# Treatment Free - How long does it take?



## JWChesnut

I have two sources of data that are responsive to your question. One, I have operated an experimental TF apiary in a remote location for more than a decade. I stock this yard with feral swarms caught from those issuing from the caves and live oak tree holes on the mountain.

The mite/disease resistance of the hived feral swarms is no worse and no greater than my treated colonies. The TF system has adapted over the decade of the experiment, I hive them on drawn foundationless nucs or deeps, and build them up with a combination of drawn and undrawn foundationless. I use drawn comb less than four years old for the started boxes. 

I hive a combination of May swarms and July swarms. I typically have 4-8 colonies in the yard, they have several thousand acres of uninterupted State Park land to forage for wildflower.

My mite population spikes in September. If I am observing a heavy mite load w/ "crawler" bees, I move the hives to a recovery yard and treat with a fumigant (over the years: OAV, OA dribble, MAQS, Menthol/Thymol); and with fumagilin if I see crawlers but no DWV. I've had a feral hive with the now rare tracheal mites (2009, determined by dissection) -- and I assume the trach mite mean the resistance bred in commercial strain is not fully present in the wild population. 

About half the recovery hives survive. The TF hives express mites in the first (some cases) and invariably in the second year. Most TF hive supercede or dwindle in June of the second year, they do not survive. I see the frequency of queen super-sedure as high in TF experiment -- and many of the supersedure efforts seem to fail in a virgin/ non-productive queen dead-end. Second year hives that go to swarm are split and nuc'd. I use about 1/2 of the nucs for commercial treated increase, and retain the others to combine with dwindling hives in the TF experiment. Second year hives usually enter the fall weak and low on stores, these succumb in the 2nd year winter/3rd year spring.

I do not cage queens for brood breaks, I am not sure this is effective, as the research shows DWV titer in queens is enormous. The queen eats xxx her weight every day, and this loads her body with virus. A brood break does not fix the underlying damage to the queen's vigor.

Supersedure means the queen genetics revert to the background norm. I don't believe 4 (or even 8) colonies is sufficient to cause epidemic cross-infection with mites, but this could be a factor in the failure of the colonies to thrive. I live in a foggy, cool coastal climate; and temperatures are below optimum for drone flight for much of the fog season in the summer. This cool fog might explain some of the virgin queen failure I see; and not be the direct impact of DWV/Mites.

Second set of data are the small groups of new beeks I train. 75% of the refuse to treat because they come to me from a "organic" ethos. Their hives dwindle and die in the second summer. Now new beeks kill hives irregardless, so this data is less useful.

The feral bees show a combination of Italian and Caucasian/Russian characteristics. Workers bees tend to be highly variable in size and color in a single colony. I do not attempt to use AHB-behavior swarms in the TF --- I strongly do NOT believe "Arizona desert Africans" are a viable path forward for small scale beekeeping. I attended beekeeper funerals in Costa Rica, Guatemala and Mexico due to the Latin American Africans.


----------



## sqkcrk

What do your September mite counts look like. I had two hives in one yd checked for mites last week and they had 21 mites and 27 mites in the sample of about 300 bees. They also had one and one half frames of capped brood.

The deadouts I am seeing recently oft times have wooden queen cages in them which means they were queens I put in splits in April this past Spring.


----------



## Daniel Y

How long does it take? Just a few months if you are particularly bad at it. Sorry just couldn't resist.

Just a gut feeling form what I have read. woudl guess 4 to 5 years to see the losses begin to taper off. Getting bees from other places does not seem to be a great idea. From what I have sen local bees adapting to local conditions is one of the battles. Bees that do well in one location do not necessarily fair well in another. So any specific location may be able to get bees from any other location and still do well. but the next person would see very different results.

Any progress in the efforts to breed disease resistant bees are a factor of their own. If it where me I would look at those sources for the most reliable lines of bees for going treatment free. can't really tell you why just my gut on the subject. I am not sure I would even mention that in a presentation. I certainly would not if I wanted the presentation to only be fairly reliable confirmed information. IF that where my criteria I think I would simply tell others. pick you poison and enter battle. I don't think blood lines etc are effective enough to make a difference at this time. The one that will work is the one you breed yourself through increase from the best.


----------



## squarepeg

jwc, since the ferals have not died out completely in your experimental location, do you attribute the survival of that population to swarming?


----------



## JRG13

I started the year off purchasing 4 hives that had been TF for a few years and one came from stock that's been TF for decades. Perhaps they weren't completely TF as the previous owner did do sugar dusting. I've left them alone for the most part, I believe all of them eventually superceded their queens this year as they were 3-4 years old. One hive I'm not certain of though, but all had typical mite build ups by late summer. Perhaps this says something about sugar dusting. The hives that superceded later in the season I've left alone since I figure the brood break was sufficient. One hive recently collapsed, they requeened in late July and were building back up nicely but I hadn't had time to get to their new location for about 5 weeks. I don't really advocate TF, but I try to be as treatment free as possible, but from what I've seen in my location, it could take awhile. I don't really a see defined answer for the question either, location will play a key role as well as density of other apiaries.


----------



## Michael Bush

There are, I suppose, several aspects here. I was treatment free for 20 years before the Varroa showed up. It took nothing. I was treatment free on large cell and they all died from Varroa. I put commercial bees on wax dipped PermaComb (4.8mm if you average the bottom and the top diameter of a tapered cell) and that was the last time I lost them to Varroa. From when I put the packages on the fully drawn, wax coated small cell to when I had no longer had any Varroa issues, five minutes probably... but winter was still an issue (and seems to get worse with packages as time goes on). So, some feral bees helped with that. Time to raise enough feral queens to requeen everything--a season.


----------



## mike bispham

David LaFerney said:


> I'm preparing for a basic informational presentation on treatment options - including treatment free. I'm trying to present just the basic unvarnished facts to the best of my ability without spin one way or the other.
> 
> People who have achieved success doing treatment free usually seem to experience a period of relatively high losses before survival numbers get to the point where they can concentrate on much more than just keeping their apiaries viable.
> 
> Assuming that you start out (and continue) with bees that have decent genetic potential, have enough colonies for the project to be viable, and propagate from the survivors - how long does it take before the apiary stops struggling to survive and can actually become productive?
> 
> This is a serious question, and I believe that there is a serious answer out there - probably several.


David,

There is no simple answer to your question. It will be different in every place. In the following account I've restated your presuppositions, in order to supply a full picture. The difficulty is in quantifying your 'decent' and 'enough'. I don't suppose this account of the key factors is comprehensive, but I think it gives an idea of the problems involved in supplying a simple answer. I'm sure it could be better organised as well.

The key factors are: initial genetics, local genetics and breeding skills.

Roughly; if have have viable (self-sufficient) initial genetics, and you can preserve that self-sufficiency through effective breeding; you are in a great position

Whether you can preserve the key traits depends on: 

a) The number of colonies you have

b) Your breeding skills

c) The background local genetics: 

If you are surrounded by treating beekeepers your bees will be constantly downgraded, and you'll need to have good numbers, and keep dedicated drone hives to counter them. You will be less likely to have surviving ferals around you. You will have to establish a strong tf bridgehead and defend it hard. That will take good bee raising skills, including the ability to distinguish the key traits early. 

If you are not, or, better, have a strong feral population, matters are entirely different. 

I'd suggest making a three-way diagram, starting with an arrow indicating sound initial genetic input, and showing how these four key factors relate to one another.

This is best viewed as a 'new start' project. Changing a long established treated population over to tf is a different matter - but the same principles apply. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## David LaFerney

Of course - location location location...

I must say though I'm a bit surprised at the relative dearth of answers. So far it seems to be 1-1 Never vs Immediately (on small cell.) No offense to anyone but I'm not counting speculation and first year (or second or third) results. I know there are others, I wish they would chime in.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

David LaFerney said:


> Of course - location location location...
> 
> I must say though I'm a bit surprised at the relative dearth of answers. So far it seems to be 1-1 Never vs Immediately (on small cell.) No offense to anyone but I'm not counting speculation and first year (or second or third) results. I know there are others, I wish they would chime in.


No offense taken, but since my answer won't be counted, i'll be quiet


----------



## mike bispham

David LaFerney said:


> I must say though I'm a bit surprised at the relative dearth of answers.


David,

The answer is... there isn't a simple answer. Don't expect one.

Mike


----------



## heaflaw

I look at it like there are 2 methods:

#1 Start with bees of proven mite resistance: B Weaver, Purvis or best yet local treatment free bees.

#2 Start with a lot (maybe 20) hives and use the Bond Method and breed from the survivors.

The key is that the neighborhood has to be free of treated colonies or you will have to have a lot of hives and do a lot of work to maintain your genetics.


----------



## mike bispham

heaflaw said:


> I look at it like there are 2 methods:
> 
> #1 Start with bees of proven mite resistance: B Weaver, Purvis or best yet local treatment free bees.
> 
> #2 Start with a lot (maybe 20) hives and use the Bond Method and breed from the survivors.


This is a good early distinction to make. The question cannot be addressed without it, and my response addressed only the first part.



heaflaw said:


> The key is that the neighborhood has to be free of treated colonies or you will have to have a lot of hives and do a lot of work to maintain your genetics.


Ideally we would get figures attached - for the moment the best we can say is 'the fewer treated/more feral the better'. Its up to us, in any location, to move the odds in our own favour by raising numbers, especially of strong drone hives. For what its worth there seems to be good reason to understand that just a small percentage of mite-managers is enough to be very helpful.

To return to the question as David initially posed it:



David LaFerney said:


> I'm preparing for a basic informational presentation on treatment options - including treatment free. I'm trying to present just the basic unvarnished facts to the best of my ability without spin one way or the other.


Such facts are thin on the ground, and in each case report only local conditions. You've said you are not interested in 'speculation' but well reasoned accounts go a long way toward explaining why that is, and how to manage the difficulties. Presenting those facts would be very helpful.



David LaFerney said:


> People who have achieved success doing treatment free usually seem to experience a period of relatively high losses before survival numbers get to the point where they can concentrate on much more than just keeping their apiaries viable.


Some people do. With others it seems to be like falling off a log. Again, the rationale outlined here indicates why that is.



David LaFerney said:


> Assuming that you start out (and continue) with bees that have decent genetic potential, have enough colonies for the project to be viable, and propagate from the survivors - how long does it take before the apiary stops struggling to survive and can actually become productive?


Can you see now why more information is needed before a quantitive response can be made?

Can you see too why much depends on the skill and effort made by the individual? There are plenty of reports of failures. In most cases close questioning reveals basic errors in understanding the processes of population husbandry.



David LaFerney said:


> Another related question is this - other than finding and catching your own, are there any reliable sources for people to buy those kinds of bees?


That too depends where you are - here in the UK no. There things are different. Glen Apiaries website appears to be very helpful in respect of purpose-bred 'resistant' bees. Others may know of more. If you state your locality you may get local responses. Getting into the swarm collection and cut-out business may be a good way to pick up wild genetics. 



David LaFerney said:


> This is a serious question, and I believe that there is a serious answer out there - probably several.


I agree, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to think and talk about it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## JWChesnut

squarepeg said:


> jwc, since the ferals have not died out completely in your experimental location, do you attribute the survival of that population to swarming?


Yes, the core successful behavioral response I see in my region to Varroa is nearly constant supersedure and swarming.

You see this in both AHB strains (which are present in my area) and in more nearly Italian hybrid mutts. I thought I had become a "god" of swarm traps, since I am so successful (after 10 years of false starts), but I think the arrival of AHB genetics has changed the bees to find my traps, and I am benefiting from the bees shift in behavior.

I've stated before I believe the maintenance of a highly selected and fragile genotype like Minnesota Hygenic is going to be impossible in the wild due to the constant "entropy" of a obligate outbreeding free-flying insect. 

The simplest approach that adds fitness to the population is reversion to frequent swarming. Swarming has been selected against by breeders seeking to domesticate the bees as it reduces production and complicates management. The reversion to frequent and rapid colony division is an simple and robust reassertion of the feral genotype. 

Swarming defeats Varroa by maintaining vigorous young queens uncontaminated with sublethal levels of virus. It provides a strategic broodbreak, and encourages new comb production. In my region, with its long summer drought and dearth, it is also going to encourage thrifty bees with small clusters. An "Italian-behavior" swarm in July is not going to enter winter in equilibrium -- too much brood and not enough winter stores. 

A different climate (with a long, productive summer, instead of a drying one) might encourage a longer season of colony division. 

In some ways, what I am seeing is the "Anti-Ives". The natural, successful wild colonies are small, compact young ones. Hiving these, and maintaining their ethology would encourage duplicating many nucs, single deeps or double mediums. Substituting colony numbers for towers. 

Not much honey, but a king's ransom in pollination contracts (though you need to combine to make the contractual frame count).

The concept of local maximums of fitness and fragility of genotype can be illustrated. This concept has been explored for many organisms. Consider a hypothetical colony of F1 Minnesota Hybrids, these are wild-outbred, and might be at 75% on a scale of genotype "complexity". They have high "fitness" or say 50% of the colonies survive. Illustrated by the red dot. In future swarming, the sucessor colonies are going to reduce in complexity as they revert to the population norm (or 50% complexity where a minimum number of colonies survive). This reduces fitness. However, some local maximum of a very basic and robust genotype (say AHB) has higher fitness than the norm, and the meta-population genetics will gravitate to this easy to achieve (low slope to climb) local maximum. The movement to local maximums with intermediate fitness (sometimes quite low) is well documented in many species and in ecosystems. I believe we are seeing this in my local feral population, an all-purpose, not very productive, but highly robust social unit. The individual bees colonies sicken and die, but the meta-population survives by wild fecundity.


Remember when researchers fully described the honey bee genome, they were quite shocked to find immune response genes were deleted in comparison to other non-social insects. The evolutionary imperative toward simplicity and generalization, substituting social organization, has been operating on bees for a very long time.

Swarming could (and this is speculative) be controlled by a single gene expression of one component of Queen Mandibular Pheromone. QMP is well studied as a negative control on swarming, and is made up a collection relatively simple chemicals -- at least 3 very similar unbranched carbon chains. Minnesota Hygenic has been studied with "quantitative trait loci" and has identified (from memory here) 17 separate gene locations as central to behavior. This hypothetical difference (one gene coding for a QMP component) vs. multi-loci for hygenic explains the complexity of the genotype vector.


----------



## David LaFerney

mike bispham said:


> David,
> 
> The answer is... there isn't a simple answer. Don't expect one.
> 
> Mike


All I am asking is how long it took for your treatment free apiary to become productive. That actually is a simple question. I know I have seen numerous claims on here of "I have not treated in XX years." But I'm starting to wonder if very few of those bee keepers can claim that their treatment free apiaries are productive. I know Tim Ives and Solomon Parker and Michael Bush do. I assume there are others. Perhaps I assume incorrectly.


----------



## OlofL

This might be of interest on this topic:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm


----------



## squarepeg

David LaFerney said:


> I'm preparing for a basic informational presentation on treatment options - including treatment free. I'm trying to present just the basic unvarnished facts to the best of my ability without spin one way or the other.


if i were asked to discuss this topic in a presentation i would try to make the point that keeping bees post varroa without treatments (and without supplemental feeding as is usually the case with most going tf) is a relatively new approach, practiced by a minority of beekeepers, and yielding highly variable results when it comes to survivability and productivity.



David LaFerney said:


> People who have achieved success doing treatment free usually seem to experience a period of relatively high losses before survival numbers get to the point where they can concentrate on much more than just keeping their apiaries viable.


this is also variable. i don't have a reference for these, but i think i've read here that kirk webster's losses for example are more cyclical, and there are others like myself who did not have a lot of losses to start with, and yet others whose losses came after 2-3 years.



David LaFerney said:


> Assuming that you start out (and continue) with bees that have decent genetic potential, have enough colonies for the project to be viable, and propagate from the survivors - how long does it take before the apiary stops struggling to survive and can actually become productive?.


i would direct any prospects who want to pursue tf to someone in their area who has been doing it for a realistic estimate of how it may work. if there is not anyone with experience to ask, i would say the prospect would be charting new territory. i say this because i believe it is easier to go tf in some locations and not as easy in others, quality of forage and availability of feral drones being the difference.



David LaFerney said:


> Another related question is this - other than finding and catching your own, are there any reliable sources for people to buy those kinds of bees?.


i'll have such bees for sale next year that i believe will do well in this area, but they won't be coming with any guarantees. my feeling is that while genetics are important they do not trump other factors like location, nutrition, and management practices.

best of luck with your presentation david.


----------



## squarepeg

David LaFerney said:


> All I am asking is how long it took for your treatment free apiary to become productive.


i've harvested honey every year.

2010 4 hives 14 gallons (late start, missed most of spring flow) 
2011 10 hives 28 gallons (6 were first year colonies)
2012 12 hives 37 gallons (lots of swarms)
2013 12 hives 62 gallons (range was 0 - 180 lbs. per hive)

looking at harvested honey only, not counting making splits and nucs, and getting all that comb drawn out!


----------



## squarepeg

jwc, many thanks for your reply, i'm still digesting it.


----------



## mike bispham

Removed


----------



## JWChesnut

OlofL said:


> This might be of interest on this topic:
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm


Thanks for the link, as I had lost that account. A June 2012 posting cites infestation at 2-7 per hundred in a sugar roll. This translates to 6-21 per 300 in the standard American unit volume. This is at or above the "economic threshold" cited in many sources. Hives at the economic threshold in June, implies a September mite load which will be enormous. This likely explains the 37% loss recorded in the experiment in the 2012-13 winter.


----------



## David LaFerney

Squrepeg - Thanks, that's helpful - sounds reasonably successful to me, and enough time span to be significant. Where did/do you get your queens? Can you sum up your cultural practices briefly? If you don't want to go into it here for any reason feel free to just send me a message.


----------



## squarepeg

you're welcome david, and i don't mind sharing here.

after a rocky start that first summer with some old hives in rotten boxes that had been treated with antibiotics for years......

i started acquiring bees from a fellow in the next county over from me. at the time i hadn't really thought much about being tf or not but as luck would have it this guy had been raising bees tf since the mid-nineties. 

he and his father started the operation by locating several bee trees on the side of a ridge that overlooked their farm. i believe they cut out about five colonies and increased them to the point of selling queens and nucs.

i've purchased several nucs and a few queens from this supplier, but now i am propagating my own from them, plus i catch a stray swarm in my traps from time to time. i try to maintain 12 production colonies here at home and have a second location about five miles away for nucs.

the avoiding of supplemental feeding (except on rare occasions as needed) was inspired by mike bush.

i run all 10 frame langs, single deeps with medium supers, solid bottom boards with bottom entrances, inner covers notched front and back with screens, and telescoping outer covers.

i am on a ridgetop but within flying distance of the tennesse river, and there is quite a diversity of flora with the blooms overlapping bewtween the valley and the mountain. roughly 2/3'rds of my area is wooded and the remaining third is mostly pasture with a little row cropping. i'm almost positive that there are unmanaged colonies living in the woods around here because i can see them coming and going when i place wet supers out to get cleaned up.

i placed my hives about 100' from a pond, facing southeast on sloping terrain, and they have a good wind break all around but especially behind them to the northwest. they get full sun all day and are shaded in the late afternoon.

i make sure to have a beetle trap in each box, using vegetable oil with some rotten banana juice and a little apple cider vinegar mixed in.

these bees are a bit swarmy, but as i get more comb for checkerboarding i'm getting a handle on that.

this was my first season to try grafting, and i managed to get one round off toward the end of our main flow.

from a feasibility standpoint i got slightly into the black this year for the first time with the honey selling quickly and total receipts nearing $4000. i bought all of my equipment assembled and painted, so someone could be profitable sooner if they made their own.

i'm shooting for a little more honey production next year but not much, as my time is limited for a sideline venture and i want to focus more attention toward queens and nucs.

my approach to beekeeping is still a work in progress and i am always looking for ways to improve, but this is kind of where i find myself at the present time.

sorry for rambling on...


----------



## Solomon Parker

David LaFerney said:


> All I am asking is how long it took for your treatment free apiary to become productive. That actually is a simple question. I know I have seen numerous claims on here of "I have not treated in XX years." But I'm starting to wonder if very few of those bee keepers can claim that their treatment free apiaries are productive. I know Tim Ives and Solomon Parker and Michael Bush do. I assume there are others. Perhaps I assume incorrectly.


I would say a minimum of three years of active beekeeping to get things to a pretty reasonable mean. By active, I mean increasing from survivors. This modern trend of putting bees in a box and expecting them to live forever untended as the standard for treatment-free beekeeping is a quite a bit unfounded.

My bees are productive for my area. It's hard to give an overall number when production includes queens, nucs, and honey. But I have no complaints and have had no complaints from customers.


----------



## mike bispham

David LaFerney said:


> All I am asking is how long it took for your treatment free apiary to become productive. That actually is a simple question. I know I have seen numerous claims on here of "I have not treated in XX years." But I'm starting to wonder if very few of those bee keepers can claim that their treatment free apiaries are productive.


Mine, in its 3rd (but 2nd 'serious') year was not productive.

However, that is because I've been expanding hard - taking brood, flying bees, comb and stores from the stronger to build nucs.

This is another complicating factor to your question. Some tf apiaries come with ready-made comb - some, like mine, don't. Some come with colonies that can have their resistance raised immediately by requeening. Mine didn't. 

If I hadn't been making increase... my 5 best (out of 7) overwintered hives would have made in the region of 100 lb average. (I bottled about 50 lbs but redistributed another 50, and left 2-300 lb on hives.)

Other factors worthy of note: it was an excellent nectar season here. None of these hives were moved - but all were at good 'rough' outstands.

I only picked up a handful of swarms and cut-outs - a result of last year's appalling weather. That would have made a big difference, giving me bees with which to make bees and comb early in the year. Shortage of bees and comb were the limiting factors in my effort to raise numbers.

I think though I'm describing a kind of operation that is not of the sort that interests you David? Am I right in thinking you are looking for simple data from existing, poroductive, apiaries that have made a transition, rather than complex data from ground-up operations?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

JWChesnut said:


> Thanks for the link, as I had lost that account. A June 2012 posting cites infestation at 2-7 per hundred in a sugar roll. This translates to 6-21 per 300 in the standard American unit volume. This is at or above the "economic threshold" cited in many sources. Hives at the economic threshold in June, implies a September mite load which will be enormous. This likely explains the 37% loss recorded in the experiment in the 2012-13 winter.


Answer to your simple question, based on own experience: more than 12 years.

Today it is less, because there are resistant traits available. If you have qood skills on queen rearing and making nucs and you have the ability to contoll matings (or dominance of drones in your are), I really don´t see why you could not start economic beekeeping right away with resistant queens in all hives.

www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm


----------



## David LaFerney

mike bispham said:


> I think though I'm describing a kind of operation that is not of the sort that interests you David? Am I right in thinking you are looking for simple data from existing, poroductive, apiaries that have made a transition, rather than complex data from ground-up operations?


That is actually useful. "Productive" could mean any kind of apiary product as far as I am concerned - bees, queens, nucs, honey of course... The point is that all of your effort is not being applied to just keeping your bees alive. For example if you split every hive every year, and then lost half of them and produced nothing but a status quo - just an example, not saying that describes anyone in particular.


----------



## David LaFerney

After about 850 reads in the 18 days this thread has been going there are only about 6 significant answers to the question of "How long did it take your treatment free apiary to become productive?"

Those six answers range from:

JW Chestnut having a 10 year TF experiment which is not yet successful.

Mike Bispham - Still working on it in his 3rd year, with the caveat that honey could have been harvested, but was left for the bees or redistributed. - fair enough Mike? 

Juhani Lunden's TF apiary took over 12 years.

Solomon Parker 2-3 years.

Squarepeg - Moderately productive from the start while making increase most of 4 years.

Michael Bush - Immediate success on small cell foundation.

Here is my summary so far - "Such a small number of people report productive treatment free apiaries* in this thread *that the result is statistically insignificant." 

If there is more data that is not being reported I would really like to hear it.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Since I've never used mite treatments, or done mite counts (since counts remove mites - which some could consider interference in the mite/bee interaction). I've also not lost any colonies to mites, only lose younger, weaker colonies, to robbing, if I don't catch it in time.

It's been about twenty years since I've heard that without treatments my colonies wouldn't last more than three years. Haven't lost any, yet. They are productive, and continue to be. The first decade in my present location, I only ran colonies derived from one cut-out. They were difficult to work, often extremely defensive, extremely difficult to requeen, and quite possibly Africanized. More than a decade ago, I requeened them all with Italian Cordovan queens, sourced from C.F. Koehnen & Sons, Inc., Since then I've learned to raise my own queens, and have imported Italian Cordovan queens from several other suppliers, to maintain calm bees that are primarily Cordovan colored.

When a queen is only half Cordovan and does not have Cordovan coloration, I find that her workers can exhibit undesirable traits, most usually what's called "runniness". More rarely undesirable traits even occur in colonies headed by Cordovan colored queens. All the queens are open mated, so flooding the area with my chosen drones does help.

To answer your question, succinctly: It takes no time, at all.

I was treatment free when I began keeping bees in 1966, and I'm still treatment free in 2013.

In these past twenty years, plus, I've been in the Tucson/Marana area of the desert Southwest, U. S. A. And, quite likely, the climate in this location, may be the key to my continued TF success.


----------



## mike bispham

Joseph Clemens said:


> I've also not lost any colonies to mites, only lose younger, weaker colonies, to robbing, if I don't catch it in time.


I have this problem - late small nucs that I feel I should give a chance, and haven't boosted from stronger hives - mostly because I've felt I've hammered them all already in the effort to make maximum increase. Apart from screens, do you have any particular strategies Joseph? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## David LaFerney

Thanks Joseph. I didn't know you were treatment free. You do feed when needed though don't you?

I'm starting to suspect that location may be a key factor - if not the main factor - in successful treatment free beekeeping. Maybe some places have an important nutrient missing, or maybe it is the presence of environmental toxins, pathogens or vectors - or likely it is a whole ****tail of factors.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

JWChesnut said:


> Thanks for the link, as I had lost that account. A June 2012 posting cites infestation at 2-7 per hundred in a sugar roll. This translates to 6-21 per 300 in the standard American unit volume. This is at or above the "economic threshold" cited in many sources. Hives at the economic threshold in June, implies a September mite load which will be enormous. This likely explains the 37% loss recorded in the experiment in the 2012-13 winter.


I forgot to mention, that average winter losses in Finland (beekeepers association) in winter 2013-13 were 17%. Many beekeepers lost much more because of the record rainy season 2012. 


What is productive? My honey crop is about half what it used to be, but selling (expensive) queens and keeping lectures of the subject almost covers that. I get all my expences well covered, but the salary for my working hours is definitely lower.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Mike (UK)
t:

With weaker nucs, I've discovered that those I keep in 3-frame mating nuc condo compartments, are usually doomed. But if I move them, soon enough, into my usual 5-frame nuc boxes, I can save many of them. My usual 5-frame nuc, has a 1-1/2" thick piece of polystyrene foam (with hole cut through it for Summer ventilation), for their bottoms, then covered with a piece of #8 galvanized hardware cloth, to keep the bees from damaging the foam. This time of year I place a small sheet of plastic between the hardware cloth and foam, to reduce infiltration of colder Winter air. All my full-size nucs have top/upper entrances. If they're in one box, I slide back the covers to create a narrow entrance slit (the bees have to push their way in and out). If I add an additional box, or two, I slide back the first box, to create the entrance slit. If I think the entrance slit is too much for them to defend, I use a piece of plastic sheet to block the excess entrance space. Sometimes the extra box is empty, to protect an inverted feeder jar and pollen sub patty.


----------



## mike bispham

David LaFerney said:


> I'm starting to suspect that location may be a key factor - if not the main factor - in successful treatment free beekeeping. Maybe some places have an important nutrient missing, or maybe it is the presence of environmental toxins, pathogens or vectors - or likely it is a whole ****tail of factors.


Do you seriously doubt the analysis of initial genetics + ongoing breeding, taking account of the feral vs treatment-maintained factor?

Location is as you say important mostly - not entirely, but mostly - for those reasons. 

Would you think you could take a long-term treated apiary, shift it to a better place, stop treating, and see any kind of success?

Lack of defence against varroa is due to lack of genes conferring defence behaviours. Period. Those genes have to be found somewhere, spread throughout the apiary, and maintained there. 

Tf beekeeping is about having mite-managing bees. They are mite-managers because they have mite-managing genes. That's it. What is your objection to that analysis?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Joseph Clemens

David,

Yes, I do feed, when necessary. I sometimes add supplemental copper to syrup I feed to nuc starts. I spray Bt on empty, idle, comb to deter wax moth larvae. And, I round up toads that are attacking my hives. I can't think of anything else I do, that might be considered, "treatments".

There are many copper mines in our near vicinity. Perhaps local forage is boosted in this mineral (though I don't know of any tests done to verify this, or not). Or, if that might even make a significant difference to V-mite virulence.


----------



## mike bispham

Very small entrance, even a 'push-through' curtain; jar rather than rapid feeder, insulation... I might fret about damp, but that gives me stuff to think about, thanks Joseph.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Joseph Clemens

t:
Mike (UK),
Excellent interpretation of my Winter Nuc entrances. The pieces of black plastic I place across the entrances (as nuc entrance reducers), do often function as push-through curtains. This seems to really reduce episodes of total robbing kill-off.


----------



## Saltybee

Given that TF bees do not seem to relocate as well as expected I continue to think far too little attention and credit is given to the genetic diversity of the local mite. Much faster turnover of generations should result in much faster adaptation on the mite side rather than the bee side. I do not think it is the genes of the drones that contaminate a TF hive, but the genes of the attached mites. Treating mites favors the fastest breeders and the mites most prone to jump from hive to hive. The feral hive that survives may simply have the benefit of a well adapted mite.
Give me a well adapted parasite and the adaptation of the host is a secondary concern. Now if I could just find and retain that well adapted mite.

To answer David's guestion of how long; longer than now.


----------



## David LaFerney

Joseph Clemens said:


> David,
> 
> Yes, I do feed, when necessary. I sometimes add supplemental copper to syrup I feed to nuc starts. I spray Bt on empty, idle, comb to deter wax moth larvae. And, I round up toads that are attacking my hives. I can't think of anything else I do, that might be considered, "treatments".
> 
> There are many copper mines in our near vicinity. Perhaps local forage is boosted in this mineral (though I don't know of any tests done to verify this, or not). Or, if that might even make a significant difference to V-mite virulence.


You never know. It could be something that makes the bees more resilient, or something that works against the mites. It could be a micro-nutrient that encourages a fungus that produces a natural mitacide. But it seems that perhaps there might not be an easy solution that will simply work anywhere.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael Bush - Immediate success on small cell foundation.

Actually on fully drawn small cell comb (wax dipped PermaComb). Foundation is a different matter altogether.


----------



## WilliamReam

I'd like to share my experience. Started with 2 hives 2010 and treated them with formic and all the usual treatments and got 80lbs honey. Next year split to 4 hives treated in the spring with tactic. No other treatments. Thinking about going treatment free. Worried about losses. Only got 80 lbs honey. Spring 2012 all four hives bombers split to 8 treated all hives with formic. No other treatments. Got about 90 lbs honey. Disaster strikes lost 4 before the end of October. Lost the other four before the end of January. Decided to go treatment free. And bought 16 packages 2013 also bought old nasty used comb lots of disease likely hanging around in the comb. Fed each package 2 frames of honey and 1 frame of pollen. Also fed 2 gallons healthy bee formula to build their immune system. The rest drawn comb. In May split 4 of the packages and caught 1 swarm got 540 lbs of honey fed 2 more gallons of healthy bee formula. Home recipe using some essential oils. I don't consider this a treatment because it is only to stimulate the bees own immune system. One of the packages died after trying to supercede several times i have 16 strong hives going in to winter and four that might die. All in all i think it takes no time at all to be successful. As long as you know what to look for and how to do the shook swarm method for controlling all your different diseases i used the shook swarm method on three hives two built back up and are strong enough for winter. Planning on splitting up to 40 or so next year. I have been breaking even every year so far. I believe due to cost of increase. But i expect to be in full production with 400 hives in just 5 years from the time i went treatment free. I inspect my hives at least every 14 days.


----------



## heaflaw

I'm impressed. You're doing great. Hope it continues.


----------



## Daniel Y

mike bispham said:


> 1. Do you seriously doubt the analysis of initial genetics + ongoing breeding, taking account of the feral vs treatment-maintained factor?
> 
> 2. Location is as you say important mostly - not entirely, but mostly - for those reasons.
> 
> 3. Would you think you could take a long-term treated apiary, shift it to a better place, stop treating, and see any kind of success?
> 
> 4. Lack of defence against varroa is due to lack of genes conferring defence behaviours. Period. Those genes have to be found somewhere, spread throughout the apiary, and maintained there.
> 
> 5. Tf beekeeping is about having mite-managing bees. They are mite-managers because they have mite-managing genes. That's it. What is your objection to that analysis?
> 
> Mike (UK)


1. Yes. I do not argue the genetics exist. I argue that they are not maintained or enhanced with current methods of reproduction in bees. Keep in mind I do not consider much of what I have read breeding. What breeding methods do exist are extremely weak on selection and any progress is immediately lost due to the need to rely on typical mating methods. I see evidence that little to no progress is being made regarding breeding of bees.

2. 

3. No but that is not because I disagree with location. I disagree with the effectiveness of treatment free. In fact treatment free for the most part should not be expected to work at least in the beginning. Sounds very familiar. such as a new beekeeper should expect to loose bees as well. I see no difference in the losses of treatment free than I do traditional beekeepers. Those that are successful for the most part are those that are exceptional in many ways. I believe a person with the ability to be a successful beekeeper will be so regardless of the avenue they select to get there.

4. I agree that Varroa resistance is genetic. as in response one. I do not agree that the preservation of those genetics is possible with current methods of breeding.

I will offer a real example of breeding and the selection process necessary to see results.
150,000 individuals produced. of those the vast majority will be rejected out of hand. This woudl translate to the production of 150,000 queens. Just to pick a number for now will say out of those 150,000 1000 are chosen for further evaluation. Those evaluations will consist of 8 days and over 100 pages of reports and tests. At that time those 100 reports will be evaluated by one person and may be one in ten will be selected for further breeding. This results in 100 out of 150,000 being selected. now that is an effective selection pressure. Current breeding methods for bees has no selection pressure to speak of. Still it only works if the selection criteria is correct.

5. due to lack of selection pressure the traits will be lost faster than you can select for them. I agree resistant traits exist. I also agree non resistant traits exist. and it is the non resistant traits that prevail.


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> 1. Yes. I do not argue the genetics exist. I argue that they are not maintained or enhanced with current methods of reproduction in bees. Keep in mind I do not consider much of what I have read breeding. What breeding methods do exist are extremely weak on selection and any progress is immediately lost due to the need to rely on typical mating methods. I see evidence that little to no progress is being made regarding breeding of bees.


I want to point out, first, how general this statement is. What you are saying is: ' at no place, under any circumstances is sufficient breeding pressure being bought to bear. You go on to out what you would consider to be sufficient breeding pressure, choosing a starting population of 150,000 individuals, and selecting at a rate 1:150.

Have I got that right? 

It be fair for me to argue that: 

a) You are, again, arguing for the creation of a 'fixed' trait. You heard my argument before: in relation to defences against a predator, no such thing is possible. That isn't how nature works. Prey and predator are in a constant 'arms race', each evolving to try to maintain its advantages. Selective pressure must be maintained. The price of health is constant selection.

b) Not all places are the same: in some location feral and/or tf beekeeping has already raised varroa resistant traits to a largely satisfactory degree. We hear, often from, and of, beekeepers who are succeeding by working with the grain of natural selection.

c) Your figure '150,000' is arbitrary, conjoured out of thin air simply to try to give force to your argument. That won't work. Note that any resistant bees emerging from such a selection process would, if exposed to artificially maintained genes, still have to be continually selected for mite-management behaviours.

d) All apiaries (all stock-rearing operations) must continually select to maintain health and productivity. In a tf apiary, this necessary process automatically selects the stronger mite managers.

What you've done is defined 'breeding' by your own criteria as a highly intensive and controlled process, well out of reach of anyone but a huge dedicated breeding operation, and taking the view that anything less is pointless.

That position isn't sustainable. 

Here is a position that _is_ sustainable:

"The more undesirable traits are excluded from a breeding pool, the less they will appear in subsequent generations."

That describes the underlying rationale for healthy stock-rearing, and, as a statement, its bulletproof. And it is incompatible with your statement. Only one can be true.

It applies to all operations, anywhere, from the largest to the smallest. Of course in very small operations, due to open mating it will be difficult, and perhaps impossible to achieve - that will depend on the traits carried by local stock.

You've set up a straw man - the notion that only high intensity breeding will produce worthwhile results, and then used that as the premise for your justification. It won't wash. Low level systematic selective propagation can - and must - be regarded as a breeding activity; and like all breeding will make progress according to the quality of input stock and the skill of the breeder. 



Daniel Y said:


> 5. due to lack of selection pressure the traits will be lost faster than you can select for them. I agree resistant traits exist. I also agree non resistant traits exist. and it is the non resistant traits that prevail.


Its up to you to ensure that selective pressure is bought to bear. That's the skill part. Find a good spot and build a mating station. Inadequate resistance will only prevail only to the extent that you do your job poorly.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y

Mike, First of all you say "at no place, under any circumstances is sufficient breeding pressure being bought to bear." I said "Keep in mind I do not consider *much* of what I have read breeding." Hardly absolute as you have chosen to interpret it.

It is not what I consider adequate selection pressure. It is actual numbers from a proven breeding program. It results in a selection pressure of 1 out of 1,500 by the way or 0.0015. 

In you comment (b) You are very correct. Even the program I took these numbers from are highly location dependent. It has been attempted in other locations without success repeatedly.

(c) no they are not they are actual numbers from an actual breeding program that has been under way for over 25 years repeatedly producing results that where considered impossible. You are correct that if selection pressure is not maintained regression is extremely fast. You can never stop selecting and you can never not be effective in the selection. Such a program is dependent on the skill of the individual doing the selection. It is also only one person that does that final selection. Many others do the initial thinning and collection of data.

(d) that something is difficult to achieve does not alter what is necessary. Basically what you are claiming is that breeding will only happen effectively if it is easy enough. So what if it is not? Do we just continue to accept less than adequate breeding? So far that is what I see has been chosen.

In all your opinion is actually the one unreliable and based on assumption and making things up out of thin air. what I have described has and still is actually happening.

Before you start saying then provide links. let me pint out that such a request only reveals vast ignorance on the subject. such things are obviously held with great secrecy and will remain so. Learn what they learned know what they know and you will be capable of doing the same.

I will say that the program I describe is ran by Dr. Whiting of Whiting farms. You are free to do any searching you can find. And by the way. the program is expensive to start. it is also tremendously profitable. a marriage I believe is critical unless you have government funding.

None of this discussion has addressed the fixing of traits. So to point out that non fixed traits will deteriorate is pretty much a given. What I have described is just what is done to make progress toward a given trait. It is not a complete process to maintain or fix those traits once they are developed. That is more of an issue of cross or out breeding.

This method produces results that could be mistaken as mutations. When in fact it is nothing more than coaxing forth genetics that have always been present but dominated by other traits. For example hygienic behavior in bees. It is also conducted on a species that is highly fluid and responsive to selection. which is also how the honeybee is described.

The Honey bee has some unique genetics that could very well introduce difficulties.


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> Mike, First of all you say "at no place, under any circumstances is sufficient breeding pressure being bought to bear." I said "Keep in mind I do not consider *much* of what I have read breeding." Hardly absolute as you have chosen to interpret it.


Daniel,

You've just re-asserted your basic position, which amounts to the same thing.



Daniel Y said:


> It is not what I consider adequate selection pressure. It is actual numbers from a proven breeding program. It results in a selection pressure of 1 out of 1,500 by the way or 0.0015.
> 
> I will say that the program I describe is ran by Dr. Whiting of Whiting farms. You are free to do any searching you can find. And by the way. the program is expensive to start. it is also tremendously profitable. a marriage I believe is critical unless you have government funding.


You're basing your view on a report from a single outfit? BTW the search: " "Dr. Whiting" "Whiting farms", bees " turns up nothing. Perhaps you can offer links or other details that would enable verification?



Daniel Y said:


> Before you start saying then provide links. let me pint out that such a request only reveals vast ignorance on the subject. such things are obviously held with great secrecy and will remain so.


Ahh. That's why I find nothing. I'm sure I am vastly ignorant, but... Ruttner had no qualms about making his processes public. Nor did R.O.B Manley. And from what they (and many other sources) tell me, my vast ignorance is widely shared. Also, my knowledge works.

Basic husbandry, raising desirable traits is simple and effective in honeybees. The only thing making it difficult just now is endemic treating. 



Daniel Y said:


> Learn what they learned know what they know and you will be capable of doing the same.


I can read, and speak with others doing the same effective simple procedures - procedures that are universally known to be necessary to any animal populations. Its called 'husbandry', and simple selective breeding is its central plank.



Daniel Y said:


> In you comment (b) You are very correct. Even the program I took these numbers from are highly location dependent. It has been attempted in other locations without success repeatedly.
> 
> (c) no they are not they are actual numbers from an actual breeding program that has been under way for over 25 years repeatedly producing results that where considered impossible.


This is the top secret operation that we can have no access to?



Daniel Y said:


> You are correct that if selection pressure is not maintained regression is extremely fast.


Regressions to what is an illuminating question. Regression to a thriving, if low productivity feral state is less undesirable than regression to an utterly beekeeper-dependent state as a result of outbreeding with treated populations. Its the removal of selection pressure caused by treating that is the main obstacle. Reletive isolation and determined breeding is the counter.



Daniel Y said:


> You can never stop selecting and you can never not be effective in the selection. Such a program is dependent on the skill of the individual doing the selection. It is also only one person that does that final selection. Many others do the initial thinning and collection of data.


You are talking about your vast breeding program again, while I'm talking about basic husbandry. The same principles apply.



Daniel Y said:


> (d) that something is difficult to achieve does not alter what is necessary. Basically what you are claiming is that breeding will only happen effectively if it is easy enough.


I don't think that's the case. I'm saying that all selective propagation, at any scale is 'breeding' and, asssuming a reasonable level of skill, that it will always raise desirable traits above what they would have been had it not occurred. There are circumstances in which it will be largely ineffective - being overwhelmed by artificially-supported stock being the only one I can think of.



Daniel Y said:


> So what if it is not? Do we just continue to accept less than adequate breeding? So far that is what I see has been chosen.


That's not 'inadequate'. Its performing its task. And nothing further would be especially helpful, because any 'superbee' resulting from your massive top-secret program will be outcrossing in every generation (so the same continuous selective breeding remains necessary - as you have agreed.)



Daniel Y said:


> In all your opinion is actually the one unreliable and based on assumption and making things up out of thin air. what I have described has and still is actually happening.


My opinions are based on wide reading about the simple fundamentals of traditional husbandry - themselves a mirror a natural selection. Yours are based on evidence you can't present, and a determination to deny the efficacy of simple breeding that denies all reason.

Mike (UK)


----------



## David LaFerney

Michael Bush said:


> >Michael Bush - Immediate success on small cell foundation.
> 
> Actually on fully drawn small cell comb (wax dipped PermaComb). Foundation is a different matter altogether.


Sorry I misunderstood. Do you know of anyone who has been able to reproduce that result using permacomb? It seems that there was at least one study of small cell that did not seem to result in successful treatment free - but if they just used SC foundation, then it wasn't really apples to apples was it?


----------



## Daniel Y

Henry Hoffman eventually agreed to a deal with Thomas Whiting of Colorado. Tom was then finishing his Ph.D. at the University of Arkansas, and also had an M.S. degree from the University of Georgia and a B.S. degree from Colorado State University, always specializing in his particular areas of interest - poultry genetics and husbandry.

I offer that in regard to my comment about knowing what he knows. as far as links. I got over 20 pages of hits for whiting farm. as far as I can tell most of them are relevant. I have not seen the detail of information on his program in the past three years as I did previous to that. My impression is that Dr Whiting did not believe he had to keep his methods secret because even if they where known they could not be repeated. The publishing of the details may have proven him wrong. I suspect that the detailed information has largely been removed since then. It may be that it has simply faded into the background of the vast internet as well. Most of what I find now I consider largely of a promotional hype nature. More of it is accurate than might be expected though.

I did find this. it is not as detailed as some articles I have written in the past and much of it is not entirely accurate. As an example near the bottom of the first page it says that selection pressure is 0.2%. This would be true for female but pressure is far higher for males. Also the information is out dated. Whiting now has Utlra Platinum grade hackle and progress is much further advanced than this article indicates.

Also Dr. Whiting's involvement in Genetic hackle predates his purchase of Hoffman farms in 1997. IT was his efforts in genetic hackle that lead to the purchase. The article indicates that Whiting had a further reaching knowledge of available blood lines at the time of that purchase. The disaster of the first year was more the result of drastic changes being made rather than mismanagement. The story that birds actually attacked each other is promoted by animal activists. The birds are kept in separate cages. They can and will damage their own feathers and Whiting himself has made comments as to the accuracy of their timing in doing so. alterations to the design of their cages where made after that first year.

Anyway I can go on adding details to this forever and that is not my point. the point is that drastic progress has been proven to work. Notice also the comment about Mepps haphazard breeding practices producing inconsistent results. Mepps was considered king of the hill at that time with those methods. Much the way I see the leading queen producers now.

http://cgtu.org/documents/publications/genetic_hackle.pdf


----------



## Juhani Lunden

How long did it take for the Beeweawer to be tf?
Has their method been something like Bond -type?
Even they cannot even dream of 150 000 individuals, but I agree that breeding is a "numbers game" (quote from the Whiting web site).


quote from the Beeweawer site:
BeeWeaver was the first commercial beekeeper to stop treating hives with chemicals to control varroa mites. We believed the mite would build up a resistance to the acaricides used by beekeepers to kill them, and we would be forced again and again to use stronger chemicals in our hives if we did not build a stronger bee instead. Beginning in 1995 we started leaving hives untreated for varroa mites and only used surviving colonies as our breeder stock. Beginning in 2001 we stopped using any kind of treatment for varroa mites in our thousands of colonies. Our chemical free hives produce booming populations and extraordinary honey crops. Commercial, sideliner, and hobbyist beekeepers have enjoyed the same results in their hives headed by BeeWeaver genetics.


----------



## David LaFerney

Good question. I am surprised that someone hasn't already chimed in with something like "I had immediate success by starting with treatment free BeeWeaver queens..."

Anyone?


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel, you have to be kidding?




Daniel Y said:


> Anyway I can go on adding details to this forever


I think you'd better have a re-think.

Mike


----------



## beemandan

David LaFerney said:


> It seems that there was at least one study of small cell that did not seem to result in successful treatment free - but if they just used SC foundation, then it wasn't really apples to apples was it?


There have been some of each. I believe that the Seeley study used permacomb.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

David: I don't know if you have seen Danny Weaver's videos in which he give a brief history of the going treatment free process. He says that the first year (1992) they went treatment free they used 1000 colonies in the Bond yard. Less than 100 of those colonies survived the first winter, of the survivors only 50 were productive that spring. Out of that 50 there were only 5 colonies that produced progeny that showed better tolerance to varroa than the founding generation.

They restocked the bond yard using queens from colonies that survived and by 1995 they had sufficient numbers of colonies surviving that they started selecting for grooming, removal of infested brood and low mite populations in addition to pure surviving. During the time period 1995 to 1999 colonies that had DWV died even without having high varroa populations. They re-queened heavily infested colonies and any with DWV, this saved them and were able to restore some productivity. By 1999 most of non treated colonies survived but still had low productivity, late build up, small fall/winter adult bee populations and increased EFB.

By 2002 the colonies were back to pre-varroa productivity. Mr. Weaver said you could use their bees in a non treatment program or any of the other VSH bees.

10 years and the investment of a thousand colonies to develop a varroa tolerant bee is more than most beekeepers can afford, and I am sure that if there had been a faster method to achieve the goal of treatment free, the Weavers would have used it. He was also open and above board about his bees having African genes in their make up. I didn't note the amount, but I think it was about 10%.


----------



## David LaFerney

I haven't seen those videos, but it sounds like great work. The question is how do they work out in customer operations in other locations? 

Anybody have them? 

Even if you had to exclusively requeen from a particular source (VSH, Minn Hygenic, B Weaver, whatever) to maintain survivability I would consider that to be OK if the resultant colonies could be reasonably productive without treatments - as long as you could source the queens to do it. It might be less than ideal, but still...

It would also be nice if they weren't too vicious.


----------



## BjornH

All behives in the world in varroa areas are included in the selection of resistans, more or less. Treatment is a weapon which will work until some old or new pest finds a way to get back. TF, ecept for selecting bees whith resistans, would also select for less damaging varroa. Nature selects for survival of the species. Dead hives in the winter also means a genetic dead end for varroa in that hive.( and unfortunatly maybe financial death of the beekeeper..). Less agressive varroa, less lethal virus can also be a thought . It will be decades until we are good again ( and a new threat comes?)
Treat to save the bees and the beekeeping bussiness but dont treat to much with shortsighted bottom figure only( even if its hard-for me too- im no Bill Gates..). Kirk webster, mike palmer, keyfuss, mel dissekoen, mikel bush and others diffrent ways and levels must be a part of our planning for survival as beekeepers. Big or small.
GMO, pestices, herbicides , whatevercides must also be reduced .
Its global hard work. We need to keep going. Marla Spivaks talk at TED is for our custumers. They must be a part of the solution. More important than politicans.


----------



## David LaFerney

Welcome to Beesource, and thanks for your input.


----------



## squarepeg

good thread david. i'm also interested in how weaver's queens performed in other locations, hopefully we'll get some reports from those who have used them.

because of the demands of the day job along with the weather not cooperating on my free days i did not get a chance to get mite counts on my tf colonies this fall. what i can say is that their numbers and hive weights are looking good at this point, and i have eight apparently healthy nucs in reserve for 'spares'.

welcome to beesource bjorn!


----------



## Roland

I believe SteveG uses one of the Weaver's queen lines as the basis of his TF bees. I stood near his hives, and was not attacked, but did not work any of his hives. My argument with him has been that it is more profitable to breed TF bees from a productive stock, than it is to breed productive bees from a TF stock. Production makes money while the TF genes build.


Crazy Roland


----------



## mike bispham

AR Beekeeper said:


> David: I don't know if you have seen Danny Weaver's videos in which he give a brief history of the going treatment free process.


Its worth noting; in 1992 there had probably no movement toward resistance in any feral populations - they were almost wiped out and the survivors badly hobbled and getting through only by frequent swarming. And Weavers were, as far as I know, working entiurely with treated stock. They were starting from nothing, and learning as they went.

The situation is very different now. Both bred and feral resistant material is available. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. 

To address the original question, as Roland has just pointed out (sort of) there is a difference between raising resistance in already productive stock and raising productivity in already resistant stock; and the path taken will impact on the time it takes to reach productive tf. Bought bred productive resistant stock are one way to cheat that problem, but then you might benefit from taking local acclimatisation and attunement into account, especially in more extreme locations. 

Whatever the case, unless you want keep buying queens (assuming they relocate well), it will be necessary to keep on breeding to maintain resistance and productivity. That needs a reasonable number of hives, and good methodology. Since I can't buy resistant queens of any kind that's the bit that interests me.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

BeeWeaver open mates Italian/Buckfast queens with the 'Hybrid Swarm' found in Texas.

So, they're taking advantage of Hybrid Vigor.

However, after 20 years, I believe that that are a significant number of resistant feral colonies here in the U.S. .

So, there is a free source of resistant bees, and you have a good chance of obtaining resistant stock ASAP.

I don't believe that it's a matter of productivity, but more of domestication.

They're 'runny' for example, but not difficult to manage.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> BeeWeaver open mates Italian/Buckfast queens with the 'Hybrid Swarm' found in Texas.


Could that be described differently as simply 'a resistant mongrel feral population'. (It isn't helpful when people make up half-baked descriptions using scientific terms wrongly).

So Beeweaver mates bees of different lines and races with raised levels of productivity with resistant feral bees. 



WLC said:


> So, they're taking advantage of Hybrid Vigor.


Not quite - or rather, sort of. But pretty much only in the way that occurs naturally among mixed/mongrel populations. They might be limiting outmating to the first generation, which might increase the likelihood of hybrid vigour (in its proper sense). But any further breeding done from resultant populations couldn't be described as such. (And given the multiple mating occurring its all rather vague anyway)



WLC said:


> However, after 20 years, I believe that that are a significant number of resistant feral colonies here in the U.S.


And the 'Texas hybrid swarm' is simply a spectrum of populations composed of just such colonies. 



WLC said:


> So, there is a free source of resistant bees, and you have a good chance of obtaining resistant stock ASAP.


Yes. Bait hives in the right sorts of places, cut-out, swarms from the right sorts of places. But don't take so many you undercut them...

And (as if it were that easy!) try to discourage others from treating anywhere near them. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

David LaFerney said:


> I haven't seen those videos, but it sounds like great work. The question is how do they work out in customer operations in other locations?
> 
> Anybody have them?


They hold their own in our operation, and still don't need to be treated, imagine that :scratch:


----------



## squarepeg

fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> They hold their own in our operation, and still don't need treated, imagine that :scratch:


very good fonh. how old is your oldest tf colony using weaver's genetics? (not counting any that had to be requeened)


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

Three hives headed by Weaver's genetics, this will be their third winter. Never requeened, produced enough honey that I felt comfortable taking, the second and third year.


----------



## squarepeg

excellent. thanks for the reply.


----------



## David LaFerney

How is their disposition?


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

David LaFerney said:


> How is their disposition?


Let's call them a little more curious  than other hives, but not run you out of the hive/yard mean. Although, sometimes I think they have memory . I know two of the hives hive superseded their mother since their installation.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes the comments I've seen re weaver queens show quite a bit of variability, everything from totally docile to bees that start stinging you before you even got out of the vehicle. They must still have a wide genetic base and don't have some of the traits totally fixed yet or all of the less desirable genetics fully excised.

I think Weavers would have a chuckle reading this thread, they would have to read up all the knowledgeable theories about themselves so they can find out what they are doing LOL.


----------



## WLC

My own thoughts on BeeWeaver hives is that they are supposed to be re-queened regularly, in theory at least.

It's the same thing with open mated queens in similar areas.

Otherwise, they'll become more feral and less domesticated over time.

However, since I don't have that kind of an issue, there's the other side of the coin.

Their resistance genetics becomes more diluted, with the possibility of them becoming more defensive, over time.

I ordered the queens marked and clipped so that I can avoid any possible issues.

All I have to do is order a new queen if I need to.

I do think that there's a difference in the early vs late mated queens depending on which type of drones, hybrid swarm vs domestic, are flying at the time the queens are mated.

That's the advantage of getting 'store bought' resistant, hybrid bees.

You know the genetics of the queen (Italian/Buckfast), and they do the hybridizing for you.

It's treatment free beekeeping by credit card.


----------



## rhaldridge

fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> Let's call them a little more curious  than other hives, but not run you out of the hive/yard mean. Although, sometimes I think they have memory . I know two of the hives hive superseded their mother since their installation.


I had a BeeWeaver queen superceded a couple months or so after installation. Both the queen mother and the new queen produced placid bees, but if the BeeWeaver queen produces a hot hive, they will send you a replacement.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> My own thoughts on BeeWeaver hives is that they are supposed to be re-queened regularly, in theory at least. Otherwise, they'll become more feral and less domesticated over time.


I suppose everyone can decide for themself depending on setting (re. thriving ferals or not) and the amount of productivitity that matters to them. It'll be different in each case. Of course nearby treated apriaries will necessitate re-queening from elsewhere.

Personally I'd prefer to be doing my own breeding - for local acclimatisation.

I suppose we should note that Weaver's advice is probably aimed at commercial operations, where regular requeening from bred stock, and/or first generation open/local with a 'breeder queen' is often the norm.



WLC said:


> However, since I don't have that kind of an issue, there's the other side of the coin.
> 
> Their resistance genetics becomes more diluted, with the possibility of them becoming more defensive, over time.


As for resistance, again, it depends of the local drones. As for defensisveness, you can breed away if you feel the need.



WLC said:


> I do think that there's a difference in the early vs late mated queens depending on which type of drones, hybrid swarm vs domestic, are flying at the time the queens are mated.


Interesting. There is an argument in the offing here for natural reproduction - let 'em swarm and catch-em. Whenever we make increase on our timescale we risk spoiling this business of different mating periods. What sorts of difference have you noticed?



WLC said:


> That's the advantage of getting 'store bought' resistant, hybrid bees. You know the genetics of the queen (Italian/Buckfast), and they do the hybridizing for you. It's treatment free beekeeping by credit card.


If they were available to me I might be tempted to bring in their genetics. But as high productivity isn't my sole aim I'm content to be working with local survivors, and curious to see what I can make of them.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

"Interesting. There is an argument in the offing here for natural reproduction - let 'em swarm and catch-em. Whenever we make increase on our timescale we risk spoiling this business of different mating periods. What sorts of difference have you noticed?"

Mike:

Dr. Delaney from the University of Delaware recently stated that different populations, feral vs managed, were mating at different times, early vs late.

It's an evolutionary mechanism known to produce speciation or new species (reproductive isolation).

I was astonished to hear that we have distinct populations of Honeybees here in the U.S. that have been observed carrying out this process.

It's evidence of evolution occurring in Honeybees.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Dr. Delaney from the University of Delaware recently stated that different populations, feral vs managed, were mating at different times, early vs late.


Yes, I saw it there too. I wondered if you'd actually noticed any differences.



WLC said:


> It's an evolutionary mechanism known to produce speciation or new species (reproductive isolation).
> 
> I was astonished to hear that we have distinct populations of Honeybees here in the U.S. that have been observed carrying out this process.
> 
> It's evidence of evolution occurring in Honeybees.


As if that were needed! More like 'evidence of another mechanism of evolutionary change in honeybees'.

It is fascinating, and potentially very useful. Do you recall the details - when the preferred mating of US ferals is occurring?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

The details were not actually mentioned.

Also, I have not seen her other research, but just the you tube video did not offer any proof of different populations mating at different times. It was a hypothesis.

The reality, in my experience, and I do have experience, is that 3 of the breeds she mentioned being AMM carniolan and Italian, all interbreed freely.

The basis for the hypothesis as presented in the video, was that the bees in the forest had different matriarchal lines, as shown by mitochondrial DNA, to the managed hives around the forest. But of course they did. The bees in the forest had AMM mitochondrial ancestry, the managed hives around the forest were moved in recently and had different matriarchal ancestry.

That this proved there are two different populations not interbreeding was not shown, at least in the video. My suspicion is it is a personal hobbyhorse, but without much foundation in fact. Many researchers feel the need to have some point of difference, discovery, or some such thing, to distinguish themselves from the masses.

Mike as you consider yourself something of an expert in the field of genetics I am surprised you did not pick up on this.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

When the U. of Arkansas did their study of the bees of Arkansas, they found samples of DNA from all the races of bees that have been imported into the U.S.A. They were not pure, all of the colonies were a mix, with the majority being Italian/Carniolan/Caucasian. There was one or two small areas in the state that had colonies that were mostly Black Bees/Italian/Carniolan.

The different geographical races have some variation in mating. The African drones fly at different times than do Italians, this has been reported in the Black Bee also. The Black Bee queens are reported to mate closer to their own apiary than do queens that are mostly Italian.

I wondered when I saw the video if Delaney was saying the colonies were pure, or if they were mixed. It seamed most of the audience thought she was saying they were pure, but knowing honey bees, I doubt they were of pure race.


----------



## David LaFerney

rhaldridge said:


> I had a BeeWeaver queen superceded a couple months or so after installation. Both the queen mother and the new queen produced placid bees, but if the BeeWeaver queen produces a hot hive, they will send you a replacement.


That's good to know. Thanks.

How are they doing so far?


----------



## rhaldridge

They're doing okay. This was a late summer split, and they're filling a 5 over 5 nuc. The plan is to split them again in late January, to have a couple nucs to haul north from the BeeWeaver stock.

I'm a beginner, so this was a perfect example of a beginner screwup. I found supercedure cells in the original split, on two different frames, so split them again. I did not give them enough time, and fell into a panic when I got no eggs within what I thought a reasonable time in one of the splits. I assumed one queen had not made it back. and since I'd had another hive that took 6 weeks to cure of laying workers, and didn't want to repeat that miserable experience, I combined the 2 nucs. A couple days later I had brood in both top and bottom, so I think I probably wasted a queen and could have had 2 hybrid BeeWeaver nucs to split in the spring. 

Live and learn.


----------



## David LaFerney

Thanks to everyone for your input on this thread so far, and I hope people will continue to contribute.

I have made the presentation that I mentioned in the thread starter, and posted my notes for it as a companion article on our association website if anyone is interested. Varroa mite management options of honey bees

Again, thanks.


----------



## beemandan

David...not a big deal but ApiLife Var should not be used if the daytime temps exceed 90 F.
See page three...listed under Restrictions:
http://www.ncagr.gov/SPCAP/pesticides/labels/ApiLifeVAR.pdf


----------



## David LaFerney

Thanks i'll make that edit when i get back to a computer.


----------



## Oldtimer

AR Beekeeper said:


> The African drones fly at different times than do Italians, this has been reported in the Black Bee also. The Black Bee queens are reported to mate closer to their own apiary than do queens that are mostly Italian.


Yes this fact has many times been misinterpreted to imply the different species do not, or may not, interbreed. It is true that the main time frame for drone flying does differ between some of the species. But fact is, not enough to prevent interbreeding. 
Simple observation and common sense bears this out. For example, African drones main flying time frame window differs from some other species. This does not prevent beekeepers in areas with Africanised bees struggling to keep their bees pure, interbreeding is a fact.

Dr. Delaneys video showed the different mitochondrial DNA between the two groups of bees. But mitochondrial DNA remains unchanged for countless generations even though nucleic DNA can have changed much. In answer to the question as to whether Dr. Delaney was saying the colonies were pure, she didn't, but I think she attempted to imply that. Which I found sad, coming from a respected expert. Subsequent conversation on Beesource has born out that was the way most people interpreted what she said. Simply wrong unfortunately.

The correct interpretation, is that over a long enough period of time the two populations will merge, assuming the kept bees are not moved or requeened too much. Although in practise, they probably will be. But the mitochondrial DNA, representing the matriarchal line, will remain different, depending on who the original mothers were of the stock. But mitochondrial DNA has little effect on the make up of the bee.

On a different tack, David that is an excellent article, I'm impressed!


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> David that is an excellent article, I'm impressed!


So am I.


----------



## JWChesnut

David,
Nice even handed summary.
Three points jump out for me:
Wide current commercial practice in CA is to requeen summer and fall -- TF is likely possible under this really aggressive requeen scenario, at a significant management cost. Your FAQ discusses only spring requeening.

There is grey-area between the various resistant races -- Minn VSH, Russian, BeeWeaver and the degree they can accomodate reduced treatment loadings and remain economic. My best experience with resistance were the Glenn Apiary implementation of the VSH, but persistence of traits are minimal.

The middle ground is essentially the "IPM" approach, which is best advocated by Oliver. Seems like explaining IPM would be useful. In summary: Use resistant races or colony husbandry practices, measure the mite load objectively, treat appropriately with a rotating material, rather than prophylactically with the same agent to some calendar schedule.

Under outlaw --
Taktic (Amitraz) is still being very widely in CA. I am not sure of the import source, but craigslist commonly has concentrate sold for about $100. Since its off-label application was nearly universal in Ca Commercial prior to it being pulled off market, recognition of its prevalence is necessary for completeness.
** Oliver has made some veiled and ambiguous comments about Amitraz resistance. Your summary implies no resistance, wish we could know what he's hearing.


----------



## David LaFerney

Oldtimer, Barry - thanks that means a lot.

JWChestnut - the truth is I didn't even think of IPM, and it should be mentioned if only in the footnotes. But this was for an oral presentation mostly aimed at newer beekeepers many of whom have not decided how to deal with mites because they are confused by the options. For the ones who still have healthy hives I was hoping to motivate them to decide what to do and take action during the broodless period if they decided to treat. If they decide to go treatment free that's fine too, but they need to be aware of the implications of that decision. IPM Might be a bit advanced for the target audience in this particular case, and at this time.

Just curious though, can you really do monitoring and assessments for ipm when you are dealing with the number of hives needed to make a living? It seems very labor intensive.


----------



## jim lyon

David LaFerney said:


> Just curious though, can you really do monitoring and assessments for ipm when you are dealing with the number of hives needed to make a living? It seems very labor intensive.


My opinion is no, with a lot of hives you have to make blanket judgments and if you are a honey producer there are precious few treatment windows per year.....given the fact that we are on the tf forum perhaps I have said too much already.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

David, I read your Varroa Options page. I think it is well put together and quite useful.

While we might all wish otherwise, Oxalic Acid _is _regulated as a _registered pesticide_ in the US. However, it is not registered for use against varroa.

Two references: Randy Oliver, second paragraph on this page:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/oxalic-acid-questions-answers-and-more-questions-part-1-of-2-parts/

-and -

from the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/4070fact.pdf


----------



## David LaFerney

Rader - As Randy Oliver said in his article it is for informational purposes - but I will probably add your link. Although I will say that if it is the case that we are being prevented from lawfully using a relatively safe effective and certainly affordable treatment while being offered expensive, possibly dangerous, probably ineffective alternatives - for any reason - that is the kind of situation which causes law abiding people to lose respect for and break the law - and yet not lose sleep other than by worrying about what is wrong with our country. Long sentence, off subject, wrong forum - just saying.


----------



## WLC

OA is registered as a disinfectant. For toilets yet.

I don't know why it was never registered when there was an opportunity to do so.

But, it's a bit off topic.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I agree David. The situation with OA is likely the way it is because nobody has figured out how to make enough money to take OA through the registration/testing process and still make a healthy profit. The registration process really has little to do with actual _safe _and _effective _miticides, its all about paperwork and making sure the money flows into the "right" pockets.


----------



## WLC

We've been over this. The Canadians have the paperwork, and someone needs to get it over to Rutgers.

Shall we get back into the thread?


----------



## David LaFerney

t:
I think most of us - us being all U.S. Citizens - mostly agree about this kind of thing. BTW, since Thymol is also an EPA registered Pesticide, I guess all of those concoctions which contain it or EO of thyme are also outlawed.

But it's only a guess, because really smart, really well educated people argue before the supreme court all the time to decide what the law really means. Often as not the decision is split 5-4 which kind of indicates that even the Justices aren't all that sure what is and is not legal. I suspect it has to do with the attorneys haircut as much as anything.

So often the de facto law comes down to what and how it is enforced, and since there isn't an Oil of Thyme task force (that we know of) we are probably all safe - and should go ahead and assume that it's OK, and continue to use it if we choose. For now.

It's kind of absurd if you think about it.
t:


----------



## Fusion_power

I've been treatment free since 2005. I got treatment free by finding one exceptional queen in a feral swarm that showed high levels of mite tolerance. I purchased 10 queens from Purvis and used them to produce drones to mate with queens raised from my mite tolerant feral queen. I was NOT dealing with large numbers of colonies and have not had more than 20 colonies at any time since 1993.

In 2006, I deliberately pushed my colonies to swarm as much as possible. This was done by crowding them down to a single broodchamber in early spring. The purpose of the tactic was to push as many mite tolerant swarms into the area as possible so they would buffer the effects of any beekeepers on the treatment bandwagon. I consider this step to have been critical in maintaining my bees without treatments!!!!!

My bees were totally unproductive in 2007 because we had a freeze April 7th that wiped out most of the normal spring flowers. It was not something that I could fault the bees for. I have never seen such a late freeze before and hope to never see it again.

Since then, I have had normal production in my colonies every year from 2008 to 2013.

I have been splitting my bees and giving or selling colonies to other beekeepers in the area to increase the mite tolerant traits. One person now has 4 highly mite tolerant colonies at a location about 5 miles north of me. I have 2 more beginners who have requested colonies for next spring. I will build equipment this fall and hope to be able to sell or trade at least 10 more colonies.

To answer the question re how long to be productive and TF, by purchasing highly mite tolerant stock and using it to leverage the mite tolerance I found in a feral queen, I have had productive bees since 2006 which was the first year after going treatment free. I would emphasize, that I did NOT start from scratch. I had identified the mite tolerant feral queen in 2004 and I made full use of highly resistant queens from Purvis.

I might mention that the feral queen I used for mite tolerance was also a source of exceptional production genes. Her colony foraged effectively at temperatures in the 50's. My Italian and Buckfast colonies were comatose at the time. It took several years to pare down her single major defect, that was one of the hottest colonies I've ever kept successfully. Her offspring showed a lot of variation so I eliminated the hot colonies until today I can work my bees with nothing more than a smoker and a hive tool.


----------



## squarepeg

dar, are you using survival as your measure of mite tolerance or are you looking at other metrics as well? what percentage winter losses (if any) are you averaging?

i also run about 20 tf colonies over here on sand mountain. i believe that i have mite tolerant colonies surviving in the woods around me. the only beekeepers i know of nearby are not treating.

i purchased my bees from a fellow north of fort payne who started his operation with feral cut outs from the area. he has a seventeen year track record off treatments. i am going into my fourth winter and have averaged 11% winter losses so far.

i grafted queens this year from my most productive colony (harvested five medium supers and left two for the bees). this colony also did not swarm this year, but just superceded instead.

i will be grafting again next season and making up nucs for sale.

would you be interested in swapping a queen or two next spring?


----------



## Oldtimer

Hey if you guys swap queens I'd be pretty interested to hear the results of that.


----------



## Fusion_power

Squarepeg, I'll see if I can get enough queens to do a swap. It shouldn't be hard, I have a few colonies at Rainsville. How far are you from Dutton or Rosalie?

My measure of success is simple. At the end of the year, the colony must be alive and thriving. I never see evidence of mites whether as live mites on brood or white specks in cells. The bees have to build up healthy and fast in the spring. Winter losses have been less than 10% for the last 5 years. Most of all, they have to produce a decent crop of honey with minimal management on my part.

Oldtimer, it would be interesting to see how it goes, but some of my bees are within 20 miles of his location. I'm sure they will work as well for him as they do for me. I might also mention that the exceptional queen I found in 2004 was from the Rainsville area. The level of mite tolerance in feral colonies around there is higher than average.


----------



## squarepeg

dar, i'm near section, going in the other direction from dutton.

i'm thrilled to hear that you have already found good genetics around here.

my reason for wanting to swap queens is the same as yours for bringing in the purvis, i.e. to mix up the genetics a little bit.

i'll send you a pm with my cell #, let me know the next time you're in the neighborhood. i'll buy you a coffee (or a beer) and perhaps we can visit each other's yards.


----------



## David LaFerney

Solomon Parker is in Alabama too. Makes me wonder if there is something in the forage?


----------



## squarepeg

nope, sol's in northwest arkansas. from his posts, i don't think the flows are great there. southern appalachia on the other hand.....


----------



## David LaFerney

Fusion_power said:


> I've been treatment free since 2005. I got treatment free by finding one exceptional queen in a feral swarm that showed high levels of mite tolerance...
> 
> Since then, I have had normal production in my colonies every year from 2008 to 2013.


That really is outstanding - you really should consider rearing a few queens to try to spread the joy. To me for example.

I assume the answer is no since you didn't mention it, but just for the record do you use small cell?


----------



## Fusion_power

David, yes my bees are on small cell though I don't credit that with much of an effect on the mites. Small cell just happens to fit in very well with running 11 frames in a brood chamber. I converted to small cell in 2005 the hard way with plain wax foundation. That was all that was available at the time. I got a LOT of burred up comb the first year, then the second year the bees began to adapt and started drawing very good combs.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>Michael Bush - Immediate success on small cell foundation.
>Actually on fully drawn small cell comb (wax dipped PermaComb). Foundation is a different matter altogether.

That was merely a way to get them regressed instantly. If you have small cell (or natural comb < 4.9mm in the core) drawn comb the results are the same. But yes, wax foundation is different. However, the PF120s I've used were drawn perfectly and were almost as fast (they just had to draw it but it was right on the first try).


----------



## rsm bristow

Immediate success on small cell foundation? I'm for that, going down in two steps is time consuming. I have fully drawn Dadant plastic frames, SC, but oddly with BC spacing. Is there a source of 4.9 plastic foundation that snaps into wooden frames? My success so far, taking five of my my twenty plus hives down to 4.9 has been fraught with failure, largely my fault, however I will continue and for many reasons, Varroa control being high on the list. My main interest however is secured on my firm belief that the bee in SC format is going to be a tougher bee with a stronger immune system. I can't believe Boudoux did this to us and that it hasn't been common knowledge. This experience has soured my perception of the scientific community.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rsm bristow said:


> Is there a source of 4.9 plastic foundation that snaps into wooden frames?


There was, but it was a total failure. Still makes me wonder how it got to market, was there no testing? Now the best option for plastic are the Mann Lake plastic frames.


----------



## rsm bristow

Thanks, I am trying to keep costs down, Mann Lake plastic might be the only choice and so be it.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rsm bristow said:


> Thanks, I am trying to keep costs down, Mann Lake plastic might be the only choice and so be it.


I think plastic and honey production is not a good combination. I wonder what is the material, how is it tested? Does the supplier of the raw material know that this plastic for honeybee hive frames must stand acids (Varroa treatments) and high temperatures (renewal) for years and years? It is probably just approved to store food supplies(short time storage in room temperatures). But I suppose you in US don´t hustle with such details...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> this plastic for honeybee hive frames must stand acids (Varroa treatments) and high temperatures 
> But I suppose you in US don´t hustle with such details...

Rarely does life offer us _perfect _choices. Plastic may not be perfect, but neither is using wax foundation. Beeswax used in commercially available foundation comes from older hives, and reflects treatments/chemicals applied to those hives. A study of that topic:



> Almost all comb and foundation wax samples (98%) were contaminated with up to 204 and 94 ppm, respectively, of fluvalinate and coumaphos, and lower amounts of amitraz degradates and chlorothalonil, with an average of 6 pesticide detections per sample and a high of 39.
> 
> _Read the rest here:
> _http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009754


That study used foundation samples purchased in North America. Finland may have different issues. 

This page from a Swiss researcher suggests that commercial beeswax is contaminated worldwide:
http://www.bee-hexagon.net/files/file/fileE/Wax/WaxBook2.pdf

.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > this plastic for honeybee hive frames must stand acids (Varroa treatments) and high temperatures
> > But I suppose you in US don´t hustle with such details...
> 
> Rarely does life offer us _perfect _choices. Plastic may not be perfect, but neither is using wax foundation. Beeswax used in commercially available foundation comes from older hives, and reflects treatments/chemicals applied to those hives. A study of that topic:


Thats why I circulate my own wax and don´t treat.


----------



## heaflaw

How common is treatment free beekeeping in Finland? How successful have you & others been?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

heaflaw said:


> How common is treatment free beekeeping in Finland? How successful have you & others been?


As far as I know, there is one other beekeeper. He is cutting drone brood regularly (5-6 hole Langstroth frames/hive/summer) and he is using small cells. (I have normal cells and do not cut drone brood).

My work has been documented in Internet: www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm All ups and downs are there. At the moment all hives seem normal and healthy, although they are smaller compared to what they used to be 12 years ago.
There has been lots of curiosity towards my work, some resistance too, but I suppose a big part of beekeepers do not care or believe it is possible. 

In the beginning I actually thought, that our long winter(no flying for 6 months) is a helping factor, because about 40% of the mites (and almost the same amount of bees?) dye from each hive. But in reality, the reproduction power in summer is so high, that I´m not sure if long winter offers any help. We have a huge AFB problem in Finland and viruses kill hives in some areas even if there are no mites.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

same post twice... please remove this, I couldn´t


----------



## Michael Bush

>>Almost all comb and foundation wax samples (98%) were contaminated with up to 204 and 94 ppm, respectively, of fluvalinate and coumaphos, and lower amounts of amitraz degradates and chlorothalonil, with an average of 6 pesticide detections per sample and a high of 39. 

>That study used foundation samples purchased in North America. Finland may have different issues. 

Since the use of amitraz, fluvalinate, coumaphos, terramycin, fumidil and tylosin are all illegal in the EU, Australia, New Zealand and a large part of the rest of the world, it would probably be different...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

There does appear to be a global marketplace for beeswax. For instance, this report on "Honey and Other Bee Products in the European Union" has this regarding EU wax imports from China:



> Beeswax imports also fluctuated in the period 2003-2007. Due to a decline in beekeeping after the EU ban on Chinese honey, supplies from China were low at the beginning of the review period. Since then, tight supplies from China have led to strong price increases and the future of this market is uncertain, as imports of beeswax are erratic and the market is saturated.
> 
> http://www.fepat.org.ar/files/eventos/759630.pdf


----------



## Fusion_power

Unfortunately, wax from chemical free colonies is in short supply.


----------



## rhaldridge

Is there a market for chemical-free wax?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes there is. My country sells it, it is sought after, and it commands a good price.


----------



## Fusion_power

My daughter uses wax from my colonies to make a very good hand cream. It is a mix of shea butter, cocoa butter, beeswax, jojoba oil, and some creaming materials that make it hold a small amount of water. Put it on your hands and it gives immediate relief from dryness and cracking. The drawing point for it is that all ingredients are natural products. This includes the beeswax which I produce.


----------



## heaflaw

Juhani,

Very interesting and well documented information and good observations on your site. I learned quite a lot. Thanks. 




Juhani Lunden said:


> My work has been documented in Internet: www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm


----------



## rhaldridge

Yes, very interesting! 

I expect someone will be along soon to tell you all the reasons why you could not possibly have succeeded in developing resistant bees, but I find your chronicle to be very encouraging. It wasn't easy, obviously, but you're another beekeeper who did it.

I got the impression that the lower productivity of your bees was the greatest drawback to the stock you've developed. It seems possible to me that as long as your bees aren't dying and some are somewhat productive, maybe a greater number of colonies could be an interim answer. I guess that would require a greater investment in woodenware, but I understand that Finland has a fair amount of wood.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Thank you for the encouragement!

Its all about money and time. To be a part time beekeeper has its pros and cons: on the other hand I have the possibility to lose money and on the other hand I really cannot have much more hives (no time and cannot afford to lose even more...) For years I have made so many nucs as I possibly can, but still the number of hives has remained lower than it originally was. In Finland summer is 2-3 months and honey crop often 1 week. The nucs have to be strong before the 6 months winter comes. First night frosts in the beginning of September. Thats somewhat tricky combination to make nucs, but I agree, I need more hives.

Earlier I was more worried about the effect on general productivity of resistant bees(smaller hives, taking of brood etc.), but today I´m more optimistic. My goal for the next 12 years is to restore the honey crops I used to harvest.


----------



## Oldtimer

Wow a one week flow!

You have my respect Juhani, I don't think I would have the skill to run hives treatment free, and build enough replacements to maintain numbers, working with a one week flow.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Here is a scalehive from nearby my place:
http://koti.tnnet.fi/web144/vaakapesa/selaa.php?vuosi=2013&kunta=75


----------



## rhaldridge

Wow. That is a short season. But if I read the chart right, 35 kilos is not a bad harvest for such a short season. Many North American beekeepers would find that an acceptable average, especially for treatment free bees.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rhaldridge said:


> Wow. That is a short season. But if I read the chart right, 35 kilos is not a bad harvest for such a short season. Many North American beekeepers would find that an acceptable average, especially for treatment free bees.


It was a chart from another beekeeper nearby, not mine. He is treating normally. My scale hive happend to be a dronelayer, so nothing to see there:
http://koti.tnnet.fi/web144/vaakapesa/selaa.php?vuosi=2013&kunta=240 My second hive was near a 10 hectar redclover field, which luckily got some rain and warm weather in the end of July. 

We have a system, which is based on these scale hives around the hole country, to predict the total amount of harvested honey. The prediction must be corrected by factor something like 0,6-0,7, because beekeepers tend to put their best hives on the scale... and maybe also because the beekeepers which are part of this system get better crops than beekeepers in average.

Bees adjust to climate. I remember once when we got visitors from Holland. It was September and after breakfast they got to their morning walk. There they noticed a bee gathering pollen 9 o´clock in the morning from a roses flower and the temperature was +10 C(50 F, ?). They thought it was amazing.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I expect someone will be along soon to tell you all the reasons why you could not possibly have succeeded in developing resistant bees

'People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.'--George Bernard Shaw


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> Wow. That is a short season. But if I read the chart right, 35 kilos is not a bad harvest for such a short season. Many North American beekeepers would find that an acceptable average, especially for treatment free bees.



35kg ~77 lbs.

States with a higher average than that according to 2012 stats:

Louisiana
Mississippi 


Interesting, not even Florida.

Looks like treatment-free hives are held to an unrealistic standard.


----------



## rhaldridge

Solomon, that wasn't Juhani's hive. I made the same mistake.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge, replying to your specious statement, not anyone else's.


----------



## rhaldridge

Solomon Parker said:


> rhaldridge, replying to your specious statement, not anyone else's.


I'm confused. What was specious about it? I keep hearing that treatment free means lower productivity. I don't know if that's true or not, but when I thought that was Juhani's average for a season that seems to last about a month at most, I thought that was a pretty good average for a treatment free hive, and *disproved* the notion that treatment free means less productive. 

But Juhani himself says that his hives are less productive than they were before he stopped treatment, and his goal is to breed better productivity into the successful treatment free survivors he maintains.

Maybe I'm not the confused one...


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> Many North American beekeepers would find that an acceptable average, especially for treatment free bees.


Especially for treatment free bees? Especially for ANY bees in 48 states!




rhaldridge said:


> ...I thought that was a pretty good average for a treatment free hive...


There it is again.

I find my bees produce a pretty good average for Arkansas hives (statewide average 63 lbs. per colony in 2012).

If what you're trying to say is that these data disprove the idea that TF bees produce less honey, then say _that_ rather than "pretty good for a treatment free hive." Because it should simply end at "pretty good." I bet you're a pretty good beekeeper _for a Floridian._ See how that works?

Virtually every instance of "I keep hearing" I come across get heard from somebody who's never done it. Because I haven't heard ANY of the TF gurus (Michael Bush, Dee Lusby, Sam Comfort, etc.) say that. I have heard their detractors say it.


----------



## Oldtimer

LOL you guys kill me.


----------



## rhaldridge

Solomon Parker said:


> If what you're trying to say is that these data disprove the idea that TF bees produce less honey, then say _that_ rather than "pretty good for a treatment free hive." Because it should simply end at "pretty good." I bet you're a pretty good beekeeper _for a Floridian._ See how that works?


I take it you're not a writer, or you might recognize the construction. Also, I'm not a pretty good beekeeper for any state, I'm a beginner. But treatment free, if that matters. In this case, however, Juhani's experience gives credence to the idea that treatment free bees do produce less honey, at least at an early point in the breeding process, and in a very harsh environment, which I suppose is inconvenient information. Still, he seems to have taken a very data-driven approach to the problem, which to me is more useful than any amount of dataless bloviating. Not that I'm suggesting that you would do such a thing.



Solomon Parker said:


> Virtually every instance of "I keep hearing" I come across get heard from somebody who's never done it. Because I haven't heard ANY of the TF gurus (Michael Bush, Dee Lusby, Sam Comfort, etc.) say that. I have heard their detractors say it.


Well, in this case Juhani said it... you know, the treatment free beekeeper to whom I was referring. Perhaps the next time, you might read the thread, before jumping on a locution that you find annoying.

I am aware of the fact that this is frequently a criticism leveled at treatment free beekeepers, and I remember getting beaten up for pointing out that Tim Ives, a treatment free beekeeper, gets yields far above the national average, and has had hives that yielded over 400 pounds. I remember that the most cogent criticism of his approach is that instead of one massive hive, a more sensible beekeeper could get the same results from a number of smaller hives. In the new American Bee Journal, Dr. Connor states "... research has shown that four small colonies do not produce as much honey as the same number of bees kept in one hive." Hmm.

By the way, I don't think you should use Sam Comfort as an exemplar in this instance, since I believe his business model is more oriented to selling bees than honey.

I hope you don't find this to be an abrasive response, since I think of you as a person on the right path, and as an encouraging example for TF beginners like me. You might consider reserving your ire for those not on your side, and forgive me for my writerly attempt to use a bit of sarcasm in expressing my opinion.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ray, my apologies.

My point is again, that's not a good number for a treatment free hive. It's a good number. Period. I don't like how you said it. I have that right.

Why would I not argue with someone "on my side?" Haven't I argued with you before?


----------



## Fusion_power

There may be areas where a 200 lb average can still be made, but I am happy with 2 or 3 shallow supers per colony. That works out to about 45 pounds per super given that I am running 9 shallow frames in 10 frame shallow supers. Some colonies don't make much more than enough to make it through winter.


----------



## rhaldridge

Solomon Parker said:


> Ray, my apologies.
> 
> My point is again, that's not a good number for a treatment free hive. It's a good number. Period. I don't like how you said it. I have that right.


Of course. But forgive me for saying that it seems a unconstructive point to make. In this case, the number was *not* for a treatment free hive. It was for another hive in Juhani's region, kept by another beekeeper. I was trying to correct a misunderstanding that I had made.



Solomon Parker said:


> Why would I not argue with someone "on my side?" Haven't I argued with you before?


Not that I recall. But that may be because I saw little in your position to disagree with. I'll try to do better.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Fair enough.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Fusion_power said:


> Unfortunately, wax from chemical free colonies is in short supply.





rhaldridge said:


> Is there a market for chemical-free wax?


I sell some few pounds a year. It usually goes to housewives making soap and things. I did send 14 lbs to a beekeeper in Canada.


----------



## WLC

The investigators of the original 'Bond' colonies in Gotland, Sweden have stated that the hives were less productive.

So, it's not necessarily something that detractors alone are saying.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> The investigators of the original 'Bond' colonies in Gotland, Sweden have stated that the hives were less productive.
> 
> So, it's nor necessarily something that detractors alone are saying.


If we look at nature in general, all resistance comes with a cost. At least in theory. Flowers, for instance, that make some chemical to prevent animals eating them, lose some energy doing it. In bees it seems to me very clear, that tf hives are less productive. There are several reasons: they take of brood, they have smaller hives (in Gotland too), there tends to be lots of dronelayers (especially if one runs an isolated mating station, where all the drones come from heavily infested, about 5% infestation, hives) etc. 

On the other hand if we compare tf beekeepers hives with some other beekeepers treating normally, the difference might not be so big, because of the numerous troubles they have with mites and viruses despite treatments. Some have troubles with AFB, and I think that my hives are somewhat resistant to AFB too, because almost all new material I get , especially from Central-Europe, is sensitive for AFB. In Cental-Europe the AFB problem is much smaller because they have state funded programs, where beekeeper can burn their infested hives and get payed for them. We in Finland can only dream of something so well organized...


----------



## rhaldridge

Juhani, that is very interesting. I have sometimes heard treatment free beekeepers say that at least initially, production is not as high. It makes sense to me that as you say, resistance has a cost. I can think of another example. The Russian beekeeper Fedor Lazutin states in his book that his methods allow one to keep bees without treatment, but that his unusual hives, combined with the black European bees he keeps, means that he gets somewhat less honey per hive than his fellow beekeepers who use conventional equipment and treatment. He justifies this with the claim that he has to work a lot less than that conventional beekeeper, for the same amount of honey.

On the other hand, there are treatment free beekeepers who report, and honestly, I believe, that they get high yields. Tim Ives, who I mentioned above, gets yields that are enormous by any standard. However, he may have worked out a system that suits his particular location to a very high degree. He did not have this success immediately-- he started out buying packages, almost all of which died. He only began to have success when he began trapping swarms of local bees. In addition to his amazing yields, he has a very low loss rate. He also has a strong bias against feeding sugar, for example and feeds no sugar at all. He has worked out methods of developing wintered over three deep hives that can take advantage of very early nectar flows-- flows that many of the conventional beekeepers in his area say do not exist in sufficient quantity to be worth taking. All this is to say that the various management practices, even among treatment free practitioners, are of such complexity in their interactions that it might take many years to develop the ideal scheme for a particular location. If you search YouTube for "Tim Ives" you'll see some amazing videos of his towering hives.

Finally, even though I think that you are right that resistance exacts a price from an animal, it is also clear that bees have developed resistance to many other pests and disease organisms in the past, and have somehow retained or regained the ability to make large amounts of honey despite this adaptation. I'm thinking of the tracheal mite, which literally destroyed the UK's honey industry when it first appeared in the early 20th century. But now it is not much of a problem; in fact some American researchers were unable to get a significant enough infestation to study the mite by the time it made it here.

In any case, I believe it is possible, through both breeding and the appropriate cultural practices, to keep bees that both resist mites, and produce a good crop, because some beekeepers have done exactly this.


----------



## WLC

I think that productivity in TF beekeeping has a lot to do with the stock of Honeybees you're using.

For example, TF beekeepers here in the U.S. often resort to feral stocks of Honeybees for TF hives and that could make the difference in terms of productivity.


----------



## squarepeg

if the tendency to swarm at every opportunity is a strategy used by tf bees to beat the mites than one would expect lower honey yields.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> if the tendency to swarm at every opportunity is a strategy used by tf bees to beat the mites than one would expect lower honey yields.


While it may be true of some technically treatment-free bees (africanized), it's not true of any bees I have kept. So perhaps that's why I don't see lower than average yields nor do others previously mentioned. It's a valid 'if then' statement, but we must add the 'else.' 

There is also the question of hive type. I would never expect a group of Warre hives to produce the same as a group of topbars (of who knows how many variations) or same as Hoffman frame hives. And of course we could always bring in the cost of time and materials it takes to treat. Given our minimal interventions, I see a net positive effect for stationary hives. I do virtually nothing in the hives 8 months out of the year. They're sitting out there in the snow right now.

As I've mentioned before, I'm hardly convinced that typical California and back migratory beekeeping could ever be done with treatment-free bees.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rhaldridge said:


> On the other hand, there are treatment free beekeepers who report, and honestly, I believe, that they get high yields. Tim Ives, who I mentioned above, gets yields that are enormous by any standard. However, he may have worked out a system that suits his particular location to a very high degree. He did not have this success immediately-- he started out buying packages, almost all of which died. He only began to have success when he began trapping swarms of local bees. In addition to his amazing yields, he has a very low loss rate. He also has a strong bias against feeding sugar, for example and feeds no sugar at all. He has worked out methods of developing wintered over three deep hives that can take advantage of very early nectar flows-- flows that many of the conventional beekeepers in his area say do not exist in sufficient quantity to be worth taking. All this is to say that the various management practices, even among treatment free practitioners, are of such complexity in their interactions that it might take many years to develop the ideal scheme for a particular location. If you search YouTube for "Tim Ives" you'll see some amazing videos of his towering hives.


Have anyone of you tried Tim Ives bees? 
I looked at the videos, and it seemed a bit unpractical for me. I normally winter my bees with two shallow boxes, but I have recently been experimenting with 3 shallow boxes, and yes, it seems they are stronger in spring. 
The biggest change I have seen in this transformation to tf beekeeping has been that hives are now weaker. In my mind, the big brood areas correlate very well with that type of bee, which is not taking care of its larvae very well, instead they are making numbers. And allowing mites to make increase. But as I wrote, the next step is to increase honey crops and that comes with stronger hives. 
Varroa resistance has many factors. One might be small hive. Another might be some chemical factors, which are making the mites somehow less fertile. In the future the "less fertile" component might have evolved so that it alone is making the hives resistant.


----------



## squarepeg

understood solomon, and nice to see you posting. i thought about you when i saw that snow front coming across your area.

it's just conjecture on my part but i can see how an increased propensity to swarm (in non-ahb strains) would be a good survival mechanism against varroa. this would result from the brood break associated with swarming helping the parent colony and the creation of new colonies thereby increasing the chances for survival of the meta organism.

the feral survivor mutts that i keep tf are pretty good at swarming and often issue more than one while they are at it. one of my selection criterian for queen rearing is 'didn't swarm'.

it's probably stating the obvious that there will be more surplus honey available from those colonies that can be prevented from swarming. i was able to see this for myself with this year's harvest, getting 3-5 mediums of surplus honey from the colonies that didn't swarm compared to 0-2 mediums from the ones that swarmed.

i am just now getting to point of having enough drawn comb to have a chance at effective swarm prevention on most of my hives. i think 100-150 lbs per hive barring any weird weather is very doable around here off treatments and without supplemental feeding.

since i didn't get around to doing mite counts i'm not able to correlate productivity with mite load, but my guess is that preventing swarming is a bigger factor (along with adequate forage availability) if one has bees that are surviving varroa off treatments.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Juhani Lunden said:


> Have anyone of you tried Tim Ives bees?


Tim (and his ilk, and I do mean ilk because they're a pretty tight group) and I kinda had a falling out when I explained that doing what he does simply isn't possible here. His group have year long blooms. I have stacked every available super on hives during my season and the best hives will only get 7 deeps. This leads him to claim that my stock is inferior. However, I'm done by the end of May. His bees still have blooms all the way through. You can do the math, if I had blooms all the way through, one thinks I could pull hives tall enough to need a ladder. But it's just not possible because I'm done by June. What his group claims to do (and claims everyone else can do) is something simply not possible everywhere or there would be more doing it. Furthermore, the rarer the honey is, the better the price. Sam Comfort tells me he pulls honey all year long in Hawaii, but he can't sell it. Then he goes to New York and he can sell his honey for a small fortune. If everyone was making 400 pounds a hive, honey could be as cheap as gasoline.





squarepeg said:


> the feral survivor mutts that i keep tf are pretty good at swarming...


A thought just occurred to me. Many TF base stocks are feral. My base stocks were not feral, but rather relatively local commercial stock. Now it's hard to say how much of that original stock remains as I only have one hive remaining from that group. However, virtually all my hives are descended from that hive in one way or another. So I would hypothesize that my bees have had to develop whatever mechanisms they could absent the ability to swarm a lot. I would also submit that one reason for this is that many hives that swarm around here die, and most of the swarms die too. So swarming is not going to do much good. Kinda like shooting out a brain tumor, forgive the analogy. The other part is that I keep quite large hives so hives are rarely full during the season, reducing swarming urge.


----------



## rhaldridge

Juhani Lunden said:


> Have anyone of you tried Tim Ives bees?
> I looked at the videos, and it seemed a bit unpractical for me. I normally winter my bees with two shallow boxes, but I have recently been experimenting with 3 shallow boxes, and yes, it seems they are stronger in spring. .


Juhani, Tim has stated that a couple of beekeepers in his area have adopted his methods, and are getting similar or better results. I'm not sure if Tim places a great deal of emphasis on the type of bees that he has, other than that they are adapted to his area, since they were derived from swarms. 

I asked him about swarm control, and he has also commented on this on this forum, If I recall correctly. until he adopted a form of nectar control, which I believe is an adaptation of checkerboarding as developed by Walt Wright, he had a good deal of trouble with swarming. Now he is able to keep those massive hives from swarming, though the process is labor intensive, and involves putting on many supers and taking them off several times during his Northern Indiana season.

I think there are indications that strength of hive is related to TF success and productivity. For example, Dee Lusby keeps her bees in three-deep broodnests, and apparently has managed to keep these massive hives from swarming constantly, which argues against her bees being typical Africanized bees. I think of Les Crowder and his top bar hives. These amount to fairly large hives, and though the cultural model involves frequent harvesting-- so clearly labor-intensive-- he seems to have few complaints about productivity, despite being treatment free. In fact, I seem to recall reading here that because of his influence, there are many tf top bar beekeepers in his area, and they seem to be having some success.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Dr. Connor stated in an ABJ article that research has demonstrated that one large hive was more productive than 4 smaller hives containing the same number of bees, and I've been wondering how this works ever since I read it. Why would this be? My first thought was that this seems counterintuitive. Wouldn't there be more stress on the queen of such a big hive, having to lay 4 times as many eggs? But perhaps bees, being social insects, are happier and less stressed if they are part of an obviously successful colony. If the beekeeper can develop the necessary cunning to keep them from reproductive swarming, they may exist in a state of constant satisfaction. My feeing is that there are probably more important benefits to treatment free beekeeping, but the more I learn about bees, the more complicated they become in my eyes, and I don't know if any one factor can be dismissed in trying to develop a successful strategy.

In fact, I have to say that Tim Ives has developed his successful system in the midst of what many beekeepers would consider a crop desert. He's surrounded by corn and soy fields, and these crops are treated with neonics. It was this circumstance that attracted Randy Oliver's attention to Tim's operation, because it was unusual to Oliver that Tim's hives were thriving in conditions that many other conventional beekeepers were complaining about, to the extent of blaming these pesticides for the disastrous losses they had recently endured. To me, it was fascinating to see an operation that did so well in conditions that, were Tim a treatment user, spelled doom-- at least according to those sad-eyed long-time beekeepers who are suing to stop the use of these poisons. My point is that evidently Tim has brought enough of these factors into line with what is required to have strong healthy bees that his bees can now withstand the injury to hive health represented by these poisons and still be amazingly productive.

Personally, his system is impractical for me, too. I'm too old and feeble to be climbing stepladders with a half-dozen supers three times a seasoin. But I do think that large hives may be a key part of a successful TF opearation. My best hives in this my first season, were long hives that have the capacity of three 10 frame deeps. Next spring I plan to try Fedor Lazutin's double deep long hives, which have the capacity of 4 deeps. As a hobbyist, I don't mind the effort of constantly taking honey from the ends of these long hives. There's no heavy lifting, and it allows you to separate varietals with much more precision than is possible for most Langstroth commercial operations, and varietal honey is one of my main enthusiasms.

Anyway, I'm glad to see this discussion revived with additional interesting information. Thank you very much, Juhani. Your record-keeping is the sort of thing I wish more beekeepers would do, and makes me ashamed of my own rather jumbled attempts to record my results. I'll do better next year, should I be fortunate enough to have my bees survive.


----------



## rkereid

Interesting thread.

Treatment free or not, as Solomon pointed out, what Tim can do in his location is not what others do in their locations. I am in one of those places where nectar dries up around the end of June most years. We may not see anymore flow until late summer, early fall, in a good year. Tim seems to be north of the typical summer dearth area. Many northern locations have intense summer flows because they don't have the lack of ground moisture that us more southerly locations have.

My best producing hives are large year round, once established. They are more dynamic. They function more efficiently. Everything they do is better, at least while they are healthy.


----------



## squarepeg

yep, location matters a lot. we have a month or two of dearth here too.

i tried to find the post in which tim listed his nectar flows but it escaped me.

seems like i remember him having nectar availability all the way through the season except maybe a week or so in late summer.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rhaldridge said:


> In fact, I have to say that Tim Ives has developed his successful system in the midst of what many beekeepers would consider a crop desert. He's surrounded by corn and soy fields, and these crops are treated with neonics. It was this circumstance that attracted Randy Oliver's attention to Tim's operation, because it was unusual to Oliver that Tim's hives were thriving in conditions that many other conventional beekeepers were complaining about, to the extent of blaming these pesticides for the disastrous losses they had recently endured. To me, it was fascinating to see an operation that did so well in conditions that, were Tim a treatment user, spelled doom-- at least according to those sad-eyed long-time beekeepers who are suing to stop the use of these poisons. My point is that evidently Tim has brought enough of these factors into line with what is required to have strong healthy bees that his bees can now withstand the injury to hive health represented by these poisons and still be amazingly productive.


Wow, one man is right, all the others wrong. Seems almost too good to be true. But if it is true, it gives all the hope I need for my future work to restore the size and productivity of my hives.


----------



## squarepeg

in addition to not treating, tim also attributes his success to not using any supplemental feeds.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Tim (and his ilk, and I do mean ilk because they're a pretty tight group) and I kinda had a falling out when I explained that doing what he does simply isn't possible here. His group have year long blooms. I have stacked every available super on hives during my season and the best hives will only get 7 deeps. This leads him to claim that my stock is inferior. However, I'm done by the end of May. His bees still have blooms all the way through.


Solomon it's rare I agree with anything you say LOL, but in this case you are correct.

Because of Tim's poor communication skills and cryptic one liners, I just couldn't get a full understanding of what he does and why, so instead put it to the test. Starting in fall, I set up some hives exactly as per Tim Ives, and also had a thread on it here.

Tim is a very clever guy and an astute observer of his bees. He has been able to tune in his beekeeping exactly, to the environment he is in, for maximum production. One thing I've noticed in my life though, is that nearly all beekeepers find what works for them, and then think it is the same for everyone else. But it isn't. I used to be one of these people, till I took a job at the other end of my country and found what had worked in the other location, was actually a bad plan in the current one. Beekeeping is local.

So anyhow, back to my Tim Ives hives, they built up 6 and more deeps by early spring and did pack away a good deal of honey on the very early spring flow. But then something happened that Tim does not have, a 6 week dearth. Those big strong hives were just hanging. Nothing to do, wouldn't draw comb, making plenty queen cells though. try as I might, I could not prevent them swarming, in the end, every one of them did, or, I broke them down into splits to stop them.

Huge swarms though. 

If they had had a steady stream of flows as Tim does, yes, they would have got a very large crop.

When once I showed Tim pics of my hives plus an explanation of how I run them, my average crop being 200 or more lb's, he confidently stated that if he was running hives in my area, he would get 1000 lb's per hive. Which I thought was pretty funny. I have tuned my beekeeping to my area, he has not tried my area, I would very much enjoy seeing him give it a shot.

None of this means any disrespect to Tim, in my opinion, as a beekeeper, he is right up there. But he has not yet learned the difference between locations. Were he to move somewhere totally different though, I'm sure he has the smarts to quickly figure it out.


----------



## squarepeg

i found that bloom schedule for tim's location:

Approx. bloom schedule near North Liberty, IN.
•March 11, maple/willows
•April, vast acreage of hensbit and purple deadnettle until the corn and beans are planted.
•End of April, apple/various fruit trees and dandelions
•May 20th, black locust, blackberries, and tulip popular shortly after.
•Mid-June, clover and alfalfa
•End of June, basswood
•Begining July, catalpa
•Mid-July, vast acreage of mint fields (St Joseph county is one of the largest mint producers in the nation)
•End of July/First of Aug., soybean 
•Mid-August, derth until goldenrod blooms end of August
•Sept, various asters


it was here:

http://www.indianahoney.org/blog/6624/3269


----------



## Fusion_power

> Another might be some chemical factors, which are making the mites somehow less fertile. In the future the "less fertile" component might have evolved so that it alone is making the hives resistant.


 This has been proven false. Recent work has shown that when the mites are "somehow less fertile" it is because the bees are actively removing mites through allogrooming and/or hygienic mite removal. There is no magic chemical involved. There is reason to believe that less virulent mites exist and that they can be selected via breeding programs that emphasize such traits. This is not in my opinion a significant contributor to mite hypervirulence in the U.S. because the varroa mites in the U.S. have a very restricted genetic profile. You are still on the correct path, if you identify colonies with reduced mite reproduction, you will in time concentrate the genes for mite tolerance.



> I mentioned in a previous post, Dr. Connor stated in an ABJ article that research has demonstrated that one large hive was more productive than 4 smaller hives containing the same number of bees, and I've been wondering how this works ever since I read it.


This was resolved by Farrer about 60 years ago. The increase in efficiency in one large colony is because of the broodnest configuration roughly shaped as a sphere. Fewer bees relative to size are required to maintain a large brood nest than are required in 4 small broodnests. So one large colony has the advantage of nearly twice as many active foragers because they are not tied up maintaining the broodnest.


----------



## rhaldridge

Juhani Lunden said:


> Wow, one man is right, all the others wrong. Seems almost too good to be true. But if it is true, it gives all the hope I need for my future work to restore the size and productivity of my hives.


Well, one of the things Tim has mentioned in regard to his approach is the massive three deep hives he overwinters can brood up a lot faster in the spring than a smaller hive. As a consequence, he gets a big flow from nectar sources that other beekeepers in his area don't produce surplus from.

On the crop desert matter, I don't know if you read American Bee Journal, but Randy Oliver is a guy who does a lot of small scale research into bees and publishes it there. His work is also largely available on the web. Anyway, he was researching the claims that neonicotinoids were having serious effects on bee colony survival, and may be implicated in the colony collapse disorder that has recently plagued beekeepers here. You can read the article on neonics here:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-extinction-of-the-honey-bee/

Here's the quote that caught my eye:



> I can’t stop thinking about that annoying enigma—the successful beekeeping by Danny and Tim (and many others) in the midst of pesticide-laden fields of corn and soy (Figs. 11 and 12). How could that be? Each of these beekeepers runs over 100 colonies. Danny runs part of his operation for honey, and uses the other part to produce a large number of nucs for sale. Tim has expanded from 15 hives to about 150 over the past few years. Neither has winter losses above the national average of 30%, and in some yards they had 100% survival. But that ain’t the half of it. Not only do their bees have to deal with pesticides, but neither beekeeper uses any treatments against varroa or nosema–both going on seven years (be careful if you attempt this yourself)!


I find some of Randy Oliver's assumptions to be a bit facile, but he documents his stuff in such a way that it isn't easy to dismiss, and this article was what put me onto Tim's existence.

Beekeepers seem to have been having a hard time in the last few years in this country, and that being the case, I think it reasonable to assume that perhaps the majority of beekeepers may not be using the best possible cultural techniques. There are many beekeepers on this forum who will happily inform you that it is largely impossible to keep bees without treatment, and they are unmoved in their certainty by the existence of the few who have actually done it-- attributing these successes to temporary luck, deception, or True Believerism of one sort or another. For me, however, it is impossible to dismiss these successes as outliers of no general significance. I see them as signposts to a more rational future.


----------



## rhaldridge

Fusion_power said:


> This was resolved by Farrer about 60 years ago. The increase in efficiency in one large colony is because of the broodnest configuration roughly shaped as a sphere. Fewer bees relative to size are required to maintain a large brood nest than are required in 4 small broodnests. So one large colony has the advantage of nearly twice as many active foragers because they are not tied up maintaining the broodnest.


 That makes perfect sense!


----------



## WLC

Yeah, but then they have to mention 'Fat Bees'.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> I think there are indications that strength of hive is related to TF success and productivity. For example, Dee Lusby keeps her bees in three-deep broodnests, and apparently has managed to keep these massive hives from swarming constantly, which argues against her bees being typical Africanized bees.


In practice, Dee's hives are composed of 5 deeps. I have more or less followed her example for the last ten years and thought I don't have the same bees or the same conditions, I can confirm limited swarming though it most surely is related to other factors as well. Then again maybe not. Hard to tell. There are videos of Dee available on YouTube, many of them taken by our own deknow.

I actually came upon the idea well before I heard of Dee Lusby. I had read an article in some bee magazine about an old beekeeper who kept five low maintenance hives of five deeps each and only produced comb honey. I had believed the two-deep method to be inadequate and had already decided on three. I'd have no problem working a system with a much larger hive prototype, but as I mentioned before, there is just not enough season to fill up any more. However, I'm not going to be living here forever, so I hope to have the opportunity to try it out somewhere else.


----------



## Fusion_power

This is funny is a very odd way. I had to read Randy Oliver's articles to find out what beekeepers are using to treat for mites. I had absolutely no idea because the last treatment I used was apistan in the fall of 2004. My first thought was "what if every beekeeper reading this were off the treatment bandwagon so much that they don't even know what mite treatments are?"


----------



## WLC

That's pretty much part of the whole philosophy.

You can't get actual TF bees if you treat.

Eventually, once resistant stocks are more readily available, it may become the norm.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Eventually, once resistant stocks are more readily available, it may become the norm.


Everybody is waiting for the day.

Commercial folks want that AND productive.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

rhaldridge said:


> On the crop desert matter, I don't know if you read American Bee Journal, but Randy Oliver is a guy who does a lot of small scale research into bees and publishes it there. His work is also largely available on the web. Anyway, he was researching the claims that neonicotinoids were having serious effects on bee colony survival, and may be implicated in the colony collapse disorder that has recently plagued beekeepers here.


I read that link you sent, here are some thoughts:
1. Randy Oliver does not see corn and soy fields as a problem in that area (Iowa and Illinois)
2. That area has obviously very fertile land, and the little pits of forest and pasture are very fertile too, Oliver mentioned the abundance of flowers in the forest areas
3. Increasing from 15 to 150 in couple of years means that the mite loads have been split up too. Danny Slabaugh is making lots of nucs for sell. By that means he is also selling a lot of mites out of his system. Both have very new combs, which is factor diminishing mite offspring. Mites prefer darker combs.

Oldtimers comment was good. If somebody says that "I would have made 5 times more honey than you", that is ridiculous. Therefore...

4. Some exaggeration may be involved 
5. We have no corn, soy or air-driven drills in Finland (maybe some machines in the very south, 250 km from here). Yet I have seen bee deaths Oliver described and showed photos. I have connected those deaths with strong hives, which have virus problems. Crawling, mostly young bees on the ground.

By the way: Funny that you in USA argue if its good to have 2, 3, 4 or 5 deeps per hive in winter. I have tried to propagate in Finland that beekeepers should use 2 deeps for winter. I receive hard resistance. Most beekeepers winter their hives with 1 deep.


----------



## Roland

Juhani - We are not that far from Indiana , 100 miles to the NW. Our crops are similar, the land more glaciated, the climate a bit cooler. The bloom times match up close, we are maybe a week later. Although we do gert some hives that perform better than others, our overall average is alot less than that reported by Tim Ives.

As to the wintering in 1 deep, try putting an empty super(no comb), below your one deep. The dead air space seem to help.

Crazy Roland


----------



## WLC

"If somebody says that "I would have made 5 times more honey than you", that is ridiculous."

My own thoughts on why Tim may, in fact, have been able to obtain the yields he has claimed are that he's not only using local feral stock, but that he's also leveraging productivity by cleverly applying Beekeeping Management and Honeybee Biology/Social Biology to achieve that goal.

I've seen something similar in my own 'tower hive'.

Clearly, resistant Honeybee stock, with some feral characteristics, may be the key.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Fusion_power said:


> My first thought was "what if every beekeeper reading this were off the treatment bandwagon so much that they don't even know what mite treatments are?"


I have to admit, I'm not at all well versed in the treatment-speak. I know the names of a few of them, and some side effects. If I need more details for an argument, I source Michael Bush. I just don't keep up with it. I've not used any whatsoever in my 10.5 years as a beekeeper, so it's not very useful information for me.


----------



## gmcharlie

Roland said:


> Juhani - We are not that far from Indiana , 100 miles to the NW. Our crops are similar, the land more glaciated, the climate a bit cooler. The bloom times match up close, we are maybe a week later. Although we do gert some hives that perform better than others, our overall average is alot less than that reported by Tim Ives.
> 
> As to the wintering in 1 deep, try putting an empty super(no comb), below your one deep. The dead air space seem to help.
> 
> Crazy Roland


Roland, two things pop out, one what was Tims average this year? weather was a huge factor.

Second when you compare averages, might look at averages per unit/ IE how much deep, if you average 100lbs with a single deep, is it not the same as 300, with a 3 deep brood chamber? (with saveing on ladders)


----------



## rhaldridge

I came across this interesting podcast:

https://gpodder.net/podcast/the-beekeepers-corner-podcast/episode-39-a-veritable-smorgasbord

In it the speaker relates some information from the talk Tim Ives gave to a group of NJ beekeepers a while back. I think Dean Stiglitz (deknow) heard the same talk and brought it up in an earlier thread.


----------



## rhaldridge

gmcharlie said:


> Second when you compare averages, might look at averages per unit/ IE how much deep, if you average 100lbs with a single deep, is it not the same as 300, with a 3 deep brood chamber? (with saveing on ladders)


Apparently not. If you look upthread, you'll see a reference to something Larry Conner said in the new ABJ, that the same amount of bees divided into several smaller hives do not make as much honey as that number of bees in one big hive. I guess this has been established for a long time.

Also, you might save on ladders, but lose on bottom boards and covers. I already have a ladder, but not the muscles or the good back to let me carry a lot of supers up and down that ladder. So not for me... but I do think that big vigorous hives might be more resistant to pests and diseases.


----------



## gmcharlie

Agreed, just throwing it out. there is always a scale of economy when it comes to a community. Bees are no exception Its also proven that top entrances generate more surplus than bottoms. But what fits your yards?? We like to get caught up in Times numbers but its not what your think... lots of boxes, and culling data Tim is careful not to include any hives except the ones in 3 deeps and booming. So if your yards are full of singles or deeps and your counting every hive, you maybe should not look down at your own numbers.
I myself will be happier with 100 lbs singles than 300lb triples.. a lot less work and grief might even be willing to forgo that mythical 400 lb number if it means OSHA stays out of my beeyards.


----------



## Roland

On the subject of:

Second when you compare averages, might look at averages per unit/ IE how much deep, if you average 100lbs with a single deep, is it not the same as 300, with a 3 deep brood chamber? (with saveing on ladders)

If this where the commercial forum, the answer would be in the profit difference. We all must answer that question in the context of our own goals. We use single deeps, and no ladders. I find it hard to believe that one queen in 3 deeps will outperform 3 queens in 3 deeps. On the occasion that the single deep queens are behind schedule, and peak after the flow has started, I will concede the point. Otherwise, with proper manipulation of frames, keeping empty comb readily available in front of the queen, I can not explain why spreading the queen out into 3 deeps would produce more bees.

Crazy Roland


----------



## gmcharlie

I would say a simple economy of heat would be the answer.


----------



## Oldtimer

Not having access to the ABJ I cannot comment directly on Larry Conners article, but he would be perfectly correct, but dependant on the hive design and configuration. Fusion Power hit the nail on the head with this one it is about what % of potential foragers have to be tied up maintaining the brood nest. So in a 2 brood box lang, a large brood nest is the most efficient. You'd need a larger number of bees to maintain the brood nest, if the hive were broken down to 4, you would need more than one fourth of those bees to maintain each brood nest so a lower % are available for other duties, at least until they build up numbers and re shape the brood nest to an efficient design. Which is why a Warre hive with a very small brood nest compared to a typical lang is likely to produce more honey per bee than a lang with a comparable amount of brood to the Warre, the Warre shape suits efficient running of a small brood nest.

In fact what Roland said is true, beekeepers here are moving away from 2 deep brood boxes, to one. Why, cos end of season both can store a similar crop. In some parts, the extra brood box turns out to be a waste. Where I am you have to use 2 brood boxes, cos otherwise the bees WILL swarm, regardless of whatever else you do.

On the subject of averages, I often do not believe what I read any more. It is meaningless when a beekeeper with say 30 hives, gets 300 lb's total, but most hives made no surplus, only 5 did. So he counts his average as the average of the 5, ie, 60 lb's each, where the real average is 10 lb's per hive. A commercial beekeeper running 1000 hives, has to pay for and maintain all the equipment and work on all the hives. So he has to know what he is producing on average and would discover that by dividing his total crop by 1000. If some of them were not productive they would still be included in the average, his whole thousand hives is a unit that has to pay for itself and he survives by what the whole unit produces, minus expenses.
I'm pretty sure a State average would be crop, divided by number of hives in the State. Not crop, divided by the best 20% of hives in the State.

When I asked one beekeeper about his claimed 400 lb + average, a very complex explanation came back about them drawing some number of boxes of comb so wax production would have used x amount of honey, plus they would have had to feed x amount of brood, so in his opinion they made 400 lb's. Translation = production actually harvested was probably 1/2 that, although I could not get a straight answer to that question. In addition, turned out he had not counted the quite large portion of hives that produced nothing or just a mediocre amount. All things considered, his average crop was hardly a world record.

What I do, and what I think is fair, is base may average on crop divided by total hives intended for honey production. So nucs dedicated for queen raising and splits made to be sold are not counted.


----------



## jim lyon

Roland said:


> On the subject of:
> 
> Second when you compare averages, might look at averages per unit/ IE how much deep, if you average 100lbs with a single deep, is it not the same as 300, with a 3 deep brood chamber? (with saveing on ladders)
> 
> If this where the commercial forum, the answer would be in the profit difference. We all must answer that question in the context of our own goals.


I couldn't agree more Roland and your example dosent even factoring in the additional income from pollination rentals including the freight savings from shipping a single instead of a double or (gasp) a triple? No this isn't the commercial forum but it seems the conversation has turned to the economics of various configurations and management philosophies. Our income per brood chamber is pretty respectable.


----------



## JWChesnut

The giant hives represent a concentration of risk -- "All your eggs in one basket". Spreading the finite bee population over multiple colonies, spreads the risk. 

If in apiary of 2 giant hives, one dies (for whatever reason), the self-sufficient beekeeper must breakdown the 2nd giant to restock, and is left with 2 midsized hives. 

In an apiary of 6 small hives (equivalent box number and roughly equivalent bee number), a single hive dieing is a relatively trivial event, the subsequent apiary will have 4 medium hives at the end of the season, and two small ones (from breaking down the 5th unit to restock). This >100% of the production compared to the unfortunate "giant hive" strategy for the same deployed initial stock.

One might argue that hive death is a probalistic event (ie 15% winter-kill). At the very finite backyard scale (the level at which most of the armchair experts that constantly extend these threads operate), the event should be treated in logistic regression-- as the outcome is binary for the hive -- dead//not dead. Over repeated measures, the impact of the logistic event (dead-out) represents a poor outcome.

15% proportion is a low annual kill, but consider it in a repeated measures context. Over three years (the typical boom-to-bust TF timeline), this means nearly 50% chance of a single hive going dead-out and the entire backyard beekeeping experiment shutting down. An apiary wisely spreading the exact same risk over three hives (and consequently diluting the extinction risk) will have a much better chance of being able to make up losses using the surviving hives.

I think the giant hive strategy is applicable only to certain climates and conditions. Both Paul McCarthy and I have commented that I don't see western US bees as having the fecudity required to fill 3 deeps with brood. The climate and nectar supply will not support that level of brood. One can leave multiple supers on the hive (filled with honey, not eggs), but this is just temporary storage that is lost as the colony in dearth consumes the stores.

Furthermore, the management risk of large hives is most apparent in the summer-to-fall transition. A hive of 60,000 bees supporting a egg production of 3000/day can accomodate 500 "hygenically-killed" losses of brood/day and still maintain it population. There might be >>>10,000 fecund Varroa females in these hives. 

The natural attrition, reduction in brood production and that end of the drone brood sink that occurs yearly on Sept 1 (in my climate) shrinks the hive to 20,000 bees, production to 500 eggs/day (or less) very quickly. The Varroa that populated the vast summer hive don't fly away, these parasites concentrate on the remaining brood. No longer are there sacrificial drones to satisfy the habitat requirements of these mites. Suddenly, the 10,000 Varroa are swarming over the 500 new larvae, instead of being diffused among a larger population.

This Varroa invasion over smaller remaining resource explains the very sudden and rapid Varroa collapses that are characteristic of October hives while they are attempting to navigate the fraught summer-to-winter bee transition.


----------



## WLC

Tim Ives is reporting that he has a logistical problem resulting from over production.

He's expanding, and he has to come up with solutions to make it happen.

So, in his case, it seems to be working.

Also, in terms of making increases, having three fully drawn deeps on each hive can be a big advantage.

There's a lot of possibilities in having 75, 3 deep colonies if you get the timing right.

I don't think that 225 single deeps would be comparable.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> I don't think that 225 single deeps would be comparable.


You don't think that..

What would make you not think that?

What type of climate / flow pattern / management methods and other requirements are you considering?

Or you don't think it, because, you don't think it.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Tim Ives is reporting that he has a logistical problem resulting from over production.


:lpf:Whatever that means. Welcome to the commercial world I guess. 
But seriously I didn't jump in here to either denigrate or praise Tim just to agree with Rolands assessment that comparisons and definitions of success are much more complex than a simple honey crop to brood nest comparison by one beekeeper in one area.


----------



## WLC

Fundamentally, we're considering the 'unlimited broodnest' hypothesis.

I do have a tower hive that took off from a new package installed in mid April.

It performed as 'advertised'.

If I had bought the additional equipment for the tops and bottoms to make a total of three single deep hives (two sets of tops and bottoms), I would have had to lay out another $120 (not including the cost of two new packages).

With that $120, I could have purchased three complete five frame nucs.

Which, I could have sold for about $120 in profits when ready.

That's a swing in the bottom line of $240 per hive.

See fellas, I didn't even need to take my shoes and socks off to figure that one out. 

It may well be more profitable to use three deeps in certain circumstances.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> So, in his case, it seems to be working.


In the short run at least, for the percent of his hives that did good.


----------



## WLC

If I recall correctly, Tim keeps half of his hives in production as 3 deep towers. The other half, he uses for 'other' operations. I don't recall if they're three deeps as well.

Nevertheless, if instead of spending on equipment, like tops and bottoms for your hives, you spend on equipment that can make a profit, like nucs, then you've found a way to decrease expenses (of the depreciating kind) and increase profits within a season or two.

So, using three deeps may change your profitability.

That's the way I see it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Curious WLC, the "tower hive" that you started from a package in April, how many deeps did it completely fill? How much honey did you harvest?

Just wondering if your "tower hive" is any different to any old random hive of mine.


----------



## WLC

3 fully drawn deeps. I don't harvest honey so I didn't take the mediums off of the hive to weigh them.

I'm going to distribute them between my two hives though as over wintering stores.

Are my hives any different than your hives, OT?

I've got BeeWeavers.

Enough said.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Are my hives any different than your hives, OT?


I don't know, cos you have not said what the harvest was. Would have been interesting.

I'm not commenting on you in particular. More on the use of such jargon as "tower hives". One persons tower hive might just be a hive, to someone else.


----------



## clyderoad

wlc= do you have any pictures of your tower hive?


----------



## WLC

My tower hive is 3 deeps and 7 mediums tall. Yes, I needed a ladder.

I don't take pictures. Others have though.


----------



## Roland

So it filled 7 mediums with honey?

Crazy Roland


----------



## WLC

No, the top mediums were only partially filled up the middle.

I don't know how much honey stores may be left.

I left the supers on so they could use/move the honey stores.

The weather hasn't been below 50 degrees F continuously, so I'm waiting before I move any supers.

We hit 60 degrees F recently for example.

Once I'm sure that it's cold enough that they won't break cluster, I'll redistribute any honey stores.

Remember, this 'tower' hive started from a package, and I had a limited amount of drawn frames.

So, I'm pleased with it's first season progress.

The other hive, that I re-queened in June, is nothing special.


----------



## jim lyon

Don't know what exactly qualifies as a tower but here is a pic taken earlier this summer, must be one in there somewhere.
http://s470.photobucket.com/user/ji...-2711e5cde93a_zps04b42ba0.jpg.html?sort=6&o=0


----------



## WLC

Here is a site which includes tower hives:

http://www.riskshoney.com/

That's a tower hive.

http://www.riskshoney.com/2012/04/05/supering-for-swarm-control-and-maximum-honey-production/


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Here is a site which includes tower hives:
> 
> http://www.riskshoney.com/
> 
> That's a tower hive.
> 
> http://www.riskshoney.com/2012/04/05/supering-for-swarm-control-and-maximum-honey-production/


Ahhhhh I see, my bad. :applause:


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Here is a site which includes tower hives:
> 
> http://www.riskshoney.com/
> 
> That's a tower hive.


Oh. Well on that basis, I've got quite a few "tower hives". And I didn't even know it I just thought they were hives LOL. 

Jim, that pic you showed, is that one of your sites? To me, that will be a high production site, with a good average production. By which I mean a REAL average rather than an average of the top 20%.


----------



## odfrank

If we are bragging about towers can I post my pics for the umpteenth time? Last picture is a 12 frame hive. Having a tower is easy, having a high average production is not. See pic one.


----------



## WLC

Nice photos.

So, there are tower hives in California.

Now, if we could somehow get back to TF, tower hives.

I'm pretty sure that if I had started with more drawn frames that I could have ended up with 3 full deeps and 7 full mediums.

That's using resistant/TF stock.

So, while TF beekeeping doesn't require tower hives, it was interesting to see how productive they can be.

I started with a BeeWeaver package in April.

I have my own ideas on why one of my hives did so well in a tower configuration.

It was an early hybrid queen, rather than one mated later in the season.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Nice photos.
> 
> So, there are tower hives in California.
> 
> Now, if we could somehow get back to[HIGHLIGHT] TF[/HIGHLIGHT], tower hives.


Perhaps you should not be so quick to dismiss Ollie Frank's _tower _hives.  Note his comment about "_treatment free_".



odfrank said:


> I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? [HIGHLIGHT] I had 36% losses treatment free. [/HIGHLIGHT]


:gh:


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer said:


> Jim, that pic you showed, is that one of your sites? To me, that will be a high production site, with a good average production. By which I mean a REAL average rather than an average of the top 20%.


It's a "feast or famine" location depending onthe bloom. I have seen them even taller than this in those areas and then there are years where we might not even put bees in there for fear they would starve. We normally pull them down in midsummer and move them out to an area where they might catch a late flow. 
No treatment free hives here, though. They got a trickle of OA put on them about 9 months before this picture was taken.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Nice photos.
> 
> I have my own ideas on why one of my hives did so well in a tower configuration.
> 
> It was an early hybrid queen, rather than one mated later in the season.


Hybrid?


----------



## odfrank

My towers are all treatment free. Maybe not so next year. At two outyards I treated, nine hives with MAQS and four with some wintergreen patty from a commercial beek in the Valley. The MAQS killed two out of the nine queens, the marginal ones. I had not treated for many years previously.


----------



## WLC

jim lyon said:


> Hybrid?


Meaning Italian/Buckfast X 'hybrid swarm'.

I think that feral colonies produce drones before domesticate ones do.

It's part of the whole 'reproductive isolation' hypothesis regarding ferals vs domestic stock.


----------



## WLC

odfrank said:


> My towers are all treatment free.


So, treatment free colonies can be productive.


----------



## clyderoad

I don't think there is any way I could get a honey producing hive 3 deep and 7 med supers tall and have it fully productive on the flows found here. I'd be a waste of time. 2 deep and 3 or 4 med supers yes but not a tower like I see in the pictures. I bottom super, and treat. I'd be out of the honey producing end of things if I tried not treating, and fast too.

I asked for a picture of WLCs tower because he's geographically close by. I haven't seen any tower hives anywhere near me or in my travels to northern NJ, NW Ct. or the Hudson Valley. I'd be nice to see it could be done, and treatment free to boot.


----------



## WLC

clyde:

It could have been some kind of a fluke.

While spring was about a month late, summer was mild with enough rainfall to keep the flow going.

Clover was still going in August, for instance.

I'm going to try to follow some of Tim Ives advice as early as March to see if I can keep the tower hive up and running.

The trick is to have it going early without letting it get into swarm mode.


----------



## Oldtimer

A photo of the inside of WLC's "tower" hive could be more informative.


----------



## squarepeg

wlc, aren't you keeping your bees in an urban setting? was supplemental feeding required to grow your package into that tower?


----------



## WLC

You do remember that I fed them LAB fermented syrup, right?

Then the flow started, and I let the bees do their thing.


----------



## squarepeg

yep. beegurt, correct? so no feeding after the flow started?


----------



## WLC

No more beegurt after the flow.

My issue in the late winter, early spring will be to decide if I need to do it again.

While there's plenty of early pollen around, I can't say the same for the nectar flow.

It all depends on how much honey stores I have left on the hives.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> No more beegurt after the flow.


i assumed it would have took some syrup to get that much comb drawn in an area without a lot of nectar availability.


----------



## WLC

I certainly didn't break the 5 gallon total mark per hive.

The bulk of the frames were drawn after the main flow started, and the hives had brooded up as a result.

I think I've got a shot at two full blown tower hives if I can harness all of the behaviors that Tim had written about.

That's assuming the colonies don't fail and they don't swarm.

My point for bringing this up is that some folks don't believe that there is such a thing as a productive TF colony.

If I can get this tower colony to last 2 more seasons, with the same marked/clipped queen, it would convince me that it's possible.

Otherwise, I can see the flip side. I doubt that I could even consider making a living from TF colonies based on my own experiences.


----------



## squarepeg

understood, thanks. 

i'm thinking good productivity is more a function of nectar availablility, swarm prevention, and having drawn comb; whereas treatment free success has more to do with winter survivability. 

some colonies are just better at getting the job done and living to tell about it, and it sure doesn't hurt if the weather cooperates.

i guess i'm in the camp that would rather have three singles with four or five supers on each one and leave my ladder in the garage vs. the triple deep and seven supers, but i wish no ill will to anyone wanting to do that. 

how tim gets his queens to live for an average five years is what i don't get......


----------



## WLC

I do think that TF bees have to pay a metabolic penalty for fighting off Varroa on their own.

However, there's always a cost associated with using treatments as well.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> some folks don't believe that there is such a thing as a productive TF colony.


I doubt any open minded person would think that. It as been done, that's pretty obvious.

Just, based on what I read on Beesource, the average crop taken from treatment free apiaries, is lower than treated. Best I can tell, on information provided, is a typical TF yard consists of a few productive hives, and the balance, at any time, poor performers and dinks. It has to be this way, because generally held TF philosophy is you are going to lose hives and therefore have to split and make increase to counter that. The bee survey indicates that TF losses are around 50% higher than treated hive losses, and the average TF beekeeper looses nearly 1/2 his colonies each year (bee survey put it around 45% from memory). It would stand to reason that with all these hives dying, there must be some not dying, but suffering. IE, they will not be as productive as they would have been if mite pressure was removed by a treatment.

And yes, there are those who will say they are TF and haven't lost a hive in x years and get big honey crops, etc. But in this post I'm not talking about the best out there I'm talking about averages.

Point of all this is, nobody's saying there are not TF successes, ever. Cos there are. Being honest about results is a different thing to saying that TF beekeeping can never succeed. Just, I only ever hear that from the more hard line TF people who keep saying that other beekeepers say that. But actually, I never hear it from the other beekeepers, only from their accusers putting words in their mouths.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> how tim gets his queens to live for an average five years is what i don't get......


Do you really think he does? Do you really think that a 5 or 7 year old queen would be a good layer or even laying at all? 

The productivity of a queen over 3 years old is not going to be very good. Besides her own physical shape, the amount of and quality of the sperm and eggs she has won't be that great.


----------



## WLC

The scientists who are running the original Bond colonies are saying it.

I'm not going to do the 'snip' bit to show who might be saying that TF colonies aren't as productive, because it serves no real purpose.

Basically, if mite levels aren't kept low, colonies lose productivity regardless of how resistant they are.


----------



## Oldtimer

I was a little confused when I heard Tim's claim his queens live an average of 5 years. IE, some less, some even more. 

Based on his other statements, how many hives could this be? IE, how many hives did he have 5 years ago, and based on the losses he reported especially 3, 4, and 5 years ago, how many of these 5 year old queens could possibly be left?

Based on the huge egg laying and brooding numbers reported, the size of the spermathecas in these queens must be astronomical.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> The scientists who are running the original Bond colonies are saying it.


I do not believe they did.



WLC said:


> Basically, if mite levels aren't kept low, colonies lose productivity regardless of how resistant they are.


Agreed, that will be common ground between all viewpoints.


----------



## sqkcrk

Well Oldtimer, you know what people say about things that sound to good to be true, don't you?


----------



## WLC

Why should we settle for queens that are only good for a season or two?

Since Tim and other folks are working with resistant feral stock, I don't see why they can't come up with longer lived queens as well.

They're not the typical domestic bees.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes I'm sure it's all quite true.


----------



## Fusion_power

> It has to be this way, because generally held TF philosophy is you are going to lose hives and therefore have to split and make increase to counter that. The bee survey indicates that TF losses are around 50% higher than treated hive losses, and the average TF beekeeper looses nearly 1/2 his colonies each year (bee survey put it around 45% from memory).


I understand that you are talking about averages, but I am not experiencing more than 10% winter loss. My production is not nearly as high as it could be given that I could do a lot more management and produce a heavier crop. I also have to make decisions whether to control swarming and produce a huge crop vs splitting my colonies and selling the extras. I could make more money with less effort by splitting and selling though by choice, I have deliberately been getting new beekeepers started pretty much at cost. So long story short, I am satisfied by splitting each colony once to double my numbers, then harvesting an average of close to 60 pounds per colony. In effect, I get 120 pounds of honey for each overwintered colony.

I lost a colony sometime in the last 2 weeks. It was a weak colony in the fall caused by a lost queen. I caused the loss of the queen when I opened the colony back in August though I was not aware of it at the time. They raised a queen and she mated, but the colony never recovered fully and did not gather a crop from fall flowers. The result was inadequate stores for winter which I did not catch in time. Why is this important? Because I track the cause of colony losses. If it had been from varroa syndrome, I would want to know and figure out why. Since it is a beekeeper induced problem, I can promise to watch more carefully next time.

In the also ran category, I am renewing equipment. I need at least 20 new deep brood chambers and about 30 new shallow supers. It is time to buy some wood and put the table saw to use. I have plenty of frames though they need to be culled heavily. Many of them are 30+ years old and showing signs of wood deterioration. A humid climate takes a toll on woodenware.


----------



## Oldtimer

Nice work.


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> I think the giant hive strategy is applicable only to certain climates and conditions. Both Paul McCarthy and I have commented that I don't see western US bees as having the fecudity required to fill 3 deeps with brood. The climate and nectar supply will not support that level of brood..


Dee Lusby would seem to be a counterexample that disproves this notion. She uses a minimum of 3 deeps of brood, I understand, sometimes 5 deeps. (To save time, can we dispense with the Africanized bees digression? If her bees survive because they are Africanized, how is she able to maintain such large hives, how is she able to prevent constant swarming from such massive colonies?)

Some of Paul's hives are long hives, the functional equivalent of 3 deeps. He has characterized them as sometimes having frighteningly large populations. I don't know anything about the productivity of either Dee's or Paul's operation, though I suspect that honey is harder to make in their arid climates. 

But here is a question that seems useful to me: putting aside the issue of productivity, is there any advantage in terms of health to big hives? Are big hives subject to exactly the same risk of loss as smaller hives? Your speculation as to risk management assumes that a large hive has exactly the same (or worse) risk of dying out as a small hive, but as far as I can tell, this is only a surmise and not based on any actual research. 

There appears to be a possibility that small hives do represent a disadvantage, since many of those who have not succeeded at treatment free beekeeping seem to adhere, in general, to the idea that a hive should be wintered at the minimum size. It's been said, even by proponents of treatment free beekeeping, that those who derive major portions of their income from pollination are very poor candidates for treatment free beekeeping-- for many reasons. Could it be that one reason is that the economic demand for maximum colony numbers and mobility precludes experimentation with larger colonies? Could it be that smaller, weaker colonies are less able to withstand the pressures of pests, diseases, pesticides, and other insults to hive health? Most of the notable CCD disasters took place in migratory operations using small hives. Is this just a coincidence?

As to risk management... I'm a beginner and a backyard beekeeper. I currently have 6 colonies in my backyard here in FL. Three are colonies I hope will survive and make more honey than they did in their first summer. Three are nucs I am maintaining to provide increase to stock hives on my property in NY and to replace any losses I may have in my FL hives. The first three are housed in long hives, the functional equivalent of 3 deeps, and can be supered with 6 mediums without exceeding chest height, They could potentially be as large as most of Tim's hives.without requiring the use of a ladder. I doubt that they will be, because I'm a beginner, and the bees are nothing special. But so far so good. I will perhaps learn something about the risks and rewards of large hives, with a lot of luck. 

Of course, I don't know if there's anything to the idea that big hives can better withstand pests and disease, but since some treatment free beekeepers are succeeding with large hives, it seems worthwhile to see if there's anything to that idea, rather than trying to rationalize away the fact that these beekeepers exist and have succeeded. Personally, I want to stack the deck as much in my favor as possible, which is why I'm trying every technique that seems reasonable to me, in my attempt to keep bees without treatment.

In any case, Tim is not a backyard beekeeper, and he has made much increase and still maintained a substantial percentage of his yards in these huge hives. Evidently he has found the risk of using large hives to be acceptable-- this is in the real world and is not speculation. In conversations with him, he has mentioned that the limiting factor for his operation is woodenware and drawn comb; he can only expand at a rate determined by his ability to increase these resources. And bear in mind that while we natter away about his ideas on BeeSource, he has convinced by his example other beekeepers in his area to adopt his approach. These beekeepers are enjoying similar success. I find it surprisingly difficult to argue with success and would prefer to see what I can get from his example, rather than spending my time coming up with as many reasons as possible to believe that what works for him could not possibly work for me.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> Dee Lusby would seem to be a counterexample that disproves this notion.


How so? Dees hives are not "giant". By normal commercial standards that I am used to anyway, her hives are average. Crop? Don't know, never heard the numbers. I can also tell you she loses a LOT of hives, she is splitting constantly.

Where do you get the notion that "giant", or "tower", hives, are exclusive to treatment free beekeepers?

As to "small", "weak" hives being used for pollination, in fact the opposite is true. They are most usually in 2 boxes but strong. Later to get a honey crop, the hives are built up considerably. Of course all this depends just what the particular beekeeper is doing, what his game plan is for that season. He may use considerable skill to manipulate the bees to just what he needs to accomplish a particular task at a particular time. Commercial beekeeping is less (for most), about bragging rights re how big the hives are, and more about using ones skills to get money into the bank account.

Some people learn better visually. Here's a video of some of those small weak hives at almond pollination. Less boxes equipment than Dees hives, but stronger once you have a look on the inside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcpGJ_2Df8


----------



## Juhani Lunden

WLC said:


> I certainly didn't break the 5 gallon total mark per hive.
> 
> My point for bringing this up is that some folks don't believe that there is such a thing as a productive TF colony.


Wasn´t it a BeeWeawer package? How do you know it was TF? 
Because you have read in Internet about BeeWeawers management system?

I count as TF hives only those I have records of my own, treatment has an effect for several years.

(We Finns don´t believe until we see it with our own eyes = we don´t believe something we hear or read. Old proverb.)


----------



## WLC

Juhani:

I do understand your point. I won't know that they're actually resistant until they've survived for 3 seasons. That's why I have marked/clipped queens.

However, they are hybrids since they display feral characteristics.


----------



## mike bispham

One thing that appears to me to be missing from this discussion is any consideration of the dynamic development of the characteristics of the apiary bees. Surely we can work with the assumption that these big nest keepers are constantly selecting for successful big-nest bees - and that that is making a difference - and more so the longer it goes on. 

In nature a range of traits and proclivities helps a population become well attuned to its setting. Here a disposition to large nests will be concentrated by the keeper's selection choices. People with bees that have been selected to perform well in ordinary sized hives may struggle to match them.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

I just wanted to add this reference since I had mentioned that there is a difference between early vs late, open mated BeeWeaver queens:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0013-8746(2001)094[0540:PSIOAA]2.0.CO;2

I feel that it applies to those trying to produce resistant stock especially if they have feral populations nearby.

Here's a paper on partial reproductive isolation between Amm and Carnies:

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ies_of_honey_bees/file/5046351adc490e7276.pdf


----------



## squarepeg

sqkcrk said:


> Do you really think that a 5 or 7 year old queen would be a good layer or even laying at all?


it seems unlikely, and that's why it surprised me when i read:



Tim Ives said:


> Queens are averaging around 5 years. I could easily requeen with something else. But then your eliminating multi-year survivor genetics.


from this thread: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...Many-Colonies-Do-You-Need&p=972880#post972880

seems to me like the queens would wear out even faster with all that brooding needed to fill such a large cavity with bees.


----------



## Roland

WLC - your tower hive seems to be some what of an under achiever. We typically can split all packages 2 from 1, or 3 from 2 , and make a comparable honey crop to our peers. You say that only the center frames where drawn out? We typically see that in hives that where over supered, the bees where spread out too far. Just because the boxes are tall, that does not mean they are all full of bees(not directed to anyone, just a fact).

Maybe you need to come for a visit to Wisconsin.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Barry

I plan to!


----------



## mike bispham

gmcharlie said:


> there is always a scale of economy when it comes to a community.  Bees are no exception


If my spreasheet calcs are right, the raw math is interesting (here assuming a sphere, but it works the same for a cube):

Doubling the nest diameter gives 8 times capacity yet only 4 times surface area (heat/loss area) 
Tripling the nest diameter gives 27 times capacity, but only 9 times surface (heat-loss) area 
Quadrupling the nest diameter gives 64 times capacity, but only 16 times surface area. 

Those are 2, 3, and 4-fold advantages respectively. That is, the bigger it is, the greater the heatloss efficiency, without limit. 

The math should be checked mind....

Mike (UK)


----------



## gmcharlie

surface area is easy, and for heat loss probably very accurate. I doubt seriously though that the real scale is so Linear. much like big cities, travel and transportation slow down. Cooling and moisture control can also be big factors.

Personally what i have found difficult is finding queens that can support that scale. Seems double deeps are about average. triples I have not seen a queen yet that effectively uses that on her own. And I really don't have time to move all that around for her in 15 different yards.


----------



## mike bispham

gmcharlie said:


> surface area is easy, and for heat loss probably very accurate. I doubt seriously though that the real scale is so Linear. much like big cities, travel and transportation slow down. Cooling and moisture control can also be big factors.


I'm sure you're right; nevertheless those figures do tell a story. (Don't forget cities are essentially 2D. Computer memory architecture might be a better example... capacity still doubling every 2 years or something isn't it?) 

There's enough scope in those advantages to make up for other drawbacks. And there are more advantages to big colonies in the evolutionary sense - they can beat up the smaller ones and steal their honey for one - not to be underestimated. Bigness is a highly valued feature in nature, and I'd be surprised if it didn't work out in honey bees.

I suspect allowing bees to make nests as big as they can (and raising queens from those best at it) wouldn't be a bad strategy for optimising productivity - as long as practical drawbacks (chiefly those involving backache) can be overcome. 

(And until a high level of mite resistance is achieved that business of rapid build-up in the autumn as bees die might present problems too. That might indicate another way of evaluating resistance for fine-tuning - those strains that can cope with mites in big hives will be best at the job)



gmcharlie said:


> Personally what i have found difficult is finding queens that can support that scale. Seems double deeps are about average. triples I have not seen a queen yet that effectively uses that on her own. And I really don't have time to move all that around for her in 15 different yards.


Again, large nest making will probably be a breedable trait. As to humping stuff around; sure; but this business has made me think again about long hives. All that easy access to miles of brood for making increase before the lifts go on.... If you have lifting gear what would be the drawback for migratory work? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## WLC

Roland said:


> WLC - your tower hive seems to be some what of an under achiever. We typically can split all packages 2 from 1, or 3 from 2 , and make a comparable honey crop to our peers. You say that only the center frames where drawn out? We typically see that in hives that where over supered, the bees where spread out too far. Just because the boxes are tall, that does not mean they are all full of bees(not directed to anyone, just a fact).
> Maybe you need to come for a visit to Wisconsin.
> Crazy Roland


Center frames drawn and capped w/ honey, only on the top few supers.

Yes, I know they were over-supered , but they drew out most of 3 deeps and almost 7 supers.

Not bad for midtown.

I'll see how they do next season.

Don't a lot of beekeepers up in Wis. & Mich., use tower hives?


----------



## jim lyon

We do our best to avoid getting hives supered up too high. To get maximum production, as soon as we can find hives with a few full boxes we pull them off and super back. There's no doubt in my mind that keeping plenty of space directly above the brood nest (instead of several full supers above) maximizes the bees hoarding instinct. Tall hives are impressive to look at but to me it's a sign that the beekeeper isn't keeping up with the bees. The pic I linked earlier was taken mid summer just before the yard was pulled and resupered.


----------



## squarepeg

that's the way i handled it. i max out at 5-6 mediums over a single deep, and even that is a little higher than i like to work. i'll be redoing my stands to get the bottom board about a foot closer to the ground before next spring. i'll also be reducing the amount of pitch forward to just a hair to keep the taller stacks from leaning too much. since i like to harvest, bottle, and sell as i go it's easy to pull supers as needed to keep the stack from getting to tall.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, rule of thumb for us has been don't go past 6 deeps unless you undersuper cos it will cost honey.

I do sometimes go higher than that now just cos I'm small time & not set up for regular extracting, and pulling 4 full boxes to put an empty underneath is a young mans game. But I know it will be costing me honey. In my opinion, once you get to box 5 you are starting to lose honey due to extra bee time spent shifting it.


----------



## squarepeg

jim, when you have to put a super of foundation on, where in the stack do you put it?


----------



## WLC

I've ended up with empty, undrawn supers before on both single and double deep hives.

We had a mild and relatively wet summer this year.

Now that I have enough drawn deeps and supers, I think that I can make a good start at a proper tower hive next season.

I only fed the bees syrup, some of it LAB fermented. I didn't use pollen sub though.

Only time will tell if they're resistant, and if Tim's methods can work in an urban environment.

It's not the worst TF experience I've ever had. 

By the way, there was a nearby tower hive that used to be productive, but the last few years haven't been kind to it. It keeps failing.


----------



## jim lyon

squarepeg said:


> jim, when you have to put a super of foundation on, where in the stack do you put it?


I never put full supers of foundation on. We run 9 frames and either put foundation in slots 2,4,6 and 8 or 3,5 and 7.


----------



## Roland

WLC asked:

Don't a lot of beekeepers up in Wis. & Mich., use tower hives? 

[email protected]#$ no!!! Towers are for bragging rights. Been that way for years. As Mr. Lyon states, when it is full, take it home. We generally max at one deep brood, and 3 deep supers. The scale hive, which does not get split or frames of brood removed, often gains 120-150 lbs, but not this year.

By the way, look for bees in the air in that Michigan yard that was linked. No sense having boxes on that are not well populated. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## squarepeg

i hope that tim is not too disappointed in you wlc, as you know he is very much against feeding syrup. 

seriously, do you have the kind of forage in your location to support such large colonies? 

don't most successful tf keepers avoid artificial feeds citing the rationale that proper nutrition results in optimal immunity?

haven't you posted that you would not eat the honey from your hives out of concern that your bees are dumpster diving? i have to wonder, what is the point of keeping bees there? and why would you want to have them store a tower full of honey unfit for human consumption?

you are obviously having a good time with your bees as we all are, and i know you have a scientific interest in honeybees and other pollinators, and that's great. i'm just curious about what it is you are trying to do, not that it's really any of my business.


----------



## squarepeg

jim lyon said:


> I never put full supers of foundation on. We run 9 frames and either put foundation in slots 2,4,6 and 8 or 3,5 and 7.


understood and thanks. i tried that once and ended up with the fat frame/skinny frame problem. i have since seen the recommendation to put the foundation frames between capped honey frames.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> i hope that tim is not too disappointed in you wlc, as you know he is very much against feeding syrup.
> seriously, do you have the kind of forage in your location to support such large colonies?
> don't most successful tf keepers avoid artificial feeds citing the rationale that proper nutrition results in optimal immunity?
> haven't you posted that you would not eat the honey from your hives out of concern that your bees are dumpster diving? i have to wonder, what is the point of keeping bees there? and why would you want to have them store a tower full of honey unfit for human consumption? you are obviously having a good time with your bees as we all are, and i know you have a scientific interest in honeybees and other pollinators, and that's great. i'm just curious about what it is you are trying to do, not that it's really any of my business.


Well, I don't think that Tim is much of a Probiotics guy. I had to feed since when I installed my package in mid April, spring hadn't really begun. It was about a month late this year.

There was plenty of forage available in Central Park and via general horticulture. Plenty of clover too.

I fed them LAB fermented beegurt to support their microflora. So, I get 'hipster' points on that one. 

I don't consume the honey. I do intend to do a small honey extraction demo, but that honey goes back to the bees (and maybe building the tower).

I think that keeping bees on a roof in midtown is inspirational. In fact, I helped convince some folks with a green roof that it would fit in well with their LEED Platinum status.

What am I trying to accomplish with TF bees, LAB fermented syrup, tower hives, bio-ceramic hives, honeybee genetics, basic shop skills, etc. ?

I'm being a positive influence on many levels.

Even a single hive can be a powerful metaphor.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting. thanks for the reply and for not taking mine the wrong way. 

wow, if bees can make it there, they can make it anywhere.... new york, new york.


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> Well,
> I don't consume the honey. I do intend to do a small honey extraction demo, but that honey goes back to the bees (and maybe building the tower).
> 
> What am I trying to accomplish with TF bees, LAB fermented syrup, tower hives, bio-ceramic hives, honeybee genetics, basic shop skills, etc. ?
> 
> I'm being a positive influence on many levels.
> 
> Even a single hive can be a powerful metaphor.


Really? whats the point of a tower hive for maximum production when you don't care about the honey??? why not raise more colonies, or even Mason bees??? Man that crazy Bloomberg stuff gets on everybody!


----------



## sqkcrk

Why extract honey at all if not for human consumption? Doesn't seem very ecologically rational to me.


----------



## WLC

gmcharlie said:


> Really? whats the point of a tower hive for maximum production when you don't care about the honey??? why not raise more colonies, or even Mason bees??? Man that crazy Bloomberg stuff gets on everybody!


Why make tower hives in a city full of skyscrapers?

It's a metaphor/symbol for the city itself.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Not everybody near Central Park thinks that honey is unfit for human consumption! 

Here is a story about some apiaries in New York City with _treatment-free hives_ foraging in the Central Park area, including on the roof of the Whitney Museum, that sell their honey at a _premium_. 
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2012/03/12/120312ta_talk_tomkins

If you'd like some Whitney Museum Honey, $19 for an 8 oz jar: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
http://shopwhitney.org/letitbeehoney.html



:gh:


----------



## clyderoad

wlc-


> Why make tower hives in a city full of skyscrapers?
> 
> It's a metaphor/symbol for the city itself.


wow, this takes the art of beekeeping to a whole other level :scratch:


----------



## WLC

I prefer varietal honey.

We don't all keep bees for the honey.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Do you really think he does? Do you really think that a 5 or 7 year old queen would be a good layer or even laying at all?


For what it's worth, I have never heard anything from Mr. Ives about 5 year old queens. The last thing I heard was that three year old queens didn't drop down to the bottom in the spring to start the brood nest, which Mr. Ives seemed to say was time to re-roll the dice as it were. So I don't know what this five or seven year old queen stuff is about. Then again it's hard to get anything out of him before he gets shuffled off for language abuses. Had to let him go from the TF Facebook group.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> For what it's worth, I have never heard anything from Mr. Ives about 5 year old queens. The last thing I heard was that three year old queens didn't drop down to the bottom in the spring to start the brood nest, which Mr. Ives seemed to say was time to re-roll the dice as it were. So I don't know what this five or seven year old queen stuff is about. Then again it's hard to get anything out of him before he gets shuffled off for language abuses. Had to let him go from the TF Facebook group.


in addition to tim's post cited above, there was this one:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-to-be-a-commercial-beek&p=996982#post996982

i've never had a problem believing those big hives could fill that many supers given adequate forage.

the queens lasting five years or more was a little harder to get my head around.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg linked to a beesource Thread wherein Tim wrote about his queens averaging 5 to 7 years of age.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Fair enough. I don't often find myself in the commercial forum, though the commercials certainly find their way here. I would find that a little hard to believe. Well, I'd believe it, but I'd probably see it as creative accounting, you know, they do last 5 years, just not producing 15 supers at the time.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> I don't often find myself in the commercial forum, though the commercials certainly find their way here.


Is that yer way of tellin' me to get out the ghetto?


----------



## Oldtimer

The 5 year plus has been mentioned a number of times Solomon. Along with some other very impressive facts. 

Surprised to hear the beekeeper with the best bees in the world, biggest honey crops in the world, longest lived queens in the world, biggest hives in the world, _et al_, has been kicked off your facebook page. :no:


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> don't most successful tf keepers avoid artificial feeds citing the rationale that proper nutrition results in optimal immunity?


This aspiring successful tf beekeeper will cite a desire to raise bees that are attuned to local flows, as and when he can afford to not resort to autumn boosts to young colonies and stimulative spring feeding.

That's as much to do with encouraging a local feral population as anything else.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Solomon Parker said:


> Fair enough. I don't often find myself in the commercial forum, though the commercials certainly find their way here. I would find that a little hard to believe. Well, I'd believe it, but I'd probably see it as creative accounting, you know, they do last 5 years, just not producing 15 supers at the time.


Where is that commercial forum? 

In Finland the time from willow blooming to the start of winter feeding is 3,5 months. We have in our climate adjusted bees, which have to make colonies grow fast. Even though we have no beekeepers who would give their queens more than 2 Langstroth 10 frame deeps. The ability of (our) queens to lay eggs is the limiting factor. More than two is not practical or economical.

In fact some beekeepers keep their queens in one deep and they take, as a swarming prevention method, capped brood above the excluder once in early summer. This gives the queen some room. Otherwise the queen has only one deep. These beekeepers say that the practical advances of this one deep -system are far greater than the possibility to somewhat limit the egg laying. But remember: in such a short season, it is actually an advantange to limit queens egg laying when the main flow starts (end of June, early July). So the full power of egg laying is needed from start of May to end of June.

In the seventies (I started 1977) there was a lot of queen import from USA. Some of these queens were laying such huge amounts, that we got a new word to our beekeeping vocabulary: meat hive. That is a hive which makes huge amounts of brood, but very little or no honey.

I don´t believe one second of 5 to 7 year old queens.


----------



## WLC

I'd give Tim the benefit of the doubt.

Not only do I think he's being forthright based on my own first-time experience with tower hives, I also believe that he's using feral derived stock which would make all the difference in the world.

I can see feral derived queens being longer lived than domestic ones.

What I can't do is determine the kind of feral genetics available to him since I haven't seen any genetics studies on the managed, unmanaged, and feral populations in his area of the country.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> I don´t believe one second of 5 to 7 year old queens.




WLC said:


> I'd give Tim the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Not only do I think he's being forthright based on my own first-time experience with tower hives ...


Based on your "experience"? Do your "tower hives" have queens that are anywhere close to a 5 to 7 year life span? :scratch:


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I can see feral derived queens being longer lived than domestic ones.


Do the math. How many sperm would a queen have to have stored in her spermatheca to last her 5 years? The spermatheca has a limited capacity. I don't know what the capacity is or how many sperm it would take, but some how I don't think either is enough to last 5 years, let alone 10. He did state a 5 to 7 average.

I don't know Tim or what Tim knows, but I do know guys who will point at a hive and say that it made an average of X lbs of honey this year.


----------



## Michael Bush

Most of the old literature (pre Varroa) says that a well bred queen will last through three seasons of serious laying. In other words, heading up a full size colony for a full year. In a nuc or in some restricted circumstance (such as a setup to harvest larvae for grafting that limits the queen's access to open comb) they have been known to live 7 years or more. But that is certainly not heading a booming hive and laying at full capacity. Now that we have all the contaminated wax and bottlenecked gene pool, the estimates I've heard are that she gets replaced three times a year...

While I often have some four year old queens, they were usually raised in the fall and did very little laying their first year. The five year old ones probably got pulled and put in a nuc sometime in their life when a full size hive got broken up for cell builder/finisher and then mating nucs. I don't see any older than that.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Bush said:


> Now that we have all the contaminated wax and bottlenecked gene pool, the estimates I've heard are that she gets replaced three times a year...


I assume that's for a treated hive. My average (for the few marked queens that I have, and the ones that I can repeatedly identify) is quite a bit longer than that. This year, I had a queen from Zia who is marked and is going into her third winter. I am curious to see how long she lasts. Her first two years were quite good, and this last year was still decent though not as good as the first two, still producing a deep of honey. There was also a marked difference in the population of the hive.

From what I can tell as an astute observer is that maybe a third to half of all queens are replaced once a year, usually in the summer. Occasionally there will be the long lived queen and there are usually one or two who supersede repeatedly and then die in early winter. All part of the continual winnowing process that is treatment-free beekeeping.

All that said, all beekeeping is local. I'm not in Mr. Ives' neck of the woods, nor are any of you here. Conditions are different in each location.


----------



## Oldtimer

Pre varroa, beekeeping in my country was done in a kind of ideal world. No chemicals at all were ever put in a hive, the climate is kind to bees and so is the forage / fauna. Chemicals were used by farmers, but huge swaths of the country are semi wild and bees never came in contact with an artificial chemical of any kind.

Virtually all queens lasted 2 years and a large number into the third. However 3 year old queens are definitely in the "old lady" stage & will not maintain a hive at a profitable level. So in the outfit I worked for all hives were requeened with cells in year 2, but run on a 2 queen system so the older queen also kept laying. In such hives she disappeared naturally end of year 2 or during year 3.

I have worked with one queen (that I know of) in it's 4th to 5th year. It was a breeder queen and was kept in a breeder hive. In these hives the queens egg laying was restricted to 2 pieces of comb about 4 inches square. In addition a piece of foundation around 4 inches square was put in her compartment each day and removed the next day, for her to lay in to provide larvae for grafting. She was old and shrivelled, and supersedure cells had to be destroyed every few days to prevent the bees getting rid of her.

That's the oldest queen know of, out of thousands I've worked with and perfect conditions to extend a queens life. Other than that I cannot definitely vouch for any queen getting more than part way into it's third year.

Nowadays, it's been shown that hives contain more viruses than they used to, in fact a hive with a major mite infestation can contain a million times as many viruses in it's bee population, than a typical pre varroa hive. Queens, sadly, are virus reservoirs. It has been shown that queens accumulate more and more viruses during their life, and damage in their reproductive system accumulates irreversibly as scar tissue. This, to me, is one of the most likely reasons for the reported shorter lifespans of queens these days.
But there is also another. A typical drone now, has only 50% of the viable sperm, as a pre varroa drone. So a queen has to mate with twice as many drones to get the same amount of sperm. In fact they do mate with more now, but also get a lot of "junk" sperm, meaning their total egg laying capacity is reduced and they have shorter lives.

Research is that many US hives are replacing their queens 2 or 3 times a year.

Do I believe one particular beekeepers queens are averaging 5 years? No. And Feral? Schhmeral. Whatever breed, there is no advantage for bees to keep a queen for 5 years or produce queens that could last that long. Having queens that last 2 years is a good sensible option for bees, in nature the queen is superseded seamlessly with the bees waiting for the new queen to mate and start laying before they get rid of the old one. 

My observation is the smaller the hive, the longer the queen lives. As her sperm supply dwindles, the bees detect that and make a replacement. Without the influence of modern problems such as chemicals etc, it is the amount of sperm she carries that determines her life. A shorter lifespan of 2 years means the queen in a large hive does not have to be burdened with a spermatheca the size of a tennis ball. This is part of the reason I reject the 5 year average claim. It was not claimed these were queens used in small hives most of the time, it was claimed this is the average. IE, the norm. Of all hives.

This is apart from the math, which is that at the time the claim was made, if we go back 5 years previous Tim hardly had any hives for these queens to come from, and by his own admission has lost a good portion of them since. Combined that all those hives 5 years ago would not have had brand new queens anyway, we cannot be talking about more than maybe one or two queens anyway. Do they exist? It is easy to make mistakes about the age of a queen.

But hey, if the guy enjoys a little "creative accounting", he can have his fun.

My opinion...


----------



## squarepeg

good posts all. as stated, it's not hard for me to believe that most of the other claims made by tim are certainly within the realm of possibility. but with this claim regarding the queens being so, well, out there..., it causes me to question just how much of the other information presented could be exagarrated. not that i believe for even a moment that tim really cares what i think.


----------



## jim lyon

OT: Nice informed post. My experience up to about 7 or 8 years ago before we began yearly queening was the failure rate among first year queens was around 10%, with the second year usually claiming another 20 to 25% but by the end of the 3rd full season it was hard to find a strong hive which I could confirm was headed by a 3 year old queen. This year, however, we have seen a higher than average failure of first year queens. From a treatment perspective, we do no treating until fall treatments of thymol and/or oxalic so none of these queens has actually been present during a treatment, so miticide residues of any hard chemicals would have had to come from treatments many years prior. The winter losses of these treated hives are never as high as the summer attrition which I have always in my mind attributed to poor matings possibly drone related. I have no doubt that other factors may well be in play, most notably viruses/varroa, nosema, pesticides or fungicides.


----------



## WLC

From my own research, I'm convinced that the feral populations on the East Coast are a subspecies of EHB.

They were assumed to be AHB in Florida, for example, but recent research has shown that to be due to 'false positives'.

While I haven't found any research into the genetics of the feral population found in Tim's area, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that we know enough about their queen characteristics to say that they share the same characteristics as domestic stocks.

However, since we don't know anything about those queens besides what Tim is reporting, I would say that asking for corroboration from multiple independent sources isn't too much to ask.

There are some very real differences in the reproductive characteristics of Am subspecies that have already been reported.
I wouldn't be surprised if queen longevity was one of those differences.


----------



## rhaldridge

My assumption is that Tim gets tired of being called a liar constantly, so says outrageous stuff just to wind up his detractors. Works pretty good. I wish he wouldn't do it, because it undermines his message, but I understand the impulse.

What I see, when trying to look impartially at the situation, is that Tim has, by his example and not his words, managed to convince other local folks who have seen his operation to try his methods, and apparently, these guys have also had success. He's an officer of the Michiana Beekeepers Association, and hosts club meetings at his place, so I don't think there's much merit in the notion that he's running some sort of con. Not every beekeeper in his area who has been influenced by his example has adopted all elements of his program-- Danny Slabaugh still feeds candy boards, for example.

I ran across this interesting piece recently:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/article_ced5fc4a-5b4c-11e3-b1e1-001a4bcf6878.html

Apparently his honey is pretty tasty, if nothing else.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/article_ced5fc4a-5b4c-11e3-b1e1-001a4bcf6878.html
> 
> Apparently his honey is pretty tasty, if nothing else.


Frome the article. QUOTE - "Ives said he averages about 200 pounds per hive".

This is certainly not the figure that I've been getting fed. It is though, about the figure I came up with myself by cross referencing those cryptic posts, and reading between the lines.

Check me out on that. 4th paragraph, post #171.


----------



## Barry

From the article:

"This year, Ives estimates he had a honey harvest of several tons from about 150 hives at 19 locations. About 400 pounds of that came from the three Unity Garden locations. Beekeepers in Indiana harvest an average of 60 to 80 pounds of honey per hive, according to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. But Ives said he averages about 200 pounds per hive."



3 tons = 6,000 pounds
6,000 pounds - 400 pounds = 5,600 pounds
5,600 pounds ÷ 147 hives = 38 pound average.

Am I overlooking something?


----------



## Oldtimer

Could the emperor have no clothes?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

"Barry don't forget to archive this ..."

That is Tim's comment and also a link to the post ...


----------



## Barry

Even if you err on the high side of what "several" tons is, in this case 5, it still only comes out to 65 pound average.


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, I don't know, Barry, but you do seem to be assuming that the three Unity Garden apiaries only had one hive each in them. And who knows what "several tons" means? Certainly 2 or more. But otherwise rather ambiguous. Especially for someone like Tim who seems more accurate a reporter than that.


----------



## Barry

You're right Mark, "locations", not "hives." Back to the drawing board.

"Currently, there are eight hives based at the Unity Gardens on Prabst Avenue."

OK, so 8 hives instead of 3.

10,000 lbs - 1,600 lbs (8 hives @ 200 lbs) = 8,400 lbs
8,400 lbs ÷ 142 remaining hives = 59 lbs average


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

If Tim does *average *200 lbs per hive, as the article states, and has 150 hives scattered around the area, that would mean a honey harvest of 30,000 lbs.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/article_ced5fc4a-5b4c-11e3-b1e1-001a4bcf6878.html

Not many people would interpret "several tons" to actually mean 30,000 lbs.  

It really doesn't matter exactly how many hives the Unity Gardens locations have, what matters is the total hive count vs honey harvest.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> From my own research, I'm convinced that the feral populations on the East Coast are a subspecies of EHB.
> 
> They were assumed to be AHB in Florida, for example, but recent research has shown that to be due to 'false positives'.
> 
> While I haven't found any research into the genetics of the feral population found in Tim's area, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that we know enough about their queen characteristics to say that they share the same characteristics as domestic stocks.
> 
> However, since we don't know anything about those queens besides what Tim is reporting, I would say that asking for corroboration from multiple independent sources isn't too much to ask.
> 
> There are some very real differences in the reproductive characteristics of Am subspecies that have already been reported.
> I wouldn't be surprised if queen longevity was one of those differences.


You seem to disregard physiological limitations or capacities regarding what is possible despite what imagined characteristics there may possibly be in the so called feral population.

How many sperm can a spermatheca hold? It is not very much like a balloon as it is like a basket ball or a tennis ball. A sphere of a certain size w/ a certain capacity.

And how many eggs can a queen produce in her life time? Queens are not only supersceded because they ran out of sperm. Eggs matter too.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> There are some very real differences in the reproductive characteristics of Am subspecies that have already been reported.
> I wouldn't be surprised if queen longevity was one of those differences.


whatever subspecies the feral derivatives that i am keeping here are, all colonies have requeened themselves every year either by swarming or by supercedure.


----------



## WLC

While a mated queen with 3 million sperm is considered poorly mated, there's more than enough sperm there to last 5 years.

Some Am species average mating with about 20 drones, others less than 10.

The only figure that seems to keep coming up with regards to how well a queen can mate is the diameter of their abdomen.

The fact remains, we know nothing about Tim's queens except what he's reporting.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Some Am species


Am? Do you mean AMM?

Tims bees are not AMM.

Also, a mating with your claimed 10 to 20 drones will not sustain a queen in a typical kept hive for 5 years. In fact a mating with that many drones now-a-days will often not sustain her much over a year.

In fact, to carry sperm to sustain a queen 5 years in the huge hives and massive brood nests that Tim describes, she would have to be hung like a horse.

Which would be inefficient. A more suitable design is not conducive to a 5 year life in Tim's world record sized hives.


----------



## gmcharlie

Tim is definitely a interesting Character. What I got from several post and conversations is he averages 200 from the hives he CONSIDERS to be honey producers. no doubt his methods are noteworthy, but as is typical anymore you have to read between the lines closely. I averaged 95 lbs from 4 hives this year.... but my total average was less than 30.....(REALLY bad year here)


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm... And all this time I've been asking him questions, seeking out his advise, and thinking he gets more honey than me.

I still think he has excellent powers of observation though, and is very tuned in to his bees.


----------



## jim lyon

Barry said:


> Even if you err on the high side of what "several" tons is, in this case 5, it still only comes out to 65 pound average.


Gotta love that word several. I am reminded of the Seinfeld show when George discovered the term "yadda-yadda-yadda" to avoid having to be too specific. 
Your rudimentary calculations appear correct Barry. Seems like Tim talked about getting 14 full mediums off per hive and spoke of getting 200 pound averages on a bad year. (Graham you can correct me if I am wrong). Assuming 2013 was a bad year then, yes, he should have harvested a minimum of 15 tons. Is this all a bit "nit-picky"? Well given the fact that we have heard so many fantastic claims directly from Tim and given that his methods keep coming up in these treatment free conversations I dont think its unreasonable to wonder just where the truth lies. About the only independent report we have received is the one in which Randy Oliver stated that Tim had some booming hives in the heart of corn country. Guess we dont know how many. I would assume at least several.


----------



## WLC

A queen's ovarioles (up to 300 of them) can produce an unlimited number of eggs which travel past the spermatheca (which stores the drone sperm) on their way to the vagina before being layed.

The spermatheca themselves are maintained by the spermathecal gland which supplies nutrients to the sperm allowing them to survive for many years.

Mated queens can have up to 50 million sperm.

I can see how queens with superior mating, ovarioles, and spermatheca glands could be both long lived and very productive.


----------



## Ramona

Have you ever been interviewed for a news story, read the final print version and wondered how the reporter came up with the statements they did that were attributed to you? Not saying that the reporter is mis-stating, just that there is always room for error.

I would not rely on a news story if I were trying to get to the bottom of something.

Ramona


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> I averaged 95 lbs from 4 hives this year.... but my total average was less than 30.....(REALLY bad year here)


gm, either that means that you harvested 380 lbs from 4 hives and had a total of 12 or 13 which you only took honey from 4 or I don't know what. Is that right? You had 12, but only took honey from 4?


----------



## sqkcrk

Ramona said:


> Have you ever been interviewed for a news story, read the final print version and wondered how the reporter came up with the statements they did that were attributed to you? Not saying that the reporter is mis-stating, just that there is always room for error.
> 
> I would not rely on a news story if I were trying to get to the bottom of something.
> 
> Ramona


Right you are Ramona. All we can count on is that Tim Ives' name was spelled correctly. That is something all news reporters are trained to do. I guess Tim doesn't have a middle name.


----------



## Barry

Ramona said:


> I would not rely on a news story if I were trying to get to the bottom of something.
> 
> Ramona


I don't think anyone is relying on it, just another piece of the puzzle that we're left trying to piece together. Of course Tim could answer himself, all the specifics asked.


----------



## gmcharlie

I actually took honey from about 100..... some were effectively 0 and some were over 100. if i took my best 4 only in my count like has been done at times then my average was 95..... we could call the rest "support hives"


----------



## jim lyon

Ramona said:


> Have you ever been interviewed for a news story, read the final print version and wondered how the reporter came up with the statements they did that were attributed to you? Not saying that the reporter is mis-stating, just that there is always room for error.
> 
> I would not rely on a news story if I were trying to get to the bottom of something.
> 
> Ramona


I would agree Ramona (or maybe Dean?). I think you would agree, though, that Tim has made some incredible claims and confirmation can be a bit elusive. Would you consider it realistic for someone to lay out a business plan where one can expect to get a minimum of 200 pound averages and perhaps much more just by following Tims methods? Who else is doing it and succeeding? I dont think anyone here is saying that Tim and his methods haven't been successful or that Tim isnt a good beekeeper just that it may all be a bit exaggerated.


----------



## squarepeg

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0016217&representation=PDF

although the study did not find a correlation between virus titre and fecundity across the population of queens studied, the impact of of dead viruses on the health of the ovaries was demonstrated. it seems plausible that the damage to the ovaries would be cumulative over time, thereby shortening functional longevity of the queen. since varroa virus titres are higher and perhaps even more so in tf hives. this may explain why most beekeepers are experiencing not getting the longevity they once did from their queens.


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> I actually took honey from about 100..... some were effectively 0 and some were over 100. if i took my best 4 only in my count like has been done at times then my average was 95..... we could call the rest "support hives"


You could have moved honey from weaker hives onto stronger hives thereby boosting the "average" from even a smaller number of production hives.

Beekeepers have been arguing about hive averages ever since who knows when. No one ever talks about the year end bottom line. Production averages are a distraction from that number which no one wishes to reveal.


----------



## Barry

That's because the year end bottom line has all kinds of elements that play into it. One doesn't know what deductibles, depreciations, tax breaks, etc. that are done before the bottom line. Pounds per hive is pretty straight forward and each can calculate out how that works for them.


----------



## Solomon Parker

jim lyon said:


> From a treatment perspective, we do no treating until fall treatments...


That's not a treatment-free perspective.




rhaldridge said:


> My assumption is that Tim gets tired of being called a liar constantly, so says outrageous stuff just to wind up his detractors. Works pretty good. I wish he wouldn't do it, because it undermines his message, but I understand the impulse.


I understand the impulse, but you're right, he makes a mess of his message. And the swearing and name calling only makes it worse because you can't get by with that crap in any sort of moderated forum. I wind people up, a fact to which many may attest, but you won't see much name calling or swearing.

I am more and more convinced that he's got a bit of creative accounting. I'll certainly admit to a form of it. What number am I supposed to divide by? I might start out with 20-30 in a given year but most are support hives for queen and nuc production. So do I divide by 25 or do I divide by the maximum number of hives in the year, ~50? Do I divide by the number at honey production time or after summer? After winter? Or do I just divide by the number of hives used for honey production?


----------



## WLC

After seeing what can happen with a new package, with similar bees, with a similar hive configuration, and with a fair understanding of Tim's concepts, I think it's possible that he can get honey yields within the range that he's claiming with the flows/forage available to him.

Even starting late, without the benefit of drawn frames, and without his flows, I saw evidence of what he was describing.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> What number am I supposed to divide by?


Best explanation thus far.



> On the subject of averages, I often do not believe what I read any more. It is meaningless when a beekeeper with say 30 hives, gets 300 lb's total, but most hives made no surplus, only 5 did. So he counts his average as the average of the 5, ie, 60 lb's each, where the real average is 10 lb's per hive. A commercial beekeeper running 1000 hives, has to pay for and maintain all the equipment and work on all the hives. So he has to know what he is producing on average and would discover that by dividing his total crop by 1000. If some of them were not productive they would still be included in the average, his whole thousand hives is a unit that has to pay for itself and he survives by what the whole unit produces, minus expenses.


http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-How-long-does-it-take&p=1027320#post1027320


----------



## jim lyon

Solomon Parker said:


> That's not a treatment-free perspective.


My point, Sol, is that in the context of the conversation (which was queen longevity and their rates of failure) that for the entirety of their first season my queens are never directly exposed to miticides. As I am sure you are aware many commonly used treatments, can result in queen loss in certain conditions. So yes, though I dont claim to be treatment free my observations about untreated first year queens is very much germane to the conversation.


----------



## WLC

PLB just gave an interesting response to a question by Mark.

Miticides decrease sperm viability which may lead to the high rate of queen supercedure/failure.

50% drone sperm viability from miticide treated hives. 90% drone sperm viability from hives without miticides.

I think it not only demonstrates why Tim can get the bees to fill those hives with workers, it also illustrates an advantage of TF beekeeping over other methods. Perhaps the no sugar, 'well fed' bees, approach could add to the number of workers as well.


----------



## jim lyon

Solomon Parker said:


> What number am I supposed to divide by? I might start out with 20-30 in a given year but most are support hives for queen and nuc production. So do I divide by 25 or do I divide by the maximum number of hives in the year, ~50? Do I divide by the number at honey production time or after summer? After winter? Or do I just divide by the number of hives used for honey production?


Personally? I think it should be income less expenses then divide that number by the hours you invested and decide if its time well spent from a strict economic standpoint. Forget all this pounds per hive business which is easily skewed by any number of different ways of calculation. I am kind of with Mark on this. The only thing that really matters from an economic standpoint is your bottom line at the end of the year. It makes little difference whether it came from honey, wax, pollination, nuc or queen sales.


----------



## rhaldridge

Good grief. There seems to be an awful lot of analysis in the absence of actual data going on here. I guess it must be fun, but it seems a little mean-spirited.

You can contact some of the folks who have direct experience with Tim's methods, as I did here:

http://www.indianahoney.org/blog/6624/bee biology

Scroll down to the comments to see what I asked about.

Also, Tim talks pretty freely about his stuff on his Facebook page, and there are lots of names there, if you want to check with them. He seems to be willing to answer questions, if posed in a polite manner. But he has to friend you, so... good luck!


----------



## sqkcrk

There are different ways to make money keeping bees. So if honey production is part of the income mix then income per hive is of more importance than pounds of honey per hive or production hive.

Me, I take the highest number of viable colonies I had in one year, usually that's soon after apple pollination time, and keep that in mind until after the last pound of honey is measured. That's what I divide by. 580 colonies produced 450 buckets of honey at approx. 60lbs of honey per bucket. Equals 46.5 lbs honey per hive. If I did my math correctly.

WLC, r u stalking me?


----------



## WLC

Well, it's a good thing most of are keeping bees as a hobby, etc. .

I think that it's safe to say that there are some advantages to keeping TF tower hives.

Especially since you can only keep two hives in many municipalities.

Six singles= 6 tops and bottoms. Two ,3 deep towers = 2 tops and bottoms.

Saved some money right there.

I still think it's possible to get high honey yields with the right bees in a TF tower though.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Saved some money right there.
> 
> I still think it's possible to get high honey yields with the right bees in a TF tower though.


"... high honey yields ..." :scratch:



WLC said:


> We don't all keep bees for the honey.


If "saving money" is one of your goals, why not harvest and sell some honey? :s



:gh:


----------



## WLC

I did get a good yield, however I left it on the tower hive as stores. I'll get to it soon.

I can see why some folks would, when restricted to two hives, prefer to use a 3 deep/tower, configuration.

It could be a good way for some hobbyist TFers to keep bees.


----------



## Roland

So I went to the Southeastren Indiana site, scrolled down to the Tim Ives article, and looked at the picture, WHERE ARE THE BEES!!!!!! And no upper entrances? How do the bees get the honey to the top box? And keep it Cool?

Crazy Roland


----------



## WLC

I offsetted my supers for that reason.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> 50% drone sperm viability from miticide treated hives. 90% drone sperm viability from hives without miticides.


I think you just made that up.

It is not correct.


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> Good grief. There seems to be an awful lot of analysis in the absence of actual data going on here.


But I have the data. I heard it right here on Beesource.

I was told Tim's hive make 400+lb's , average, annually.

This was the great shining example. The reason treatment free is superior. That's how it was presented.

Since you were one of the people saying it Ray, I suspect you may recall.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I am more and more convinced that he's got a bit of creative accounting. I'll certainly admit to a form of it.


LOL. 

When a person divides their honey crop by the top 20% of their hives, and compares that number to the state average, and claims they are above state average, when the state average is calculated by dividing crop by ALL of the hives in the state dinks included, calling that method of accounting "creative", is, well, creative. 

Not talking about Tim by the way. 

If everybody was that "creative", it would be very hard to find anybody at all in the state, who was not well above state average. :scratch:


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> I think you just made that up.
> 
> It is not correct.


That 50% vs 90% drone sperm viability for miticide treated vs untreated hives was from someone's research.

I didn't make it up.

Nor did I make up the high supercedure rate for queens. Half of them don't last past 6 months.


----------



## Oldtimer

So the research exists somewhere?


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> That 50% vs 90% drone sperm viability for miticide treated vs untreated hives was from someone's research.
> 
> I didn't make it up.
> 
> Nor did I make up the high supercedure rate for queens. Half of them don't last past 6 months.


I don't have any trouble believing that some miticides may impact drone viability or that queen supercedures are increasing but can you give us something more? Like which miticides (they are hardly all alike) and how often they are applied. The increased queen supercedure rate may well bean an ofshoot of drone problems but surely you would agree it isn't the only potential culprit. We mate a lot of queens each year and as I posted earlier none of our queens or drones during the matings have ever been present when a miticide has been applied. What I have experienced is an ebb and flow of success not when measured not by the initial matings (which consistently run in the 80 to 85% range) but in attrition as the summer progresses. Some years matings are clearly better than other years. I am open to all theories as to why this might be the case.


----------



## sqkcrk

It would have helped if WLC had linked to the text which he sort of quoted. It's on Bee-L under "Spermatheca Capacity/Queen Longevity".

Peter Loring Borst replied w/ an article he wrote for ABJ. That's where the quote came from.

I need to learn how to do links.


----------



## jim lyon

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...1=BEE-L&9=A&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> Peter Loring Borst replied w/ an article he wrote for ABJ. That's where the quote came from.
> 
> I need to learn how to do links.


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1312&L=BEE-L&F=&S=&P=59872

to do links on bee-l and have them work, you have to log out from you id, then go back on without being logged in. then just cut and paste the link from the top while your in the message.

wish they would say which miticides?

This possibility was further emphasized in the subsequent presentation by Juliana Rangel, from the North Carolina University at Raleigh. Juliana presented statistics which indicate that beekeepers attribute their losses to CCD at 9%, varroa at 24%, but queen failure at 31%, making it their worst problem. She pointed directly at the connection between miticides and sperm viability. In fact, her studies indicated that queens mated by drones with low quality sperm may actually increase the number of drones with which they mate to compensate.

I'm slowing down Jim got me by a Minute


----------



## jim lyon

That's an interesting post by Mr. Borst, all quite believable to me and supportive of my long held opinion that beekeeper applied miticides may well be a bigger problem than many want to believe. This is, however, still presented largely as Mr. Borst's opinion (someone whose opinion I respect may I add). What isn't answered here is which miticides might be the biggest culprits and whether avoiding any miticide use during the lead up to the queen mating season might well alleviate or at least lessen the problem.


----------



## sqkcrk

Maybe you should ask for details on bee-L. "?"


----------



## wildbranch2007

jim lyon said:


> Some years matings are clearly better than other years. I am open to all theories as to why this might be the case.


do you have any other beeks hives within flight distance of your hatching queens? I find the miticide thing interesting, I had no problem getting 3 years out of my queens using the same Miticides I'm using now, but my hives were isolated, now in N.Y. with no isolation using pretty much the same chemicals, although going from miteway II to MAQS, and apiguard, my queens are not lasting as long, on average. Of course the flows are soooo much better in N.Y. that could use up the queens faster! to many variables, to much fun:scratch:


----------



## jim lyon

wildbranch2007 said:


> do you have any other beeks hives within flight distance of your hatching queens? I find the miticide thing interesting, I had no problem getting 3 years out of my queens using the same Miticides I'm using now, but my hives were isolated, now in N.Y. with no isolation using pretty much the same chemicals, although going from miteway II to MAQS, and apiguard, my queens are not lasting as long, on average. Of course the flows are soooo much better in N.Y. that could use up the queens faster! to many variables, to much fun:scratch:


I'm not aware of any, our drone force should be the overwhelming majority though in the wilds of east Texas there are no certainties.


----------



## squarepeg

jim, have you had long enough off synthetic miticides to rotate your old wax out?


----------



## jim lyon

squarepeg said:


> jim, have you had long enough off synthetic miticides to rotate your old wax out?


We haven't used such miticides for at least 8 years now but still have a significant number of old combs that no doubt contain residues. The fact remains, though, we have had summers with virtually no queen attrition to speak of in recent years and I certainly haven't seen numbers approaching those quoted by Mr. Borst.


----------



## squarepeg

understood. have you been able to correlate bad weather during the time of mating flights to your ebb and flow of success?


----------



## wildbranch2007

jim lyon said:


> We haven't used such miticides for at least 8 years now but still have a significant number of old combs that no doubt contain residues. The fact remains, though, we have had summers with virtually no queen attrition to speak of in recent years and I certainly haven't seen numbers approaching those quoted by Mr. Borst.


because I moved and left the majority of my hives behind, 90% of my comb is new, but that doesn't mean it's free of synthetic miticides, as all the foundation I'm buying has them included. I also don't see the #'s Mr Borst has posted for the queens that I raise, now every year I buy queens to try, and I would have to say his numbers are very accurate for the queens purchased..


----------



## jim lyon

squarepeg said:


> understood. have you been able to correlate bad weather during the time of mating flights to your ebb and flow of success?


When mating weather is poor you see poor initial mating success and subsequently a higher percentage of what I assume are poor matings, the characteristics being a poor pattern and a hive that never really takes off and grows and by midsummer we are eliminating it. Thats different from what I would describe as summer attrition which is usually just queens that just seem to vanish midsummer after a good initial start. Of course there are always some supercedures which are what I suspect when I see a hive that starts well but dosent produce like other hives yet a subsequent inspection reveals a nice pattern and what by all appearances is a good hive that just needs to grow. None of our queens are marked, though, so these are all just assumptions on my part.


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> That 50% vs 90% drone sperm viability for miticide treated vs untreated hives was from someone's research.
> 
> I didn't make it up.
> 
> Nor did I make up the high supercedure rate for queens. Half of them don't last past 6 months.


No He didn't make that up. It was actually published or mentioned in ABJ last month. one of the most interesting paragraphs in the whole magazine....... Great ahah moment to me. And I don't use miticides.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

Varroa infestations causes problems with drone sperm counts, 4.3 million compared to 8.8 million in non-infested colonies. Also, the drones have shorter life-spans, infested colonies the % of drones alive after 1 day of emerging is only 60% compared to 97% in non-infested colonies. Varroa also caused drones to not be able to fly, 57 to 64% compared to 5% in non-infested colonies. 

It seems we get to "pick our poison" so to speak, our colonies are ****ed if we do and ****ed if we don't.


----------



## jim lyon

AR Beekeeper said:


> It seems we get to "pick our poison" so to speak, our colonies are ****ed if we do and ****ed if we don't.


I am not sure that is necessarily true, seems like if varroa can be reduced to a manageable level in the fall that the spring level of infestation around the swarming season should remain pretty low. Mid to late summer matings, though, may well be a whole different situation.


----------



## Michael Bush

Beekeepers in this country spent at least the last century and a half breeding bees that would raise less drones, would swarm less, and because of separate mating nucs did not select for the first queen out. This alone would be a reproductive disadvantage. Now as a result of mite treatments we have 50% sperm viability of drones and poor fertility of queens. And we have enlarged the bees so we have large slow drones that can't fly as long or as fast. Then we complain that AHB is taking over... a problem that we created on many levels...

How often we humans think we know what is needed and we are totally wrong...


----------



## JWChesnut

In my climate, coastal fog settles in June --- "June Gloom" -- consequently temps may stay in the 60's all day long with no direct sun. In this clime, free summer mating is problematic. The drones just don't fly in sufficient numbers. 

I'm $ ahead to buy queens from a hot, "normal" summer landscape. The failure rate at the height of the "fog winter" for free mating splits and inevitable supersedures is somewhere north of 30%. Much of the local colony failure can be traced to this sequence >> Varroa induced queen supersedure>> virgin queen failure due to mating failure.


----------



## gmcharlie

Is any one aware of someplace that can/ will do sperm viability counts?? I would be willing to sacrifice a queen or two. Might be real interesting info.


----------



## jim lyon

Michael Bush said:


> Now as a result of mite treatments we have 50% sperm viability of drones and poor fertility of queens.


While I have little trouble believing that mite treatments can directly affect the sperm viability of drones, this elusive 50% viability number keeps popping up as though it is a given. Where is this research? What miticides are they referring to? Are we to accept that they all act the same way on drones regardless of what is used or when or how often? Will a late fall oxalic (for example) treatment when no drones are present really affect the drones raised the following spring?.......


----------



## Juhani Lunden

AR Beekeeper said:


> Varroa infestations causes problems with drone sperm counts, 4.3 million compared to 8.8 million in non-infested colonies. Also, the drones have shorter life-spans, infested colonies the % of drones alive after 1 day of emerging is only 60% compared to 97% in non-infested colonies. Varroa also caused drones to not be able to fly, 57 to 64% compared to 5% in non-infested colonies.
> 
> It seems we get to "pick our poison" so to speak, our colonies are ****ed if we do and ****ed if we don't.


Nice to get these numbers! Wow! Can you give any quotes, any names of publications?

In that what you wrote crystallizes the secret of isolated mating stations in this varroa resistance breeding. If all drone hives are enough stressed with mites, we get fast progress in breeding because the drones which are able to mate are surely well selected and super viable.

Since all my queen have been (for the last 18 years) from isolated mating stations, I very well recognize the drone layer problem caused by mite infested drone hives. In resent years I have had many times(never counted, maybe 5-10 times) more drone layers than before this varroa resistance breeding.


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> Is any one aware of someplace that can/ will do sperm viability counts?? I would be willing to sacrifice a queen or two. Might be real interesting info.


Uh, your local sperm bank, perhaps? 

I don't think sacrificing queens is necessary when one wants to evaluate the viability of drone semen. Collecting it from drones aught to be all one would need to do.

In humans, modality is what is looked at, if I remember correctly. That and the number per sample. Seems like it might be the same in evaluating drone semen.

Who does that and what it costs you may be the questions to ask, but, as individuals, I bet the cost is prohibitive for most interested beekeepers. Do queen breeders even do this sort of thing or farm it out to a lab?

Start w/ your State Apiculturalist and ask them about it. See where that leads.


----------



## gmcharlie

Possible, but I don't care about the count in the gen pop, I care about what got mated with my queens. I kinda stands to reason that underachieving drones may have a low count. Or stte guys are a bit slow. still waiting on results from Pollen samples gathered in June.


----------



## sqkcrk

Squeaky wheel gm, squeaky wheel. Stop waiting, start agitating.

I was not referring to general populations, but your drones. Though I don't know what that would tell you, since your drones shouldn't be mating w/ your queens anyway.

You have enough laying queens that you can sacrifice some just to see how well they were mated? Or how good the sperm they are storing is? Simply looking at the brood frames should tell you something about that, no?


----------



## gmcharlie

well If it could be determined with some certianty that say southern queens vs local queens had a viability difference it would stand to reason we could figure out where the best queens are really coming from and more likely WHY.... I would sacrifice queens in in instant if it would help us/me figure oout how to get better ones.

We spend hours debating and discussing queen size and nutrition and so on. what if all of that is a Moot point? Some guys swear by GIANT queens... other like the smaller more mobile ones... I haven't seen a corelation at all between size and laying. so how do you look at or pick a queen? I know every one of the queen guys is working hard on selecting the right brood queens, and most are mindful of drones. but what happens if were wrong? what if strong faster bigger more fertile drones was actually the answer?? I know it would change my thinking and work in the yard. 

Gen pop, I was refering to drones in general.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Where is this research? What miticides are they referring to? 

I've seen it (don't have time to find it all right now). Most is on Cumophos. Some on Fluvalinate. I think I might have seen one on Amitraz. I have not seen any on the organic acids (oxalic, formic etc.)

>well If it could be determined with some certianty that say southern queens vs local queens had a viability difference it would stand to reason we could figure out where the best queens are really coming from and more likely WHY

I think it would be a mistake to assume that sperm viability=quality. Not that it isn't one factor related to quality, but it is not the only measure of quality. Local adaptation to the weather would also be a "quality" I find important.


----------



## Oldtimer

The article linked was interesting, but not thorough, to the point of giving the wrong idea.

Firstly, Apistan is one of the big bug bears, drones raised with apistan in the hive will have only around 1/2 the sperm count they should and some of that will not be viable. Other miticides, have much less of an effect than Apistan and this was not addressed in the article.
In a hive where varroa is not controlled, drones raised with a varroa infestation in their cell may have as little as 1/3 rd of the normal amount of sperm, plus the drones themselves have a lower body weight and shorter lives. So someone with a bias could use the same technique used in the article, to make it appear drones raised in TF hives are worse than drones raised in treated hives.

In practise, any average drone that is tested will have around 1/2 the viable sperm it would have had pre varroa, whether it is from a mite controlled hive or not.

Since varroa, my own queens mating has been seriously affected and I have spent years thinking about this problem and now pretty much have it licked. What I do is treat my hives earlier than everyone else, using non residual
chemicals, ie, ones that do not persist in the wax or hive in any way for more than a few days after treatment is removed. I have specialist drone raising hives and have the treatment out of them just as drone raising starts. So drones are raised in a hive with no mites, and no treatments. So are queens, by the way.
Since adopting this method things have really turned around for me. A much higher mating %, and virtually no customer complaints about failing queens. I have not actually tested any drones, or any queens in a lab. However the change is so dramatic from the lousy results of a few years back that I'm sure the method is working.


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer said:


> The article linked was interesting, but not thorough, to the point of giving the wrong idea.
> 
> Firstly, Apistan is one of the big bug bears, drones raised with apistan in the hive will have only around 1/2 the sperm count they should and some of that will not be viable. Other miticides, have much less of an effect than Apistan and this was not addressed in the article.
> In a hive where varroa is not controlled, drones raised with a varroa infestation in their cell may have as little as 1/3 rd of the normal amount of sperm, plus the drones themselves have a lower body weight and shorter lives. So someone with a bias could use the same technique used in the article, to make it appear drones raised in TF hives are worse than drones raised in treated hives.
> 
> In practise, any average drone that is tested will have around 1/2 the viable sperm it would have had pre varroa, whether it is from a mite controlled hive or not.
> 
> Since varroa, my own queens mating has been seriously affected and I have spent years thinking about this problem and now pretty much have it licked. What I do is treat my hives earlier than everyone else, using non residual
> chemicals, ie, ones that do not persist in the wax or hive in any way for more than a few days after treatment is removed. I have specialist drone raising hives and have the treatment out of them just as drone raising starts. So drones are raised in a hive with no mites, and no treatments. So are queens, by the way.
> Since adopting this method things have really turned around for me. A much higher mating %, and virtually no customer complaints about failing queens. I have not actually tested any drones, or any queens in a lab. However the change is so dramatic from the lousy results of a few years back that I'm sure the method is working.


This all rings true to me. Do you have older combs that might yet contain residue from any of your earlier mite treatments?


----------



## Oldtimer

I don't throw old combs until the wood rots or the comb is unusable.

However, luckily, I just never liked the sound of Apistan, and coumaphos was never used here it's illegal, so I've avoided the worst of them.

My mite regime is not as good as yours Jim but _I think_ I am producing drones and queens in as near to perfect a way as we can get, in this modern, messed up, world.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

Juhani Lunden; Those numbers came from a publication" CONTROL OF VARROA, a guide for New Zealand Beekeepers." Their sources are listed at the end of the publication.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Peter Loring Borst replied w/ an article he wrote for ABJ. That's where the quote came from.


I'd look very hard at material from this chap. He's long claimed to be a scientist - he is - or was - a lab assistant. When challenged he's blustered and replied that what he means is he thinks in a scientific manner. Far from it, he seems incapable of rationalising in a scientific fashion. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## gmcharlie

mike bispham said:


> I'd look very hard at material from this chap. He's long claimed to be a scientist - he is - or was - a lab assistant. When challenged he's blustered and replied that what he means is he thinks in a scientific manner. Far from it, he seems incapable of rationalising in a scientific fashion.
> 
> Mike (UK)


As I am with all reports, which is why I asked where we might be able to get tested.

Jim made an interesting comment on another post about how his Dad had be commenting on "better queens 30 Years ago" when he was younger. I tend to think a LOT of the complaining here is just wistful memories. Yes varro is a factor.. But in reading ABJ old NY history this month it wasd intersting that back in the "Heyday" of beekkeping with no pesticides and wonderful flora ... he was right around 100lb average per hive. not so different than today if you think about it.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I'd look very hard at material from this chap. He's long claimed to be a scientist - he is - or was - a lab assistant. When challenged he's blustered and replied that what he means is he thinks in a scientific manner. Far from it, he seems incapable of rationalising in a scientific fashion.


There is an irony in you saying much of that, Mike.


----------



## WLC

As for where one can locate research on drone sperm viability...

http://scholar.google.com/

Don't be afraid to try it out for yourselves, even if you can only manage the title of the paper, the abstract, and maybe some of the discussion.

I think the 50% drone sperm viability for miticide treated hives is from Jeff Pettis of the USDA.

But, there's plenty more out there.

I think that it's important to note that Tim is not only a TF beekeeper, he's also into natural 'feed' only, and big overwintered colonies.

It could explain why he has ended up with 'better' queens.

He probably got lucky with some good feral queen stock, and then he avoided doing anything to mess that up.

So, yeah, he might very well be able to keep queens around for 2 or 3 years +.

PS-These Honeybee researchers do have an interesting sense of humor. I just found a paper with the title, "When Every Sperm Counts".


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> ... he was right around 100lb average per hive. not so different than today if you think about it.


The average annual honey production in NY is nowhere near 100lbs per hive.


----------



## gmcharlie

Not sure what your averages are, but I was directing that at in general beekeeping My averages are near that in a good year, in the middle of corn and beans. But 100lbs for a honey producer is not out of line.


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> But in reading ABJ old NY history this month it wasd intersting that back in the "Heyday" of beekkeping with no pesticides and wonderful flora ... he was right around 100lb average per hive. not so different than today if you think about it.


I wish you would make your statements more clear. When you write about NY, refer to 100lb averages per hive, and then state that that is not so different than today, what is anyone supposed to think you meant.

I don't know where you have gotten the idea that "in general" the average honey production is 100 lbs.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> The average annual honey production in NY is nowhere near 100lbs per hive.


depends where you are in N.Y. I have only once in 10 years averaged less than 100lbs in a year, my partner has kept records of years past and in the last 10 years has only once averaged less(and that wasn't the same year as me). but saying that as the farms are plowing up more weeds, and more bees are moving in, the yield hasn't been as good the last two years.


----------



## Daniel Y

mike bispham said:


> Far from it, he seems incapable of rationalising in a scientific fashion.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Do you have any specific examples that indicate that to you and an explanation why? I have found time and again that the "Scientific" Types do not have communication as one of their strong suits.


----------



## sqkcrk

wildbranch2007 said:


> depends where you are in N.Y. I have only once in 10 years averaged less than 100lbs in a year, my partner has kept records of years past and in the last 10 years has only once averaged less(and that wasn't the same year as me). but saying that as the farms are plowing up more weeds, and more bees are moving in, the yield hasn't been as good the last two years.


At the risk of being called a hypocrite, when I say "the average annual honey production in NY" I mean across the whole State. If one could canvass every beekeeper across the State and obtain accurate data on Per Hive Honey Production, that average would be 60 lbs per hive calculated over a ten or twenty year period.

How one can say what the average of honey production across a whole State is astronomically difficult compared to an average w/in one apiary.

What was your average this year Mike? I don't keep the records that others do, but it has been many years since I had an average of 100 lbs. And the last two years have Historically been the lowest they have ever been. And that is from a person from Deer River, NY who keeps good records. Which was also my own suspicion and also what many others from across the State have told me.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> that average would be 60 lbs per hive calculated over a ten or twenty year period.
> 
> How one can say what the average of honey production across a whole State is astronomically difficult compared to an average w/in one apiary.
> 
> What was your average this year Mike? I don't keep the records that others do,


how can anybody say what the state average is when out of all the beeks that I know, only one has ever been asked how much honey they produced. It was like the study done on hives overwintering that I posted on another thread. I think it was like 21 people in the whole state of N.Y. that participated in the study. So what do I go on, I go on the beeks around me. now last year, which was considered a bad year, for me was a record crop on a per lb basis but not on a per hive basis, It was 140lb. the year before was a worse year for everyone including me I got in the low 90's, the previous year I averaged 160lbs, after that I would have to go to my buddies honey house to get the hard records.
This area I would have to speculate has the highest concentration of bee hives that I have run across and still has high output. when you look in the bee culture and look at the average it includes all of New England in the total so you can't use that as a judge. And if you go back over 10 or 20 years, from what beeks have told me the output per hives is smaller now than it was then, which when I look for new yards doesn't surprise me as all that old farm land that turned into weeds is now converting from weeds to trees that don't produce like the weeds do. we had this discussion last month at the bee club. so until someone can actually come up with some way to measure it realistically it's everyone's guess, and I guess higher . but I do remember a document that I will have to go look and find.


----------



## sqkcrk

Ag Statistics. That's who says what the State Average is. They call me every year. They send me a form to fill out every year. Do you get called?

I understand what you are saying, but your data and my data are anecdotal of what is out there, not anymore than what is going on in your neighborhood or my neighborhood or amongst our set of bee friends.

So, yes, knowing, really knowing, is difficult. We could come up w/ a concensus of opinion and average your number and my number. My 47lb 2013 Average and your "?" 2013 Average.


----------



## gmcharlie

Mark, You actually fill out those forms?? IN NY? I sure hope you pay your taxes on all that honey.. but hey might actually be why only 60lbs is reported Wouldn't cheat on your taxes now would you??

Seriously you guys need to look past NY I was talking about 100lb averages across the country. Most of the decent beeks I know here in the midwest are not for from that 100 lb average. my simple un-convouluted point is that a good beekeeper in this century has averages that are similar to a good beekeeper 100 years ago. The point was based around out "good ole days" comments.
My dad always told me about the huge ears of corn his grandpa raised. problem was his was a 10 year olds perspective. My great grandfathers corn yields never even came close to what we do today.

The point was not about you NY beekeepers... quit be such narcissist.


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> Mark, You actually fill out those forms?? IN NY? I sure hope you pay your taxes on all that honey.. but hey might actually be why only 60lbs is reported Wouldn't cheat on your taxes now would you??
> 
> The point was not about you NY beekeepers... quit be such narcissist.


To your first point. You darn well bet I report every sale I make and every pollination I am paid for as Income. What you fantasize about what I report says more about you than it does about me.

Do I fill out those forms? Yes, to the best of my ability, considering I don't keep records on what they ask about. I do the best I can from memory. Then I still get called for some reason and answer those questions too.

I do not put a lot of stock in or faith in the accuracy or meaning of what AG Statistics gathers and disceminates . My reports are inaccurate, so why should I think that anyone elses is all that much better. And then they are all mixed together to illustrate what someone wants to illustrate to their own agenda. All such an incomplete picture from beginning to end. And yet I answer what is asked.

To your second point. You wrote what you wrote. I read what you wrote. I replied to what you wrote. It is not my fault that what you wrote did not mean what you meant it to mean. I did not interperate what you wrote. You may have been writing about averages across the country, but you did not say that. You sighted NY.

I now understand what you meant. Thanks.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> Ag Statistics. That's who says what the State Average is. They call me every year. They send me a form to fill out every year. Do you get called?
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but your data and my data are anecdotal of what is out there, not anymore than what is going on in your neighborhood or my neighborhood or amongst our set of bee friends.
> 
> So, yes, knowing, really knowing, is difficult. We could come up w/ a concensus of opinion and average your number and my number. My 47lb 2013 Average and your "?" 2013 Average.


I said b/4 I only know one person that gets asked and he's 77 and doesn't remember why they started calling him. and in the previous post my average was 140lb so we add them together and get 95 lb average pretty close huh. now if most of the people responding are old and commercial I could see why the number is so low


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> Do you have any specific examples that indicate that to you and an explanation why? I have found time and again that the "Scientific" Types do not have communication as one of their strong suits.


Not specifics. It was a few years ago and I don't recall the details. It was on this forum though. You could look it up. It was disbelief that a scientist could respond in such ways - repeatedly - that made me enquire into his background. Once I found out he'd been fibbing and posing it rather made sense of his puzzling responses.

Mostly it was about failure to follow an argument. You can challenge an argument in many ways, but slipping sideways isn't one of them. Scientific work is founded on argument, and trained people are versed in the process of too-and-fro discovery of what is what through argumentation. Evasion, ad hominem, failure to acknowledge valid points and the like are hallmarks of non-scientists. Trained scientists either ignore you, politely decline to get involved, or argue properly. They don't argue incompetently while thinking they're doing it right.

I think mostly they decline to get engaged because it would take far too much time to teach you (not _you_ you understand - 'others'...) what you'd need to learn to understand their arguments. Even if you wanted too - and recognised that you needed too. All too many people don't.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

So. Short, non scientific, non jargon, non embellished answer for us common folks. "Not specifics. It was a few years ago and I don't recall the details".

Readers of Peter Loring Borst can rest easy. The opinion expressed in post #341 is based on an unsubstantiated (cos Mike is not a real scientist either) feeling, from years ago, that is now a hazy memory and details cannot be recalled.

As, by your own claim Mike, you learned your science by having conversations in Pubs, the judgement you pass on others is a wee bit excessive. If you wished we would take you seriously.


----------



## Roland

W have records from the 40's and 50's, and yes, the crops where much bigger then(mid 100's), almost twice the average from the 70's(80-90 range). The "Bull of the Woods" would say that the Hay crimper(mid 60';s) was the biggest downfall of commercial beekeeping.

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

What would he say about nongrazing mega dairy farms?


----------



## Roland

Never was much grazing around here. A few loafing yards, but most hay was bailed, not grazed. The crimper allowed the farmer to cut and dry hay in fewer days, so less of it went to full bloom. We get periodic thunder storms, ussually every week. They could now cut and dry hay between showers , whereas in the past they had to wait for more consecutive days of sun.

Crazy Roland


----------



## jim lyon

Roland said:


> W have records from the 40's and 50's, and yes, the crops where much bigger then(mid 100's), almost twice the average from the 70's(80-90 range). The "Bull of the Woods" would say that the Hay crimper(mid 60';s) was the biggest downfall of commercial beekeeping.
> 
> Crazy Roland


My dad always said the worst thing to happen to beekeeping out here was the advent of the round baler. No longer did it take a big crew of folks with bulging biceps to bring in the hay.


----------



## WLC

Peter gets sent to an awful lot of scientific conferences for his lab.

That's an education in itself.

But, many would agree that unless you're publishing in peer reviewed journals, you're not a mainstream scientist.

Regardless, we too often rely on the research and other scientific information provided by the 'scientists' in the beekeeping world.

I disagree with some of their opinions, but it's better than nothing.


----------



## wildbranch2007

WLC said:


> Peter gets sent to an awful lot of scientific conferences for his lab.
> 
> That's an education in itself.


he also has access to research data that we can't see or have to pay for. just wish he could/would post more from each article.


----------



## sqkcrk

Mike B., when was the last time you published in ABJ. Apparently ABJ approves of Peter's contribution to beekeeping knowledge.

On top of that, what Peter was quoted as saying himself was something he quoted himself. So, you are disparaging the folks that did the research as well as Peter. Peter is careful about what he puts out there, from what I have seen. I don't know what is accomplished by bashing Peter. Log into bee-L and make your statement there so Peter can see how you feel.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> Not specifics. It was a few years ago and I don't recall the details. It was on this forum though. You could look it up.


If you're going to make a statement like this, you should be the one looking it up and making it clear to everyone. Waiting.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> Mike B., when was the last time you published in ABJ. Apparently ABJ approves of Peter's contribution to beekeeping knowledge.
> 
> On top of that, what Peter was quoted as saying himself was something he quoted himself. So, you are disparaging the folks that did the research as well as Peter. Peter is careful about what he puts out there, from what I have seen. I don't know what is accomplished by bashing Peter. Log into bee-L and make your statement there so Peter can see how you feel.


gee I have no idea what you read, I was complimenting him not bashing him. just wish when he could post more of the information that he gets from sources that are not available to us on bee-l, ie. that he could include more of the data in his POSTS. If you had been a regular on bee-l you would have seen his post as to why he can't include more of the information. How about we do a co-author article for ABJ, now that would prove quite interesting and we could both say we finally got published.


----------



## sqkcrk

Your last name starts w/ a "B"? My comments were directed at Mike Bispham.

Being published on beesource is about as high as I aspire.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Being published on beesource is about as high as I aspire.

Mark is not the _author_, but rather the _subject _of this published article: :lookout:
http://northcountrynow.com/business...hives-produces-30000-pounds-honey-year-030604


----------



## sqkcrk

Exposed, not published.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> Your last name starts w/ a "B"? My comments were directed at Mike Bispham.


true my last name starts with a B. that's why this format is so much fun, especially in the winter. That's too bad I was just doing the research for the paper, over on Bee-l using some of peter's posts. I will admit I don't always agree with Peter, but he was interesting the one year I got my bees inspected. and I'm the same in real life as on the net, he called at 7am on a sat. and said he was going to inspect everyone of my hives, when he showed up I had a step ladder in the back of my truck. he said what is that for, you said you were going to inspect all of my hives, I said your going to need this. he didn't inspect them allt:


----------



## Daniel Y

Barry said:


> If you're going to make a statement like this, you should be the one looking it up and making it clear to everyone. Waiting.



I woudl say it is the waiting part that keeps them not knowing.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Exposed, not published.


Oh my! I didn't know you did that sort of thing.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Your last name starts w/ a "B"? My comments were directed at Mike Bispham.


Sorry, got left behind there. I've no idea how scientific ABJ is - though Bee magazines don't tend to get peer reviewed by Phd's - and I've no idea either what PLB's current scientific status is. 

It does appear he's been promoted to lab manager at a Veterinary lab at Cornell, and it seems he hasn't got out of the habit of bigging himself up - describing himself on his own webpage as doing 'biomedical research' there. Last I heard you need a phd to do research - he's listed as a 'Technician IV'. Perhaps its different there. Or, more likely, he's working alongside phd's who are doing biomedical research. Maybe its just careless writing.

All I said was: don't mistake him for a scientist. I added a personal view that he wasn't (then) very good at scientific argumention - last time we exchanged thoughts - which it appears was probably in 2010. He seems to have stopped posting around then. I can't find the specific exchanges we had that formed that view.

I have realised I'm fighting an old battle. Back then PLB was pretty roughhanded. But it was a long time ago. 

As to posting on BEE-L I've better things to do with my time than get my posts repeatedly censored because my messsage is unwelcome (as I recall: importing zillions of Australian bees isn't helping US bees adapt to varroa). 

Mike (UK)


----------



## bentonbee

Roland said:


> WLC - your tower hive seems to be some what of an under achiever. We typically can split all packages 2 from 1, or 3 from 2 , and make a comparable honey crop to our peers. You say that only the center frames where drawn out? We typically see that in hives that where over supered, the bees where spread out too far. Just because the boxes are tall, that does not mean they are all full of bees(not directed to anyone, just a fact).
> 
> Maybe you need to come for a visit to Wisconsin.
> 
> Crazy Roland


Crazy Roland,
I am curious about how you do this? And when are you installing the packages?
Is this on foundation or on drawn combs? 
And 3 lb packages or 2 lb packages?
Thanks!
Mike


----------



## Roland

3 lb packages installed usually on drawn comb, but sometimes foundation, when the dandelions just start blooming(at least that was the plan). We use a single seep, and make sure the queen always has open comb.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Tim Ives

Packages? Why are you buying packages? Empty comb? Why do you have empty comb?


----------



## Tim Ives

Let's get this one shut down too. 



Roland said:


> Otherwise, with proper manipulation of frames, keeping empty comb readily available in front of the queen


Yeah, wayyyy too much work. Alot easier to pile on the supers and swap out when full.



mike bispham said:


> Surely we can work with the assumption that these big nest keepers are constantly selecting for successful big-nest bees - and that that is making a difference - and more so the longer it goes on.


Yes. Along with other advantages. 



mike bispham said:


> Doubling the nest diameter gives 8 times capacity yet only 4 times surface area (heat/loss area)
> Tripling the nest diameter gives 27 times capacity, but only 9 times surface (heat-loss) area
> Quadrupling the nest diameter gives 64 times capacity, but only 16 times surface area.


Giving away the real secrets now.


Roland said:


> The scale hive, which does not get split or frames of brood removed, often gains 120-150 lbs.


You're not going to get 120# off a single here. 40 +/-10#.



sqkcrk said:


> squarepeg linked to a beesource Thread wherein Tim wrote about his queens averaging 5 to 7 years of age





Oldtimer said:


> Frome the article. QUOTE - "Ives said he averages about 200 pounds per hive".


Which I simply answered pointing at the stack of 7 supers per colony. Those full is around 200#.




Tim Ives said:


> Packages? Why are you buying packages? Empty comb? Why do you have empty comb?


----------



## Oldtimer

Oldtimer said:


> Frome the article. QUOTE - "Ives said he averages about 200 pounds per hive".


So Tim. Is it 200 pounds or 900 pounds, you seem to tell different stories in different places.

Do your queens as well as single handedly laying up 3 times as much brood as anyone elses queens, still last your claimed 5 to 7 years on average? 😉

As to your claim that Stepplar only makes 150 pounds per hive, you obviously missed the video of him craning stacks of full supers off hives and replacing them with more stacks of empties.

I think your PR problem might not just be the outrageous claims and general BS, but also that you find it necessary to denigrate everyone else.


----------

