge problem that just enforces the "OMG, the bees are dying and the world is coming to an end" group of people who perpetuate the a myth.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> If they have the insight to start with treatment free bees, the likelihood of success is much higher.


Snap. Bees that require treatment are of little value to a treatment free beekeeper. In fact, they take up resources that would better be used with other bees. It's a little like the first step in making rabbit stew.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Ideology a survivor bee does not make. Anyone foolish enough to buy bees from a package, hive them and hope for the best make the ones who are successful look bad. The good news is, unless they have tons of disposable income, they won't be beeks for long. Most of the people I have spoken with here that are TF are extremely well informed and very adept beeks.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

McBain said...

In addition feral bees obviously do not experience a 60 - 65 percent loss. If they did there would be not feral bees left in the USA.

Untrue. If for every 100 feral hive, each throws off 2 swarms, we have 300 hives. if 65 percent die(195), we are left with 105, a gain of 5. Two swarms a year from feral hives is expected.

If the OP really believes that mites are the biggest problem, he needs to get out more(no offense intended). We do not use chemical treatments in our hives and do not see large mite numbers. We do see queens lasting a year and a half on average, where they lasted 3 years on average in the 60's. We are seeing numerous hives die suddenly in the summer(mites kill slowly). That never happened until the last 10 years. Honey production has gone from almost 100 lbs a hive to less than 50 lbs a hive also in the last ten years. 

I have no reason to believe that the current turn of events has anything to do with the type of bee we use, uncontrolled mites, or their associated viruses.
Please try other hypothesis. 

Crazy Roland, 5th gen beekeeper
Linden Apiary, est. 1852


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Roland said:


> Honey production has gone from almost 100 lbs a hive to less than 50 lbs a hive also in the last ten years.


hi roland. that's a pretty significant drop and something i believe the 'bull of the woods' would be concerned about. what factor(s) do you think are responsible?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Ahhh, Yes, The "Bull of the Woods" would say it is harder to keep bees alive now-adays. (He retired about 15 years ago).

The first factor is that dead bees do not make honey. We are seeing hives that made 5 deeps or more die in the summer, in less than 2 weeks, with dead bees on the ground. The problem is usually grouped by the yard, meaning it effects one yard at a time. Often the bees are of identical origins, and the forage very similar. We intentionally let one hive die of mites. It took 2 months to fad out. This is sudden, and if you place a new hive on top of the old brood box, it will often die abruptly also.

You tell me what it sounds like...

Crazy Roland

P.S. "The Bull of the woods" says it's time for a beer.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Hey Roland, sorry, but I was testing Monsanto's orbital A.M. Deathray, I didn't know those hives were yours....


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Roland said:


> You tell me what it sounds like...


i wish i could roland. sounds like acute toxicity, but from what?



Roland said:


> "The Bull of the woods" says it's time for a beer.


cheers my friend, i'm a michelob light man myself, but will settle for a corona with lime if i have to.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> sounds like acute toxicity, but from what?


 or a highly infections virus.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

We have a wax scandal now, which kills whole apiaries.
Wax is contaminated with paraffin oil.
People send their wax to companies which do the foundations. The wax was mixed with wax from China and the companies used paraffin, too, so it was accumulating in the wax.
Now it´s too much and the larvae die in cells, bees are not able to hatch because of the stickiness and whole colonies leave the hives, brood and queens left.
Some people have 100% loss.

Seems to me varroa is not a problem compared to this. And why?
Profit!


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

I could be wrong, but I believe there have always been challenges associated with beekeeping. Likely always will be.

If we somehow create a bee capable of handling varroa something else will come come along. 

People move about, have been doing so since forever. They like to bring their domesticated plants and animals with them. That isn't going to change. Some new hitchhiking nasty will show up and we will have a new 'thing' to deal with and fret over. 

As I tell people I am training to be managers: There is never a time of smooth sailing. 

And so we deal with problems as we always have and always will. That is one of the truly remarkable things about people: We are amazingly adaptive.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

McBain said:


> However, let's use some logic here and figure out if those numbers are realistic for feral colonies.[/B]
> 
> According to the USDA's 2016 report on honey bee colonies, there are 2,594,590 domesticated bee hives in the United States. Let's assume way back in September of 1987 there were 1,000,000 feral colonies in the United States (when varroa was confirmed in the America's). Running an average of your 60 - 65% loss per year, there would have been as little as 350,000 feral colonies upon the close of 1988, 122,500 upon the close of 1989, 42,875 by the close of 1990. 15,006 by the close of 1991, 5,252 feral colonies by the end of 1992, 1,838 by the close of 1993, 643 feral colonies by the end of 1994, 225 by the end of 1996, 78 feral colonies by the end of 1995 *and all feral bees would have been extinct by the year 2000 according to your numbers.
> 
> Because there is no denying the fact we find thousands of feral hives still surviving in the wild today, it is only logical to assume those numbers are not correct when talking about feral colonies.*


*

I don´t know if it was on purpose or not, but you misunderstood the writer totally.

65% losses mean losses of the total population, after swarming. 

Roland explained this well on post 23. 

A wild bee population is doing well with 2 swarms/year and annual 65% losses. If the mites were equally devided this could not be true (because of mite numbers increasing all the time) but because there are a lot less mites(lower infestation rate) in the swarms than in the parental hive, this works without any varroa resistance in the wild stock.

But the average swarming rate 2/hive/year and 65% annual losses are assumptions, or at least there is argument on wheather they are true or not. To me the average swarming rate 2 / hive sounds very high. But hey, my hives don´t swarm they just keep on living without treatments. When deviding colonies I try to make them equally strong, bees and brood, so that mite pressure should be equal to all queens in test.*


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Nordak said:


> We humans are rarely proactive, but we excel at being reactive... I can't tell you their future, but it doesn't look good.


Your closing comment would explain your opening one. You say we don't fix problems before they happen. that is because the problems cannot be predicted. To shot gun for every conceivable problem would be overwhelming, expensive and still not address the majority of problems that actually happen.


----------



## challenger (May 27, 2009)

It'sbeen stated more than once in tthis thread that people that start with a package are doomed to fail due to varroa. How is this? What does the source of the bees have to do with resistance? It seems the queen has all to do with the resistance not 3 pounds of workers???


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Challenger, I am fairly certain I don't understand the entire concept. But I do understand that in part it has to do with adaptation. Or a convoluted idea of adaptation. Adaptation unlike evolution in the process in which already present traits come to the forfront because under local conditions they are advantageous. they already exist in the species it is simply that environment does not favor them until the species environment is altered. For example exposure to the Varroa mite is the alteration in the environment. Any trait that is more suitable to resist the mite will then come to the forefront both due to the resistant trait causing certain individuals to excel while those without that trait will tend to fail. This requires time and packages or relocated bees actually are considered at to much of a disadvantage. local survival stock has had time to adapt. Packages indicate transport. Which is a pretty mindless way to think about it. I got my package from the guy next door. So how does that idea stack up then? Anyway it is true that many consider the mobility of the bee today to be a major causal factor in there vulnerability. For reasons you question alludes to I disagree. bees with the correct traits assuming they exist will do better. Adaptation is a very quick process if it is going to happen.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Arnie said:


> I could be wrong, but I believe there have always been challenges associated with beekeeping. Likely always will be.
> 
> If we somehow create a bee capable of handling varroa something else will come come along.
> 
> ...


What you say is true. But could we reduce the frequency of such events? That would be helpful.


----------



## trapperdirk (Nov 3, 2013)

Perhaps I have my goals skewed.

I don't just want my bees to simply survive. In order to meet my expectations I want my bees to thrive. This returns me increased numbers of hives, enjoyment of having my bees thrive, honey for use or sale, and various other products for my family or others.

I guess I must be too much of a capitalist in wanting to reap the profits of my bees hard work and the efforts I put into it to keep my bees healthy.

In my world, simply setting the bar at "survival" seems pretty darn low.


----------



## Pinchecharlie (May 14, 2014)

Crazy Roland , what are your strategies for keeping your bees alive and making a profit from your apiary? With all of this great information , we still lack the nuts and bolts of doing anything other than raising bees for the long term goal of allowing natural selection to do its thing? How will commercial beekeepers adapt ?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Well trapperdirk,
thriving is surviving... is it not?

Is it utopia to breed or multiply bees until you got a bee yard of resistant thriving bees which make some honey and can be used as teachers of resistant behaviors and requeening sources to once treated stock?

No, there are some on their way, squarepeg, fusion-power, me ( ) Nordak...and many more, with hope and enthusiasm.

Respect those who want to achieve something and who never give up to do good.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Daniel Y said:


> Your closing comment would explain your opening one. You say we don't fix problems before they happen. that is because the problems cannot be predicted. To shot gun for every conceivable problem would be overwhelming, expensive and still not address the majority of problems that actually happen.


We typically act when things reach crisis level, an indeterminate level admittedly, and one applicable situationally in regard to reaction time. The writing is on the wall for bees in the industry it seems. Doing something now would be being proactive. How do we accomplish that? It's going to take first a change in how we view the situation at hand. I don't think it's going to change until it reaches crisis level, in whatever form that takes. Often we don't find the solutions, and adapt accordingly. Arnie made that point wonderfully.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> We typically act when things reach crisis level


 This is like driving a car and letting it go off one side of the road, over-correcting, then letting it cross the road and go off the other side. Wouldn't it make more sense to stay on the road?


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Fusion_power said:


> This is like driving a car and letting it go off one side of the road, over-correcting, then letting it cross the road and go off the other side. Wouldn't it make more sense to stay on the road?


Depends on where the road takes you, but in general, definitely.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

lharder said:


> But could we reduce the frequency of such events? That would be helpful.


That WOULD be helpful.

But to do so we would need to be able to foresee which event would be a disaster and which event would be a boon to us.
On balance, I believe the movement of people and their 'products' has been a great thing. If that had not happened we would not have bees here at all, let alone mites.

The other element we would need to prevent disasters is control over everybody and everything. A swarm of bees can hitch a ride on a ship. A storm can toss foreign living critters on shore. We simply cannot control everything.
There are a number of regulations regarding importation of agricultural products. Yet, those regs can not prevent every instance of importation from occurring, legal, accidental or otherwise. That's when our adaptability and problem solving come in to play.

There is the idea among some folks that we should stop production of bees and queens because they are inferior. That would pretty much put an end to the beekeeping industry. For what purpose? To create the 'ultimate' bee? And what to do when the inevitable problem comes up with the 'ultimate' bee?

Can't the beekeeping industry and the forward thinking TF folks co-exist? I think so. What's not to like about that? We have the best of both worlds. 

Like many others here, I had bees before mites, and I have them after mites. I think overall this is a pretty great time to have bees. 
I was in the bank the other day and I mentioned I had spent the morning working the bees. The bank teller was gushing about how he had SO much respect for the bees and their keepers. I never got that reaction in the good old days.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

One issue is hobbyist or small timers always have Napoleon syndrome..... they think they're the big guy but w/o the commercial side places like Dadant and Mann Lake would not exist let alone the package industry that gets so many hobbyist going. There's a lot of big mouths flapping their gums about how 'weak' commercial stocks are, but yet when given the challenge of running a 20,000 hive migratory operation treatment free none could back up any of their claims...


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

challenger said:


> Personally I doubt there are ANY feral colonies left. What does feral even mean? surviving bees from pre varroa? All honey bees were imported - ALL HONEY BEES WERE IMPORTED!
> Bees can't adapt to things like varroa in a few decades. Sure some obviously have traits that allow them to take care of this pest but they are the exceptions by far.
> If you don't want to treat then don't treat.
> So many times I read these posts, usually from new beekeepers, about why it is a mistake to treat bee. I feel a lot of these posts are just ways that these people are justifying their decision to go without treating. These huge rambling "know it all" posts proclaiming "evidence" about how bees are varroa proof are just fine. Carry on and good luck. I'll rely on my own experience and I will continue to treat. Then I'll one day read about how, " the wax moths got my hives"


*Since you must have missed large statements in my second post, I'll take time to refresh you on what I actually said: Please read the section I wrote on feral logic and the first statement I wrote.*



McBain said:


> *You are asserting that I think treatments serve no purpose and should not be used. That is not what I said at all. I know that without treatments, most 'standard European' hives would die because they are incapable of dealing with problems. I am asking the question 'how are these feral colonies surviving without treatments when all the while our 'standard European' hives are dying with treatments?'
> 
> Those are humongous numbers and and I don't doubt that is true for a minute. Using standard European bees that are incapable of dealing with mites and disease I would expect to find mortality rates as high as you described. However, let's use some logic here and figure out if those numbers are realistic for feral colonies.
> 
> ...


*

I personally did four 'feral' cut outs this past year here in Phoenix. I know feral bees exist because 97% of our feral bees are in the AHB (Africanized Honey Bee) family, so it's easy to make the distinction between a European swarm or a truly feral colony of AHB's. 

You are correct again when you said that all honey bees are imported. No one ever contradicted you on that point. Please take time and review the previous posts. 

How do you know bees cannot adapt to new threats over the course of nearly 30 years? 30 years my friend? That's close to 15 new generations of bees and obviously feral bees still exist and have not been knocked out by these mites which is strong evidence they have adapted to the new problem.*


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

JRG13 said:


> One issue is hobbyist or small timers always have Napoleon syndrome..... they think they're the big guy but w/o the commercial side places like Dadant and Mann Lake would not exist let alone the package industry that gets so many hobbyist going. There's a lot of big mouths flapping their gums about how 'weak' commercial stocks are, but yet when given the challenge of running a 20,000 hive migratory operation treatment free none could back up any of their claims...


I for one can't imagine the challenge involved. I'm a hobbyist, no idea what it takes to run commercial. I have 0 interest in ever getting into commercial beekeeping. Hats off to those doing it. I'm of the opinion that there are so many variables affecting bees in the industry, that resistance plays but a part in bee health. I don't think creating a resistant bee, while a part of the sum, is the whole solution. Perhaps our focus should be on the industry, not the bee. I have a feeling bees are the least of our problems in the greater scheme, imho.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Running 20,000 colonies would be a 20 man operation and heavily mechanized. Think $4,000,000 in bees and hives, another $2,000,000 or more in equipment to move them, $1,000,000 per year in salary to pay, and operational expenses such as queens, replacing old equipment, etc would run $3,000,000 per year. If you have a good year, $3,000,000 goes in your pocket. In a bad year, you could spend a few million out of pocket with nothing returned. A good accountant would cost you $50,000 per year just to keep the paperwork, paychecks, and W2 forms up to date. Then remember that Adee lost 30,000 colonies a year ago.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Thanks snickeringbear, that definitely gives some perspective on operations. Sounds very boom or bust, like most agriculture.


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

JRG13 said:


> One issue is hobbyist or small timers always have Napoleon syndrome..... they think they're the big guy but w/o the commercial side places like Dadant and Mann Lake would not exist let alone the package industry that gets so many hobbyist going. There's a lot of big mouths flapping their gums about how 'weak' commercial stocks are, but yet when given the challenge of running a 20,000 hive migratory operation treatment free none could back up any of their claims...


I am no foreigner to the commercial industry as I've been employed by the third largest beekeeping operation in my state. I know the problems you guys experience from my own first hand experience and work. 

No one denies that most hobbyists would not have started without commercial keepers, I started out years ago because of the work of commercial operations. 

*If you tried to convert your entire operation overnight into a TF apiary, you would fail and suffer huge losses within the year. *

In order to go TF, in my opinion, you need to find queen stock that has *not* been kept alive by treatments. (You can't use a Zebra instead of the horse and avoid treatments). 

*Arnie wrote earlier *"There is the idea among some folks that we should stop production of bees and queens because they are inferior. That would pretty much put an end to the beekeeping industry. For what purpose? To create the 'ultimate' bee? And what to do when the inevitable problem comes up with the 'ultimate' bee?

Can't the beekeeping industry and the forward thinking TF folks co-exist? I think so. What's not to like about that? We have the best of both worlds. "

Being able to co-exist is great and I don't see a problem with working together as the beekeeping community, that is my goal. 

I believe strongly that if queen rearing operations would take the above advice and learn to use TF varroa resistant bees (that do exist by the way because I happen to have some) and sell those alone we would see massive increases in common bee strength and our bees will no longer be dependent on chemical treatments as they are today.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Here's the question then, why don't the large queen rearing operations use TF varroa resistant queens then? Is it simply because their operations don't have them? Also, I would never make any claims about my bees in such a manner. I've tested more than a few 'resistant' stocks already and none have really held up so much. I'm testing a few more out this year, should have some results in next year and hoping to test more in the future but I think there's something when you hit a certain hive density such as the one's California sees through out the growing season and then in the off season because of overwintering yards for almonds, it's a very difficult environment, but it also will make the result that much better if achieved. I did notice this year was a little better in terms of mites, but also, broodnests were a lot smaller this year due to lack of forage starting in May, which is nothing new in terms of managing mite issues but it finally got to a point here where I could actually see where an extended break from heavy brooding and actually downsizing the broodnest made a difference, but of course the colonies aren't very productive when this happens and can't capitalize on any flows but seeing nice solid brood patterns w/o treatment in fall is a plus.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Nordak said:


> We typically act when things reach crisis level, an indeterminate level admittedly, and one applicable situationally in regard to reaction time. The writing is on the wall for bees in the industry it seems. Doing something now would be being proactive. How do we accomplish that? It's going to take first a change in how we view the situation at hand. I don't think it's going to change until it reaches crisis level, in whatever form that takes. Often we don't find the solutions, and adapt accordingly. Arnie made that point wonderfully.


I have a basic principal I watch play out reliably. People are fundamentally motivated by suffering. Better understood by the idea that people will continue to behave in a given way until the price they pay. or effort required etc. exceeds the benefit they receive. Since lack of reward would also be seen as suffering. Or outright suffering is part of the price paid. such factors must reach a point they exceed the reward. Holding true to the idea that people are motivated to change by suffering.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

JRG13 said:


> Here's the question then, why don't the large queen rearing operations use TF varroa resistant queens then? Is it simply because their operations don't have them? Also, I would never make any claims about my bees in such a manner. I've tested more than a few 'resistant' stocks already and none have really held up so much. I'm testing a few more out this year, should have some results in next year and hoping to test more in the future but I think there's something when you hit a certain hive density such as the one's California sees through out the growing season and then in the off season because of overwintering yards for almonds, it's a very difficult environment, but it also will make the result that much better if achieved. I did notice this year was a little better in terms of mites, but also, broodnests were a lot smaller this year due to lack of forage starting in May, which is nothing new in terms of managing mite issues but it finally got to a point here where I could actually see where an extended break from heavy brooding and actually downsizing the broodnest made a difference, but of course the colonies aren't very productive when this happens and can't capitalize on any flows but seeing nice solid brood patterns w/o treatment in fall is a plus.


You touch on a few of the other circumstances involved in whether a particular queen does well or not. the year. environment etc. But more directly to your question of why queen producers are not using resistant bees. Last I knew of the resistant traits are recessive which means even though they may be present in a queen. they do not necessarily pass on to the next generation. Not only that but they are a combination of trait that must be struck in the correct balance. there is something of a to much resistance. resulting in colonies that do not build up. they are to busy destroying their brood. So only a portion of all resistant queens produced will be desirably resistant. Now traits being recessive in no way indicates they cannot be predominant. The color white in a chicken for example is a recessive gene. not only is it a recessive gene but it is a recessive mutated gene. and not only that but it has to accour again and again over a succession of generations to be displayed. Yet white is an extremely common color among chickens. It is still a receive gene. but in some breeds it is the only possible gene.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I believe it was Fusion power that wrote:

"or a highly infections virus."

Yes, that is a possibility, but we have seen where only the strongest hive gets wiped out in a brief time period, and all of the others are not effected. You would think that a virus would be spread by drones and mites and would infect the whole yard. It is more logical that the strongest hive would forage the farthest, and would be more likely to stumble across a lethal source.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

JRG13 said:


> Here's the question then, why don't the large queen rearing operations use TF varroa resistant queens then?


I believe Wooten, among others, produces mite tolerant or resistant (or both) queens.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

pin....charlie wrote:

Crazy Roland , what are your strategies for keeping your bees alive and making a profit from your apiary?

me - The first step is to determine was is causing the mortality of bees and hives. We have submitted 2 samples, one of comb, the other of dead bees, to the USDA pesticide residue testing labs in Gastonia. After spending almost 900 dollars, we know that whatever is killing he bees does not show up in their tests.

me- As for the profit, try to earn more money than you spend, although some times you must spend money to earn money.

With all of this great information , we still lack the nuts and bolts of doing anything other than raising bees for the long term goal of allowing natural selection to do its thing?

me - Do we? I believe that I can dramatically increase my ability to determine what is killing the bees with more accurate record keeping. This year we included more detail on yard notes, and picked up a pattern: that loss of bees in the hive on one inspection will be followed by queen failures ion the inspection 14 days later. We have also noted more queen failures where the queen stops laying eggs, but does not die, which typically follows the loss of field bees.


How will commercial beekeepers adapt ? 

me - Do the research, test a hypothesis, and repeat until successful. As long as there is money to be made in pollination, and they have a period to recover their losses, they will adapt and overcome. 


Squarepeg - The "Bull of the Woods" would not drink beer made in St. Louis or Mexico(we can spit into Milwaukee from here), his favorite was Lithia out of West Bend, now defunct.

Crazy Roland


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

Roland said:


> I believe it was Fusion power that wrote:
> 
> "or a highly infections virus."
> 
> ...


This is a very interesting post you wrote Roland. You talk about the strongest hive being wiped out, how do you define strong? Is it the hive with the most bees in it at that moment? 

Bees have immune systems that are similar to that of a human: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847501/) Around the world in the human family we can find people that are resistant to different types of pathogenic organisms while others in the human family are suseptable to those same pathogenic organisms. This ties into what Daniel wrote:

Daniel wrote a very good article (post 34) about adaptation and variation within kinds. 




Daniel Y said:


> Adaptation unlike evolution in the process in which already present traits come to the forfront because under local conditions they are advantageous. they already exist in the species it is simply that environment does not favor them until the species environment is altered. For example exposure to the Varroa mite is the alteration in the environment. Any trait that is more suitable to resist the mite will then come to the forefront both due to the resistant trait causing certain individuals to excel while those without that trait will tend to fail. This requires time and packages or relocated bees actually are considered at to much of a disadvantage. local survival stock has had time to adapt. Packages indicate transport. Which is a pretty mindless way to think about it. I got my package from the guy next door. So how does that idea stack up then? Anyway it is true that many consider the mobility of the bee today to be a major causal factor in there vulnerability. bees with the correct traits assuming they exist will do better. Adaptation is a very quick process if it is going to happen.


The ability for creatures to adapt and vary within their kind is pre-programmed into the genetic material of all species including the honey bee. *Here is what we can know because of adaptation and variation:*

Apis A. Cerana, native to Asia, is the variety within the honey bee family that has hosted and co-existed with the varroa mite for as long as we currently know. Because A. Cerana is distantly related to apis mellifera (western honey bee) we know that the genetic material exists within the family to resist mites. 

Every bee related disease is native to one or more of the sub-species within the bee family and so those bees are able to deal with the viral infection or pest. This is the way things work throughout creation, all pests have a host and all hosts learn to resist the pest. There are no contradictory examples (excluding man made epidemic diseases). The trick of the trade is learning which bees sub-species can fight AFB, SHB, Verroa etc.


----------



## Snaggy (Nov 24, 2015)

It's likely that the traits that make bees resistant to Varroa will never be conducive to production. Things like frequent swarming, higher rates of culling brood, grooming behavior, small colonies and absconding are NOT what you want to cover almonds, yet they seem to be the primary defenses A. cerana employs against Varroa. It's going to be much cheaper to requeen annually than to maintain and truck 6 small hives of wandering bees per acre to Merced every year, instead of one strong hive of more productive bees.

It's like turkeys. You can't get Butterballs without intense husbandry, including artificial insemination. That's what the market wants, and that's what they'll get. Wild turkeys and heritage breeds don't taste that good, or so I'm told.

It may also be like breeding Pug dogs. Despite small litters, the frequent use of C-sections for whelping and high puppy mortality, the demand is there and breeders will supply the dogs. The last thing Pug breeders want is some Dingo-looking mongrel lifting it's leg around their precious inbred brood stock. Maybe commercial beekeepers will NEVER want Varroa resistant feral mutt bees around their apiaries.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Riverderwent said:


> I believe Wooten, among others, produces mite tolerant or resistant (or both) queens.


They may say that.... but the 5 queens I got this year definitely needed some help with mites....


----------



## CrazyTalk (Jan 27, 2015)

Snaggy said:


> It's like turkeys. You can't get Butterballs without intense husbandry, including artificial insemination. That's what the market wants, and that's what they'll get. Wild turkeys and heritage breeds don't taste that good, or so I'm told..


They taste fine (atleast heritage breeds do - never eaten wild) - they just take twice as long to mature. 

The biggest thing here is that getting mite resistant bees requires you to let a lot of your bees die from mites- that means enormous short term losses, and most businesses can't weather that. We're talking on the order of losing 60-70% of your hives every year for a couple years - which means losing lots of honey, having to buy tons of replacement packages, etc.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

McBain said:


> This is the way things work throughout creation, all pests have a host and all hosts learn to resist the pest. There are no contradictory examples (excluding man made epidemic diseases). The trick of the trade is learning which bees sub-species can fight AFB, SHB, Verroa etc.


A contradictory example is Rabies. The few individuals that might survive do not have the genetic mass to alter the susceptibility to the disease. The only reason that the disease has not wiped out most mammals is the infection rate is very low because most infected individuals die or are incapacitated before they become infective.

Another point there are a lot more extinct species than species alive today, mostly if not totally due to lack of adaption.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

McBain wrote:

This is a very interesting post you wrote Roland. You talk about the strongest hive being wiped out, how do you define strong? Is it the hive with the most bees in it at that moment? 

I define strong as any hive that filled 5 deeps. Today, as we continued to feed, I noted that the only 3 dead hives in the yard had all filled 5 or more deeps. You would expect mites to take out the weak hives first. 

The other clue is that IF you can get the feed pail on RIGHT after loosing field bees, you MAY save the hive, and have them recover in time for winter. Has anyone ever heard of feed curing mites? I think not.

Crazy Roland


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Roland said:


> I define strong as any hive that filled 5 deeps. Today, as we continued to feed, I noted that the only 3 dead hives in the yard had all filled 5 or more deeps. You would expect mites to take out the weak hives first.


We mark the best producing hives in each yard as part of our breeder selection criteria. Yes, quite often they are the ones taking the population nosedive first but we always seem to find notable exceptions and those are the ones that get the strongest consideration as breeders the next spring.


----------



## Pinchecharlie (May 14, 2014)

Well I feel a bit dumb because I don't understand what you are insinuating , what do you personally think is causing your large hives to die since you don't think it's mites. You mention you feel they forage the furthest and perhaps they are exposed to more? More what you think? Just want to know what guys that feed their family's by beekeeping think. Thanks


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

Dave Burrup said:


> A contradictory example is Rabies. The few individuals that might survive do not have the genetic mass to alter the susceptibility to the disease. The only reason that the disease has not wiped out most mammals is the infection rate is very low because most infected individuals die or are incapacitated before they become infective.
> 
> Another point there are a lot more extinct species than species alive today, mostly if not totally due to lack of adaption.


I think you misunderstood the meaning behind what I posted. Was talking about host subspecies harbouring disease and resisting it. My example requires an isolated subspecies as indicated and the introduction of isolated pests into general family stock. Smallpox was a human example I used, it caused widespread problems in Europe, but when exposed to an isolated part of the human family with no exposure, Native Americans, it caused widespread decimation. 

Apis A. Cerana has been isolated to Asia for as long as we know of and because of that isolation they have been able to host verroa mites in separation from the remainder of their Apis family. Verroa was later introduced to the rest of the family as we see today.

*Another example is the Asian Giant Hornet.* Here is a short paragraph recording the relations between the hornet and Apis Cerana Japonica native to Japan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_giant_hornet#Native_honey_bees

Apis Cerana Japonica a subvariety of the Apis family has adapted to deal with the pest while other branches of the family are completely wiped out.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Pinchecharlie said:


> Well I feel a bit dumb because I don't understand what you are insinuating , what do you personally think is causing your large hives to die since you don't think it's mites. You mention you feel they forage the furthest and perhaps they are exposed to more? More what you think? Just want to know what guys that feed their family's by beekeeping think. Thanks


Let me gues, because I too have experience of biggest hives falling first. These big hives they are of that type of bees, which really concentrates in making honey. Nothing else matters. They make big brood areas and get a lot of mites. (Not per bee, but total numbers) Taking out sick brood is not something they want to do. As summer is turning to autumn and the brood areas are getting smaller there will be more mites in the remaining brood. Viruses spread. Plus all the bees in those hives have worked very hard all summer, the individual bees are weak.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I think Occam's Razor applies Roland. You didn't see these large hives collapsing 30 years ago pre-varroa and pre-nicotinoids. Your suggestive point seems to be that the foraging bees are flying out and finding something that kills them. I would suggest that it may be something to do with the brood in the hive being disrupted much as Juhani describes.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Pinchecharlie: I am trying to say that, at this time, I do not know, with a high degree of certainty, what is killing the bees.

Snickering...: No. this issue does not coincide with Varroa. Untill 4 years ago we NEVER lost a significant number of hives in Summer. Now it is common. Queen failure have also increased dramatically in the last 4 years. You wrote:

Your suggestive point seems to be that the foraging bees are flying out and finding something that kills them. 

me - Yes, that is one logical conclusion.

I would suggest that it may be something to do with the brood in the hive being disrupted much as Juhani describes. 

me - We see no significant virus indicators, and see no issues with deformed caps on capped brood. Often there are solid patches of brood left in the empty hive. A necropsy has revealed an estimated 200 mites in a hive that previously had 30-40,000 bees.

The issue also has geographical patterns, not correlated to topography or apparent forage. One yard for example, lost all hive one year, lost only one hive the next, and lost all hives the following year. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Roland said:


> ... We are seeing hives that made 5 deeps or more die in the summer, in less than 2 weeks, with dead bees on the ground. The problem is usually grouped by the yard, meaning it effects one yard at a time. Often the bees are of identical origins, and the forage very similar. We intentionally let one hive die of mites. It took 2 months to fad out. This is sudden, and if you place a new hive on top of the old brood box, it will often die abruptly also.


 It sounds virus, virus epidemy.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

CrazyTalk said:


> They taste fine (atleast heritage breeds do - never eaten wild) - they just take twice as long to mature.
> 
> The biggest thing here is that getting mite resistant bees requires you to let a lot of your bees die from mites- that means enormous short term losses, and most businesses can't weather that. We're talking on the order of losing 60-70% of your hives every year for a couple years - which means losing lots of honey, having to buy tons of replacement packages, etc.


You still don't address the question. Will anyone want them once you have gone to all this effort and suffered the losses? That has been a big issue in this entire topic since I first heard of it. A real life example. putting more money into a breed of dog than it would have cost to purchase a new luxury car. only to have the public decide that the particular traits being breed for are no longer desirable. I've been there and done that. I here people say they want mite resistance. but I also hear they cull the very queens that may be demonstrating it as undesirable performers. I found spotty brood so replaced the queen, she must be going bad. Or the workers are culling infested brood just as you thought you wanted. Most would not know mite resistance if they had it and if they knew they had it they would most likely decide they really didn't want it after all. To a large degree I see a mite resistant colony is mite resistant mainly because it destroys itself with the attempts to resist the mite. Sort of like mite treatment via flame thrower. no mites, No bees either but by golly no mites.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Roland said:


> Pinchecharlie: I am trying to say that, at this time, I do not know, with a high degree of certainty, what is killing the bees.
> 
> Snickering...: No. this issue does not coincide with Varroa. Untill 4 years ago we NEVER lost a significant number of hives in Summer. Now it is common. Queen failure have also increased dramatically in the last 4 years. You wrote:
> 
> ...


In Finland beekeepers have been forced to use oxalic double amounts recently. Earlier autumn treatment was enough, now spring tratment is also needed.

I asked a beekeeping advisor, has oxalic acid lost its effect? 
No, replied he, it is because viruses have become much more virulent. When earlier it was enough to kill 95% of the mites (originally 500 mites, 25 remaining after treatment), today 99% effect is needed ( 500 mites, 5 remaining after treatment).

If this beekeeping advisor is right and you have 200 mites in your hives with troubles, it is more than enough for serious virus problems to occur.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Juhani, excellent post above, I believe I see the same here due to the large influx of bees for almonds, I think we have hyper virulence because of it. I'd love to get see some haplotype studies done on the USA and see how it correlates in concentrations of highly migratory areas and how much recombination, if any, is happening in both the mites and DWV.

Also, people need to realize.... how many generations of mites are cycled each year versus how many times a colony has a chance to evolve... the mites definitely have an advantage in terms of adaptation.


----------



## Snaggy (Nov 24, 2015)

Mathematically speaking, it would make just as much sense, or more, to do more treatments at 95% kill than less treatments at 99%, assuming that

A- The mite doesn't develop resistance, which it won't.
B- Higher doses actually harm bees, which they probably do.
C- There's also benefits to suppressing mite populations for longer periods of time. Brood breaks do the same thing, except they also suppress production


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Juhani Lunden said:


> In Finland beekeepers have been forced to use oxalic double amounts recently. Earlier autumn treatment was enough, now spring tratment is also needed.
> 
> I asked a beekeeping advisor, has oxalic acid lost its effect?
> No, replied he, it is because viruses have become much more virulent. When earlier it was enough to kill 95% of the mites (originally 500 mites, 25 remaining after treatment), today 99% effect is needed ( 500 mites, 5 remaining after treatment).
> ...


The question is, was it treating that caused the hypervirulence?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

The problem with all of those who believe my problem is a pathogen or parasite, we can generally get the hive to recover with syrup if at least 1/3rd of the bees remain. Does feed cure a virus? Does feed cure mites? I think not. Both the virus and the mites should continue to cause a population decline, even when feeding. We see hives recovering and getting back on track.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Roland, what is the genetic background of your queens?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Are you implying the neonics are getting you Roland?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Known history of other viruses would say no. Treatment for a virus would not cause hypervirulence; It is more interesting what does than I thought it would be. Take Flue season as an example. I was always told that Flu season happens because in cold weather we tend to huddle indoors with less ventilation than in the summer. Nothing changed about the Flu Virus. Recently I got information that not only includes that we are in closer together. But that the sun getting lower in the sky also deprives us of adequate doses of some vitamin which causes us to be more susceptible. Cold weather produces an environment more suited to the virus. As a result it is able to live longer getting form host to host. This indicates that environmental conditions would be more responsible for hypervirulence than treatment. Such as temperature. humidity and the bees behavior.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Roland said:


> Does feed cure a virus? Does feed cure mites? I think not.
> 
> Crazy Roland


There is no treatment or "Cure" for any known virus first of all. There is treatment of the symptoms. If food a rest does not treat a viral infection. why is it recommended you rest drink lots of fluids and eat soft nutritious foods when you have the cold or flue? Feeding to avoid stress on the bees and allow them to rest would be a similar treatment. My post above indicates that resistance to a virus rises and falls through the seasons. Are you always in the same mood, Have the same energy levels. Fell good all the time? What makes you think a bee does? and such changes alter resistance to things like viruses.


----------



## CrazyTalk (Jan 27, 2015)

Daniel Y said:


> There is no treatment or "Cure" for any known virus first of all. There is treatment of the symptoms. If food a rest does not treat a viral infection. why is it recommended you rest drink lots of fluids and eat soft nutritious foods when you have the cold or flue? Feeding to avoid stress on the bees and allow them to rest would be a similar treatment. My post above indicates that resistance to a virus rises and falls through the seasons. Are you always in the same mood, Have the same energy levels. Fell good all the time? What makes you think a bee does? and such changes alter resistance to things like viruses.


Exactly. 

There are some drugs like interferon that help with some viruses, but most of the time we do palliative care - you address the symptoms and keep the patient alive until their immune system can get the job done.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

Daniel Y said:


> But that the sun getting lower in the sky also deprives us of adequate doses of some vitamin which causes us to be more susceptible. Cold weather produces an environment more suited to the virus.


Vitamin D, most likely. Interesting, thanks.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

To me the biggest question of modern beekeeping is to realize if I am a...

"mite keeper" or a beekeeper

meaning...am I mite concerned or bee concerned? My time is spent for the well- being of the bees.


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

SiWolKe said:


> To me the biggest question of modern beekeeping is to realize if I am a...
> 
> "mite keeper" or a beekeeper
> 
> meaning...am I mite concerned or bee concerned? My time is spent for the well- being of the bees.


That is very correct. I spend more time worrying about theft than I do worrying about mite counts and disease in my hives.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

McBain said:


> That is very correct. I spend more time worrying about theft than I do worrying about mite counts and disease in my hives.


Just spread rumors that you are tf and home breeding.
Nobody will steal your bees because they bring no honey!


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

SiWolKe said:


> Just spread rumors that you are tf and home breeding.
> Nobody will steal your bees because they bring no honey!


Good thought! Maybe I'll put up a new sign... ; )


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Looks like this thread has lost it's steam.
I for one am glad.
Such an all encompassing thread title was sure to be short lived.

Made me wonder who, and why, and how someone would attempt this. Surely it would take a well informed person, a bee professional even, that's been around for a while and through the wringer a few times. 
Still don't know the who. Only gut feelings about the why. The how, it seems, is still a work in progress. 
I read through each post here and some past posts in other threads and came to question how someone, with experience, currently working for a commercial beekeeping outfit, and with an opinion of beekeeping in the 'good ol days' (posted in another thread), among other things, had so much trouble introducing a queen to a hive only 2 months ago when requeening 4 hives?
Still makes me wonder.


----------



## McBain (Aug 23, 2016)

clyderoad said:


> I read through each post here and some past posts in other threads and came to question how someone, with experience, currently working for a commercial beekeeping outfit, and with an opinion of beekeeping in the 'good ol days' (posted in another thread), among other things, had so much trouble introducing a queen to a hive only 2 months ago when requeening 4 hives?
> Still makes me wonder.


I have no experience beekeeping before varroa so I'm not sure where that idea came from. ; )

As for queens, I posted a couple months or so back. They were supposed to be VSH queens from an operation in Utah. The idea behind it was (among other things) to see how different varieties of bees accept queens as well as to test out the VSH variety. Prior I have never ordered 'purebred VSH' queens. 

Or you could have been referring to the post a few weeks ago about introduction of the Weaver queens. Not sure which one you're talking about.

Although you read the entire post you may have overlooked some keep points of the message: 



McBain said:


> ... common belief among wise and classic beekeepers who I respect.





McBain said:


> I am by no means the oldest of the beekeepers, nor am I the wisest...


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Roland, what is the genetic background of your queens? 

We run Italians, descendants of Strachan NWC, and mixes of both, in roughly equal numbers. The Strachan NWC are preferred, but not always easy to get.

I am not trying to imply anything, just stating the facts. 

It is my opinion that something in the fields is killing the bees outside the hive, and that with intensive mechanical methods, mites are not nearly as big a problem.

Crazy Roland


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Nordak said:


> Vitamin D, most likely. Interesting, thanks.


Direct sunlight contains UV, which is deadly to most viruses. Thus, being outside in sunny day shall minimize your exposure to virus. Modern ventilation/AC systems are great place for all kinds of pathogens. I agree with DanielY that state of your immune-system is also very important. Any "pollutants" compromise the immune system and therefore increase chances of getting virus. Healthy individual, who spent time outside and was not exposed to pollution has much smaller chances to get sick from virus. Person, who spent much time in crowded office with artificial light and AC running (spreading viruses) has higher chances to get sick from virus. Healthy individual will fight virus, weak - will have a terrible sickness. It is true for any living creatures, including bees. 

"Pollution" will contaminate flowers, pollen etc. Bees can bring "contaminants" with pollen/nectar into the beehive, which increase amount of "contaminants" inside the beehive. It is possible, that at some point, it is just too much "contaminants" inside the beehive... It is well known that many "contaminants" can accumulate in the body eventually reaching dangerous levels. In most cases, those "contaminants" are not detectable by existing technology. It is not saying that "there is no contaminant", it just means, that technology is not suitable. Simple example from the human's world - lead. Around the airport with small planes used leaded fuel, there is no detectable lead contamination (by current methods), but lead can be detected in the lungs of children, who lives nearby. Lead just accumulates in children's lungs causing severe mental problems. It is less likely that lead has accumulated in the lungs of adults... it is tricky...


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> Bees can bring "contaminants" with pollen/nectar into the beehive, which increase amount of "contaminants" inside the beehive. It is possible, that at some point, it is just too much "contaminants" inside the beehive...


The wax is the liver of the beehive.
Talking to beekeepers you realize it`s normal today for the bees to supersede their queens almost constantly as a result of contaminations.

clyderoad:


> had so much trouble introducing a queen to a hive only 2 months ago when requeening 4 hives?


Do you claim to do this always with success? Even experienced beekeepers tell me you never know what will happen, foreign queens of other races are often killed.

I did it this year the first time and realized the fear the new queen had of her new surroundings. She hid in her cage for a time until the brood I set her upon hatched.
But I´m not reading much threads here so I apologize if I´m not well informed about what people do.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

It was previously stated:

Talking to beekeepers you realize it`s normal today for the bees to supersede their queens almost constantly as a result of contaminations.

I say "horse hockey"(ein hoffen mist(sp?))as per Col Potter of MASH. We sent a sample of comb to the USDA for testing and it came back approx. 20ppBilllion coumophos, from the foundation, and thymol from our feed. Otherwise, nothing else. If the beekeeper does not put the chemical in the hive, it is harder for it to accumulate. That being said, we have seen a significant increase in queen failures he last few years, with insignificant contamination.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Pinchecharlie (May 14, 2014)

Roland what are you doing to try and remedy queen failure or to eliminate it or at least decrease its frequency ? What are your thoughts on why they are failing? Iam assuming you raise your own and are able to take some of the guess work out of it? Thanks charlie


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Pinchecharlie said:


> Roland what are you doing to try and remedy queen failure or to eliminate it or at least decrease its frequency ? What are your thoughts on why they are failing? Iam assuming you raise your own and are able to take some of the guess work out of it? Thanks charlie


As I joined the European Buckfast Breeders Association I noticed one mysterious chart in their queen/hive evaluation card: virus hardiness. Our queen breeders in Finland had never spoken anything about that. I had no idea how to judge my bees in this respective. So I asked one of the leading breeders Paul Jungels about it. He answered that it is a phenomen, when after oil seed rape blooming (early mid summer) the amount of bees suddenly collapses. These hives recover, but the late summer harvest is of course not so big or lost. 

This is a phenomen in normal hives with no mite problems.
I had never wittnessed anything like that, and could not jugde it.

(My collapsing hives had mite problems)


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Juhani, you are highlighting one of the hidden risks of varroa and the viruses they spread. Bees infected with a virus will fly out of the hive and not return deliberately. This is a form of hive resistance based on the sick bees sacrificing their lives so the colony can continue.

Roland, Would you mind posting your varroa control methods and timing? Also, have you tried changing up the treatment routine such as a spring, midsummer, and fall treatment?


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Roland said:


> That being said, we have seen a significant increase in queen failures he last few years, with insignificant contamination.


Where do your queens come from?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Roland said:


> It was previously stated:
> 
> Talking to beekeepers you realize it`s normal today for the bees to supersede their queens almost constantly as a result of contaminations.
> 
> ...


I apologize if I´m wrong. I don´t know, it´s what is said but the beekeepers mostly believe what they want to believe, me included 

Queen failure?
http://www.pedigreeapis.org/biblio/artcl/FAintroBW51en.html


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

We requeen annually with our own cells. I typically find that 5 to 10% either never get mated or, if they do, they fail pretty early on. It's kind of hard to call these queen failures, I've always just put it off as normal attrition in the mating process. We usually see another 3 to 5% that were initially laying, which fail through the course of the summer and early fall. Then we typically lose another 3 to 5% of our hives that die through the winter. These are typically hives with low populations which I attribute mostly to mite issues though some are certainly queen failures. 
My guess is most (but probably not all) of first year queen failures are attributable to less than ideal mating conditions and high varroa loads with hive contaminants probably a component in operations using high concentrations of off label miticides and lastly, (honorable mention if you will) are non beekeeper applied environmental contaminants. No data on the last two items just a gut feeling.
When we kept queens a second year drone layers began showing up at a, perhaps, 10 to 20% rate. Third years queens can be a real crapshoot.


----------



## Pinchecharlie (May 14, 2014)

Micheal Palmer , please sir tell us if you are having any significant issues with your queens? We all know your methods thanks to the Internet and know you have developed a great system . So what are thoughts in general to these questions as you are seen in such high regard in the commercial beekeeping community. Thanks Charlie


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I'd like to point out one potential issue that could be highly relevant to queen failure. It has been established through well founded research that a queen can mate with drones infected with deformed wing virus. The result is usually that the queen fails several months later. Have you considered that it may not be a queen problem, rather, an issue with the drones the queen mates with?


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Pinchecharlie said:


> Micheal Palmer , please sir tell us if you are having any significant issues with your queens? We all know your methods thanks to the Internet and know you have developed a great system . So what are thoughts in general to these questions as you are seen in such high regard in the commercial beekeeping community. Thanks Charlie


I don't see the queen issues that everyone talks about. I have plenty of queens that last three and four years. Sure, there are some that don't. Same as ever, I guess. Perhaps part of the problem is how are the mass produced queens reared. And, what are they selected for?

Are the cells reared under ideal conditions, where the beekeeper pays attention to details, or mass produced to grow a bug that lays eggs. Obviously, if colonies are requeened every year, longevity isn't a selection criteria. Is successful supercedure even looked at in commercially reared stock?

Lots of possible reasons why queen failure is so prevalent in some stocks of bees. All I can say is I'm not seeing it. Feedback from my customers points in the same direction. I wish I had the answers. Perhaps more beekeepers should raise their own queens from their best stocks.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Pinchecharlie:

To correct queen failures, we are keeping better records, to try to find some correlation. One pattern that developed was that about 2 weeks AFTER we noticed missing field bees, we had significant number of Queens that stopped laying, but where still alive in the hive. We raise quite a few of our own queens, usually with eggs from the "star"(the best hive in the yard, marked with a star) hive. We also buy on occasion Strachan NWC queens. The source of the queens does not seem to correlate with failure. Location does.

Siwolke: You may be right, no apologies needed. In those situations where there have been multiple applications of synthetic miticides, I believe it is well documented that there are significant detrimental effects from the synergy of multiple(beekeeper applied) residues.

Juhani wrote:

He answered that it is a phenomen, when after oil seed rape blooming (early mid summer) the amount of bees suddenly collapses. These hives recover, but the late summer harvest is of course not so big or lost. 

That sounds more like what we see, missing bees, but we do not see any visual virus problem. I may be missing something, but the bees appear healthy, and are collecting nectar well, in some cases, over 150 lbs.

Mr. Lyon: I am strongly leaning tword your "honorable mention" ......non beekeeper applied environmental contaminants..... as being the source of our queen failures. Winner winner, chicken dinner. It matches the correlation with location.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Roland said:


> That sounds more like what we see, missing bees, but we do not see any visual virus problem.


I have understood that they neither.


( in Cenrtal Europe when hive population is sharply declining)


----------



## texanbelchers (Aug 4, 2014)

This sounds like a bad case of the contagious Exodus Flew. :lookout:

Roland, sorry to hear of the troubles. You are one of the contributors with highly valued input. If you are stumped, I'm up a creek. Stuff like this could give you nightmares. It definitely makes me consider even more carefully the step into sideliner; let alone full commercial.

If it is a virus, it would be hard to analyze because those that "had it" are dearly departed. I'm no expert in biology, but I would think it would be difficult to isolate. Maybe those that are left would be carriers?

If it is something outside the hive, would it move from yard to yard and impact a colony dropped back in that box? Maybe they bring something back and contaminate the hardware.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

texanbelchers said:


> If you are stumped, I'm up a creek.


+1. This was my thought in a different thread:



Riverderwent said:


> Maybe a combination of a smattering of AHB genetics and the accompanying tendency to abscond in certain conditions; poor or overcrowded forage; nosema ceranae; latent sacbrood, CBPV, Kashmir bee virus, or related viruses.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Juhani - Thanks for the clue that not all virus(plural?) are expressing symptoms. 

Texan.... wrote:
If it is something outside the hive, would it move from yard to yard and impact a colony dropped back in that box?

me - I am not sure I understand your question, but we have played "musical chairs" just to see where the problems shows up. The data set is too small to make a conclusion, but we seem to see indications that a new brood box of bees that replaces a sudden departed hive has a decreased chance of survival for about a month.

Texan... wrote:
Maybe they bring something back and contaminate the hardware. 

me - Yes, that is a possibility, as I just noted above, but the USDA found nothing significant in their two tests. That gives more credence to the virus angle. I should look up how long virus are viable for outside a bee.

Crazy Roland


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Roland said:


> ... clue that not all virus(plural?) are expressing symptoms. ...


 Indeed - most viruses do not express symptoms, they just co-exist with the carrier (body). Once immune system has compromised by any means (often pollution) virus become active, multiply and "expose symptoms." It is usually too late to fix the issue if symptoms has exposed. Of coarse, in large densely populated beehive, transmission of the virus is easier. Varroa is not necessary for this - we catch flu without help of varroa  Please, also note, that there is no medicine against virus itself. There are bunch of pills to mitigate the symptoms. 


Roland said:


> ... USDA found nothing significant in their two tests. ...


 I do not trust them!


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I do not trust them!

Trusting nobody will leave you to battle by yourself


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Roland said:


> ... 20ppBilllion coumophos, from the foundation,


"... They also examined other effects of coumaphos and found that during queen development, body and ovary weight were both lower. Also, when one coumaphos strip was placed into colonies with developing queens, they suffered high mortality along with physical abnormalities and atypical behavior.... The number of queens still functioning in colonies after six months was reduced by 75% if they were reared in cells with the presence of coumaphos... Queens aren’t the only ones affected, drones are as well."
http://ent.uga.edu/bees/personnel/documents/Berry109.pdf
Note: read original document for details - coumophos dose varied in different research.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Ian said:


> I do not trust them!
> 
> Trusting nobody will leave you to battle by yourself


I just happens had deal with this organization and know what I am talking about... but of coarse, nobody shall take my words for granted  I just expressed my opinion


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Are you speaking of the government?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Nothing wrong with a little suspicion of all things related to "big brother" but in Roland's case the suspicion isn't grounded in logic. USDA's Gastonia lab serves as no more than a contract testing lab. They don't do the sampling nor do they care from whence the samples originated. Give them the, roughly, $400 per sample and they will gladly run your tests and give you the results. I've done so myself and they are very nice to do business with.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> ... they will gladly run your tests and give you the results. I've done so myself and they are very nice to do business with.


I agree with Jim Lyon, but I do not trust their results. "Results" depend on many factors and sometime do not accurate. When element is detected - it is fine. If nothing detected, it rises the question if analysis was performed properly. In discussed case, to me, the results are questionable because normal wax is polluted by numerous chemicals from environment. If they did not detect them, than, to me, the sensitivity of the tests are not adequate. At least 3 blind tests are necessary. We used to work with them. It was a disaster. I have to admit that my experience with USDA is related to human and some animal subjects, not bees. I posted above the example with lead - another well respected organization, EPA did not find lead in the soil nearby of airport with hundreds airplanes running on leaded airgas. Piston airplane consumes 2 grams of lead with each gallon of fuel and then ... nothing happened, lead disappeared  Airport is in operation for 100 years, where all this lead exhausted by planes for century? It took a decade to find the lead ... in lungs of children leaving nearby (not EPA "achievement")... now they are closing the airport, but it contaminated an environment for 100 years!



jim lyon said:


> ... they are very nice to do business with


 Sure, for $400 per sample!


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

cerezha said:


> I do not trust their results. We used to work with them for quite a while on drug approval. It was a disaster. I have to admit that my experience with USDA is related to human and some animal subjects, not bees. "Results" depend on many factors and sometime do not accurate. I posted above the example with lead - another well respected organization, EPA did not find lead in the soil nearby of airport with hundreds airplanes running on leaded airgas. Piston airplane consumes 2 grams of lead with each gallon of fuel and then ... nothing happened, lead disappeared  Airport is in operation for 100 years, where all this lead exhausted by planes for century? It took a decade to find the lead ... in lungs of children leaving nearby (not EPA "achievement")... now they are closing the airport, but it contaminated an environment for 100 years!
> 
> Sure, for $400 per sample!


Are you alleging inaccuracy or something more devious? The results I got on beeswax samples were pretty much in line with what I expected. Negative for about everything except a very low (single digit ppb) coumaphous reading.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

McBain said:


> The treatment industry has vested interest in selling their own products.


Likewise the beekeeping industry has a vested interest in minimising the money they have to spend on treatments. Believe it or not there are a number of commercial folks who include varroa tolerance in the list of things they attempt to breed for.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

I would need real data reading from the equipment with couple of positive and negative controls to accuse anybody in anything. As I stated above, I just do not trust them, it is personal. In the reference I cited somewhere in my previous post, they stated that they do find a substantial level of contaminants in many wax sample including TF and commercial wax. Based on this, I feel that clean results are suspicious (to me!).


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

There is a saying though it is not precisely aligned. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." I'm in the small percent of pessimists and therefore I ALWAYS ask what could go wrong. The most likely things that could go wrong in a gas chromatograph are operator error and inadequate sensitivity. If I sent a sample of wax to be tested and it came back with all zeros, I would by highly suspicious someone did not do their job. On the other hand, it it came back with a small amount of coumaphos, I'd be even more suspicious given that I have kept my bees treatment free since 2005. Where and what I would be suspicious of would be different in each case.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Nothing wrong with a little suspicion of all things related to "big brother" <<

Government suspicion is last on my list of worry. Maybe that's just an influence of our Canadian country culture


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Ian said:


> >>Nothing wrong with a little suspicion of all things related to "big brother" <<
> 
> Government suspicion is last on my list of worry. Maybe that's just an influence of our Canadian country culture


:thumbsup:

Same here in Finland


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I lied, it was actually 14.2 ppBILLION, with a level of detection of 5ppB. If my memory serves me, 200 ppM,is level of concern, 4 orders of magnitude difference. We have never used coumophos, so it is logical the level found is from foundation.

Jim - I am glad they are nice to you. I got a invite for a free one way trip to Levenworth, room and board included.

Crazy Roland


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Juhani Lunden
I have read your web-site, interesting and a little bit discouraging... I have a question to you. Since you are in cold climate, why you guys do not use thermo-camera for anti-varroa treatment? Russians (invented by Japanese I believe) use it with success (in my opinion). It is possible to treat 30 beehives per day and it is only one single treatment before bees go into winter. During the treatment, beekeeper equlibrate beehives evenly distributing food and bees. I am in California, so I can not use this method, but I saw advertizement that Germans offer thermo-camera also. I am just curious.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Fusion_power said:


> There is a saying though it is not precisely aligned. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." I'm in the small percent of pessimists and therefore I ALWAYS ask what could go wrong. The most likely things that could go wrong in a gas chromatograph are operator error and inadequate sensitivity. If I sent a sample of wax to be tested and it came back with all zeros, I would by highly suspicious someone did not do their job. On the other hand, it it came back with a small amount of coumaphos, I'd be even more suspicious given that I have kept my bees treatment free since 2005. Where and what I would be suspicious of would be different in each case.


 I've been coumaphous free for as long as you have been treatment free and the same can be said for Fluvalinate though I purchase wax coated plastic foundation pretty regularly. There seems to be a school of thought that the nations wax supply is hopelessly contaminated with these two lipophilic chemicals along with amitraz derivatives. The test results of my cappings wax dosent exactly corroborate that, though it seems, at the end of the day, people will simply choose to believe what they want to believe.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

cerezha said:


> Juhani Lunden
> I have read your web-site, interesting and a little bit discouraging... I have a question to you. Since you are in cold climate, why you guys do not use thermo-camera for anti-varroa treatment?


I got fed up producing honey, tons and tons of it, year after year. Nothing is more simple. I wanted to try something else. I decided to stop treating.


If you wonder why those who treat don´t use a thermo-camera (I have never even heard of such thing existing), I suppose if oxalic acid dripling (3% sugar solution) costs almost nothing and is done in less than one minute /hive, nothing beats that in efficiency.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Fusion_power said:


> There is a saying though it is not precisely aligned. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." I'm in the small percent of pessimists and therefore I ALWAYS ask what could go wrong. The most likely things that could go wrong in a gas chromatograph are operator error and inadequate sensitivity. If I sent a sample of wax to be tested and it came back with all zeros, I would by highly suspicious someone did not do their job. On the other hand, it it came back with a small amount of coumaphos, I'd be even more suspicious given that I have kept my bees treatment free since 2005. Where and what I would be suspicious of would be different in each case.



Any decent lab should provide a QA/QC analysis as part of the report. The lab should be providing matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD), lab blanks, method blanks, etc. You should easily be able to tell from the report if something is wrong.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Juhani Lunden said:


> ...If you wonder why those who treat don´t use a thermo-camera (I have never even heard of such thing existing), I suppose if oxalic acid dripling (3% sugar solution) costs almost nothing and is done in less than one minute /hive, nothing beats that in efficiency.


Yes, I agree that chemical treatment is more economical, but it has its own disadvantages, for instance, tolerance to the chemical developed with time (not yet for OA). Physical "treatment" (heat in this case) can not initiate any tolerance. By the way, it seems to me that your approach of gradual reduction of amount of OA for treatment can stimulate the tolerance in varroa. I understand your idea (?), but, it looks like that you breed varroa-killer-bee and tolerant varroa at the same time... I may be wrong ... just friendly thoughts


----------



## CrazyTalk (Jan 27, 2015)

cerezha said:


> Physical "treatment" (heat in this case) can not initiate any tolerance.


Physical treatment is less likely to initiate resistance than chemical, but it most certainly is possible. Anything that kills part (but not all) of the population causes change in the gene pool.

Here's an article on bacteria evolving heat resistance:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100617111247.htm


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

CrazyTalk said:


> Physical treatment is less likely to initiate resistance than chemical, but it most certainly is possible. Anything that kills part (but not all) of the population causes change in the gene pool.


True. But it is very slow process especially in multi-cell organisms like mites. Also, there is just biochemical limitation - most eucariothic (spell?) proteins will denature at +60oC. Bacteria - there are many called thermophilic, who can sustain up to +110oC... Also, viruses are very sensitive to the heat. Thermal treatment will kill most of the viruses - additional advantage of the thermo-treatment for bees.


----------



## Socrates (Jul 11, 2015)

Speaking of gene pools one comment that tripped me up was..



CrazyTalk said:


> The biggest thing here is that getting mite resistant bees requires you to let a lot of your bees die from mites- that means enormous short term losses, and most businesses can't weather that. We're talking on the order of losing 60-70% of your hives every year for a couple years - which means losing lots of honey, having to buy tons of replacement packages, etc.


It seems to me completely counter productive to be intentionally taking losses finding bees that display these recessive traits and buying packages to replace the losses. Wasn't the whole point of taking losses to limit the gene pool, saturate your drone congregation areas with bees that carry these recessive genes and to raise queens locally that have the traits expressed?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I thought the idea was to take the losses. and then rebuild from what survived. If you buy packages you are just continually diluting the mix with the so called inferior, I call them undesirable, genetics.


----------



## CrazyTalk (Jan 27, 2015)

Socrates said:


> Speaking of gene pools one comment that tripped me up was..
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me completely counter productive to be intentionally taking losses finding bees that display these recessive traits and buying packages to replace the losses. Wasn't the whole point of taking losses to limit the gene pool, saturate your drone congregation areas with bees that carry these recessive genes and to raise queens locally that have the traits expressed?


Yes. Absolutely. 

The problem is that if someone is running a large business, they generally can't just not have product for several years. If you lose 75% of your bees each winter for a couple of years, you still need to fulfill your pollination contracts, other obligations, etc for the spring. 

The reason why this is more complicated than it seems is that the businesses involved have to balance short term and long term, and in this situation the two are very much opposed.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

Sort of. But. 1) It depends on the genetics of the additional packages; 2) There are multiple traits, known or unknown, that contribute to either or both varroa resistance and varroa tolerance. And there are multiple allelles that contribute to each trait. That's a lot of allelles, not all of which are going to be present in the relatively small group of surviving founders from an initial collapse. (By the way, some of those allelles are "recessive" as are some of those traits, but some are likely to be "dominant.") So, having other genetic tools for the adaptation (and, yes, non-mutative evolution) process to use to result in survivable bees is potentially helpful. 3) There are other desirable traits besides survivability and not all those traits will be adequately represented in the original population. 4) Packages are just bees (although there are drones). You can requeen them. And 5) New bloodlines will avoid inbreeding and both the expression of undesirable traits that happen to be in the original population, and the peculiar problems that result from having identical haplotypes (if, as is unlikely, I am saying that correctly).


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Riverderwent said:


> Packages are just bees (although there are drones). You can requeen them.


good post david.

a consideration that is less understood and no one has commented on yet in this thread is how much or how little impact all of the other organisms beyond the bees themselves have on colony health and survival.

for example current research is looking into how a more 'beneficial' strain of deformed wing virus might be protecting colonies from the more virulent form.

bringing in packages has the potential to bring in more detrimental strains of mites, viruses, and anyone's guess as to what other organisms.

jmho, and while it is exactly what i am doing, i feel that propagating queens from strong and productive colonies is just a good first step, and as has been pointed out the drone contribution is just as if not more important but the most difficult to have control over...

but the making of splits from successful colonies, thereby establishing the new colony with potentially 'beneficial' microflora, might be another part of the equation for us to consider.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I dont think there is any guarantee or (even high odds) that someone with deep pockets can, merely by allowing 60% attrition to mites, arrive at bees that will survive untreated: be economically competitive is a still further reach. Yes we know it has happened but the recipe is not at all reliably repeatable.

Perhaps there is a leap of faith needed to sell the proposition? Bankers are not that easy to cajole into leaping!


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> a consideration that is less understood and no one has commented on yet in this thread is how much or how little impact all of the other organisms beyond the bees themselves have on colony health and survival.
> 
> ...
> 
> but the making of splits from successful colonies, thereby establishing the new colony with potentially 'beneficial' microflora, might be another part of the equation for us to consider.


That is a brilliant insight. For example, viruses that are "harmful" or pathological to varroa themselves may eventually contribute to a dynamic equilibrium between varroa and honey bees. And those viruses are capable of actually mutating and arising at a much faster rate that honey bees or varroa. And viruses are just one of the biological players on the field. 

(If you think about it, a short sighted butterfly competing with bees for nectar might think that varroa are the bees knees.)


----------

