# Tom Seeley's proposal -- keep bees in small colonies



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Tom Seeley has an interesting idea for hobby beeks: tiny colonies..
Specifically, I am suggesting an alternative approach that enables bees to live more like they do in the wild, and (hopefully) to enjoy the health that I am finding wild colonies possess. I am calling this approach “small-hive beekeeping” for it involves keeping colonies in one deep 10-frame Langstroth hive body for the broodnest and honey stores, along with one shallow super over a queen excluder for the honey crop. This housing arrangement has the following features:

1) the colony occupies a small nest cavity (like in wild colonies),

2) the colony is likely to swarm each summer (as do wild colonies),

3) the colony produces a modest surplus of honey for the beekeeper.
http://beeaudacious.com/index.php/2016/11/22/audacious-idea-four-small-hive-beekeeping/


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

It's essentially what we have been doing with a large percentage of our operation for quite a number of years. Each single has a first year queen and in that scenario, its rare to see a hive swarm unless you either get the super on late or they run out of room above the excluder and begin to backfill the brood nest. Our production is pretty good, and thats measured against the statewide average and thats on only 8 brood combs no less!


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

Thank you JW for for drawing my attention to this paper. My preferred setting is one deep.

Jim do you introduce the new queens at the end of the summer of the previous year or at the end of winter / early spring of this year?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

JWC the organic beekeepers I met in bee class do it like that for years ( but are not tf).
From now on this will be my method, too , using dadant square.


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

I think to judge the "success" of this method you must also factor in the likely loss rate of the swarmed colonies.

I think it's Seeley's own work (though I may be wrong about the source) that found that 80% of swarms in the wild in NY perished in their first year.

With that factored into a small apiary of, say, 10 colonies in which every colony swarms annually and has an 80% survival rate (in the apiary), you also have to take into account the additional 8 swarm colony losses, in the wild, post-swarm. 

So starting from 10 colonies, making 10 additional colonies through swarming, then losing 2 in the apiary and losing 8 more in the wild, results in the loss of 50% of the total colonies per year. 

How is that really a success for bees? Even if you aren't confronted by the dead colonies in the wild, they are still dying and spreading diseases and parasites in the process.

Why not simply keep them healthy and alive in the first place? I don't find it requires extraordinary efforts to do that. (And my bees are nothing special - just swarms to my farm; I'm not that skilled or experienced a beekeeper, and my bees are not that far from Seeley's location , i.e. less than 200 miles, and not in a warmer, or milder direction.)

I think Seeley's work and writing are just great, but this idea seems like such a sad, disheartened, solution.

Enj.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Thank you JW for for drawing my attention to this paper. My preferred setting is one deep.
> 
> Jim do you introduce the new queens at the end of the summer of the previous year or at the end of winter / early spring of this year?


Early spring qc's, which incorporates a brood break. If mite levels are high at all an oxalic drip at 20 days after queen removal will give you a good cleanup.


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

I think Tom takes a different view than many beekeepers... His work on swarm behavior and feral colonies seems to focus more on the long term survival of a population rather than the individual success of a colony. Colonies come and go, but with an approach modeled after feral colonies, the population lives on. It may not be very applicable to a commercial situation, but for the backyard enthusiast it certainly has some merits.


----------



## texanbelchers (Aug 4, 2014)

For most suburban backyard beeks loose swarms are a bad thing. The smaller brood nests seem to be more productive, but swarm potential is great. It takes a lot more management to split, watch supers, merge back, etc. Unfortunately, most of the people I have been running into are behavers and may look for honey a couple of times a year. If they worked on this plan I think it would be a mess, especially throwing in a few SHB.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

texanbelchers said:


> For most suburban backyard beeks loose swarms are a bad thing. The smaller brood nests seem to be more productive, but swarm potential is great. It takes a lot more management to split, watch supers, merge back, etc. Unfortunately, most of the people I have been running into are behavers and may look for honey a couple of times a year. If they worked on this plan I think it would be a mess, especially throwing in a few SHB.


I agree. The SHB throws a wrench in that program. 

A local beekeeper let his strong hives swarm and then lost most to SHB. 

I think it could only work if you have an established system controlling the beetles.


----------



## erikebrown (Oct 27, 2014)

texanbelchers said:


> For most suburban backyard beeks loose swarms are a bad thing. The smaller brood nests seem to be more productive, but swarm potential is great. It takes a lot more management to split, watch supers, merge back, etc. Unfortunately, most of the people I have been running into are behavers and may look for honey a couple of times a year. If they worked on this plan I think it would be a mess, especially throwing in a few SHB.


I was thinking this as well, although Seeley does say that this is for beekeepers who don't mind swarms. For the backyard, I wonder if you could artificially swarm once or twice a year and get by with this arrangement.

Also wondering how this translates to someone wanting to (a) standardize equipment and (b) keep the weight down. You could use 8-frame medium boxes, with two for the brood nest and one for honey. Two 8F medium is only slightly larger than one 10-frame deep, and you'd have a little extra honey space with a medium super rather than a shallow.

Something to think about,

Erik


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

jim lyon said:


> Early spring qc's, which incorporates a brood break. If mite levels are high at all an oxalic drip at 20 days after queen removal will give you a good cleanup.


Thank you Jim!


----------



## Forgiven (Nov 17, 2016)

What's supposed to be good part of this approach? A lot of swarm removal jobs you can charge on?


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

SHAWHANBEEK said:


> I agree. The SHB throws a wrench in that program.
> 
> A local beekeeper let his strong hives swarm and then lost most to SHB.
> 
> I think it could only work if you have an established system controlling the beetles.


If I am never going above 1 deep and 1 shallow, why would SHB be such a problem? Do you think that the remaining population and new queen will not be able to patrol that small of an area? I would not have thought that to be too large a space for a remaining population of an otherwise healthy post-swarm colony. But then again, I have never done it.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

It's going to be tough to find beeyards if part of the deal with that I'm going to release between 5-20 (depending on outyard size) swarms into the immediate area during about a one week period in late-May/early-June. Then who knows how many after swarms as well. Kind of a deal breaker and something I wouldn't even be comfortable letting happen.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

A pie in the sky proposal. The rest of society in many locations will not stand for hives kept in this manner. To call it ''management" is a stretch.
There are many techniques available to effect a artificial swarm and still keep the bees under control. 
This proposal is not forward thinking and may cause more regulation on the very same hobby beekeepers that he's trying to reach to revamped beekeeping laws. Maybe he should try this in his neighborhood in Ithaca and see how it goes.


----------



## orthoman (Feb 23, 2013)

Was able to watch the "discussion group" at the end of the conference and was frankly, disappointed.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

clyderoad said:


> The rest of society in many locations will not stand for hives kept in this manner.
> There are many techniques available to effect a artificial swarm and still keep the bees under control.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

I can see what Tom is suggesting. A lot of backyarders are let alone beekeepers as is. I agree with JWC in that swarms would likely be an issue with the neighborhood. At that size of colony they will swarm. I also wonder about the wisdom of keeping only 1 honey super. Maybe that is what some folks get but if the honey is flowing, pile the boxes on. We wait 50 weeks of the year for a 2 week event, I say take advantage of it when it is happening.

Jean-Marc


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys

I've kept bees in 3 deeps up north. Now I'm beeless in South Florida. And wondering about keeping bees in the subtropics with the heat and beetles. I suspect smaller would be better. Would like to try this.

Some very audacious ideas. You can listen to them for yourself at:

Bee Audacious Public Panel discussion and Conference wrap up - YouTube


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Seeley is simply defining a practice for application of his results from his research in the Arnot forest. He had hoped to find varroa-tolerant bees. Instead, he found that the feral bees of the Arnot forest survived by multiplying (swarming). Kept bees are not allowed, or highly discouraged, or tricked, into not swarming. I think Seeley would say that this is why feral bees continue to survive in stable numbers in the Arnot forest with no treatment for varroa, while kept bees seem to need some help fighting these pests.

So if you are in it just for the sake of the bees, and you do not want a huge honey production, and don't have any neighbors to piss off with swarms lodged in their chimneys, I agree with Seeley that this is the way to keep bees. Spin off as many swarms as you can. But those are not my goals, and I am not in that position, so I cannot do it that way.


----------



## wadehump (Sep 30, 2007)

Here is what I run. 2 Deeps and 5-6 medium supers open brood nest. Will they swarm YES they will swarm. They have it in them to swarm every year. Will they make a honey surplus maybe yes maybe no it is all weather dependent. I DO NOT TREAT. Using THIS METHOD I have 6 hives that are checked 2 times a year ONCE in the spring to add supers and once late summer to remove said honey if there is any. This has worked on these hives since the spring of 2012 all are wild caught swarms from my area they are MUTTS the make a lot of propolis and can be pissy at times.


----------



## SHAWHANBEEK (Feb 7, 2016)

psm1212 said:


> If I am never going above 1 deep and 1 shallow, why would SHB be such a problem? Do you think that the remaining population and new queen will not be able to patrol that small of an area? I would not have thought that to be too large a space for a remaining population of an otherwise healthy post-swarm colony. But then again, I have never done it.


Here in southern Ohio SHB were terrible this year. I had strong colonies on mostly solid bottom boards and there were still dozens and some cases hundreds in my strong hives. None got slimed but if the bee numbers were decreased due to swarming it easily could have happened. A friend who had extremely strong hives in the Spring who has always let them swarm had major issues with SHB after swarm seadon. SHB had not been a problem for him previous years. 

I have a few hives on Freeman style bottoms and those are really affective in controlling SHB. I will utilize more this next season.

I have wintered only an 8 frame medium brood box with a little dry sugar in early spring during one of our coldest winters in memory. It is possible..


----------



## Clayton Huestis (Jan 6, 2013)

This is kinda the direction I was going for now. Yet maintaining production too. Why let them swarm?

I plan to over winter 3 deep colonies to have strong colonies for spring.



> 1) the colony occupies a small nest cavity (like in wild colonies),


The answer for me was to do a cut down like in comb honey production to a single deep.



> 2) the colony is likely to swarm each summer (as do wild colonies),


Next artificially swarm the colony by removing its queen and giving a good brood break. Allowing the colony to make its own queen or add a grafted cell. The queen and the other 2 boxes are set behind the production colony. Use it as you want.



> 3) the colony produces a modest surplus of honey for the beekeeper.


My method should produce a much better than modest crop. The colonies can then be reunited to be a 2 queen method to get ready for winter. With the young queen surviving. You can figure out the rest.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

BWrangler said:


> Some very audacious ideas. You can listen to them for yourself at:
> 
> Bee Audacious Public Panel discussion and Conference wrap up - YouTube


Thanks BWrangler. Much food to think about and act about.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't see the Seeley proposal as ever becoming a "thing".

In my experience, those hives will "swarm out". They issue secondary swarms to exhaustion and queenlessness. The colonies will blink out. The consumer seeking to manage bees in this manner would still be on the hook for a nuc replacement annually. 

In the Arnot Forest, it scarcely matters that colonies blink out from secondary swarming, because a single replacement colony establishes nearby.


----------



## wadehump (Sep 30, 2007)

I only had a small problem with shb and I am in south eastern ohio


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

JWChesnut said:


> I don't see the Seeley proposal as ever becoming a "thing".
> 
> In my experience, those hives will "swarm out". They issue secondary swarms to exhaustion and queenlessness. The colonies will blink out. The consumer seeking to manage bees in this manner would still be on the hook for a nuc replacement annually.
> 
> In the Arnot Forest, it scarcely matters that colonies blink out from secondary swarming, because a single replacement colony establishes nearby.


Yes. Not much of a "business model" for sure.

There is a local beek here that somewhat runs Seeley's method (maybe kind of like wadehump). He is a retired handyman and is known throughout the community as the person to call if you ever have a "bee problem." He catches swarms and does cut-outs. But once in the box, his work is done. He will catch the swarms from his own boxes if he can and then just waits for the next "bee problem" call. Lives out in the country so no complaints from neighbors.

He makes several quarts of honey for sale every year. No treatments. No inspections. Dead outs and absconds are just replaced with the last "bee problem" call. One of those old timers that can't understand why anybody would buy bees.

It works I guess.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

I get were he is coming from, a hive or 2 run like this could provide enuf honey for most family's while "doing right" by the bees and feeding that urban homesteader itch, for them who cares if they are way under the local production advrage if they get some sort of harvest and the bees survive? 
but it seems like he is taking most of the "down sides" of a KTBH or Warre and putting it in expensive equipment and not taking most of the advantages of those styles with it 
If your not going to treat, extract, split, stack supers, or do any management why run a lang


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

One observation included with his report of small hive volumes was an approximation of 300 feet between feral hives in the Arnot Forest. 

His observations include factors both of distance between colonies, as well as the cavity volume of those colonies. Mimicking this reported size and distribution of those feral colonies throws a wrench in the plan for backyard beekeepers unless we have fairly large tracts of land.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

msl said:


> If your not going to treat, extract, split, stack supers, or do any management why run a lang


My thinking as well.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

msl said:


> If your not going to treat, extract, split, stack supers, or do any management why run a lang


If you're not doing any of that why keep bees?


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

jwcarlson said:


> Ifh you're not doing any of that why keep bees?


Even better point.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

jwcarlson said:


> If you're not doing any of that why keep bees?


ask the TF Warre crowd? (not a dig)
Toms concept as I see it, is just let the bees do what bees do and harvest a little honey comb or crush and strain. low inputs, modest returns, except for the use of the $$$ lang (and the let them issue swarms part) its seems fair enuf for a backyard, very Warre actually. If it realy works, I see a shallow flow hive super hitting the market shortly


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Ya I have a hive like Seely is talking about, swarms maybe 3 times in a year produces very little honey and if I do not treat it, it will die from varroaosis anyway. Its my 6 frame observation hive.
Johno


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Ya I have a hive like Seely is talking about, swarms maybe 3 times in a year produces very little honey and if I do not treat it, it will die from varroaosis anyway. Its my 6 frame observation hive.
Johno


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

(asumeing deeps) Hardly a good comparison, the proposal with the super on is 250x bigger.
just caught up on the video....less then impressive


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Why msl, some of the feral hives around here are in hollow trees with maybe less than 6 frames is this not what Seeley is trying to emulate.
Johno


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

Not meant to be insulting, so please don't take this wrong, the difference (in theroy) is your "maby less then 6 frames" guesstimate vs his long time research on wild hives, and the efect of size Now there may be hives that small in your area, I am most cerntinaly not calling you wrong, but as JWChesnut points out, if they swarm out and collapse in there second year, as long as one or 2 of the swarms take hold, the life cycle has been completed and it matters not..unless your a beekeeper and you didn't catch a replacement swarm...lol

What Seeley is suggesting is that the deep+shallow arrangement is in the "natural" size range , using standard equipment to alow for a small harvest, and if you let bees be bees in that size they will survive better and maintain a population with out swarming out. if your significantly outside of the range, the results will be much different. 

As an example If you make 1/2 frame nucs and stack 3x3X3, and don't get the same results as MPs brood factory's...Is MP wrong? or is it that your hive size is significantly different... ie his are 250% bigger and your off by the same margins as the 6f vs the deep+shallow.

It will be instering to see the out come of Seeley's experiment and see if this becomes any more then theroy, right now thats all it is


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

First of all, what is Seeley advocating that we allow our hives to naturally swarm more often or is there some difference in the size of the hive that swarms. Why does he want them to swarm in the first place, does he want more feral bees, does the swarming of small hives do something for the hive or swarms survival, does a captured swarm sold as a nuc have a better chance of survival than a nuc going off into the trees. If so my 6 frame OB provided 3 nucs which have moved off to other bee yards, so what is he trying to say.
Johno


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

these answers are my under standing of what Seeley wrote, not necessarily my personal opinion of how to manage a hive 

"Seeley advocating that we allow our hives to naturally swarm"
yes, or I assume a shook swarm would have the same effect, Maby he will address that in his up coming study

"is there some difference in the size of the hive" "Does the swarming of small hives do something for the hive or swarms survival"
yes, "The results of this study support the hypothesis that the persistence of wild colonies is aided by their habits of nesting in small cavities and swarming frequently." 
"It is also possible that nesting in a small cavity helps the bees avoid high Varroa infestation rates because colonies with small nests possess fewer cells of brood and thereby provide Varroa with fewer opportunities for reproduction " full read https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788434/

" Why does he want them to swarm in the first place'
because that's what healthy feral bees do, from the above link " a swarming event exports about 35% of a colony’s Varroa "
His suggestion is 
"another way of keeping bees besides the standard approach of managing colonies to be 
1) as large as possible,
2) as disinclined to swarm as possible
3) as productive of honey as possible. 
Specifically, I am suggesting an alternative approach that enables bees to live more like they do in the wild, and (hopefully) to enjoy the health that I am finding wild colonies possess"

He further says that single deeps can be left alone with no management or treatments and have a 80% survival rate. 
"I have completed a 6-year study in which I have transferred swarm caught in bait hives into hives consisting of one deep, 10-frame Langstroth hive body with drawn combs, and have then left the colonies alone (no disease treatments, no feeding, no swarm prevention measures, and no honey harvests). I have found that nearly every colony changes its queen each year (probably by swarming), that the Varroa counts in these colonies stay low, and that most (80%) of these colonies survive each year."


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

msl said:


> What Seeley is suggesting is that the deep+shallow arrangement is in the "natural" size range , using standard equipment to alow for a small harvest, and if you let bees be bees in that size they will survive better and maintain a population with out swarming out. if your significantly outside of the range, the results will be much different.


Doesn't sound like that is what is being suggested to me. 
My experience says this is untrue: "if you let bees be bees in that size they will survive better and maintain a population with out swarming out". 
I run deep + medium brood boxes and without supers they will be in the trees before the main flow even starts. Some then throw additional swarms and will need to be broken down or combined. There will be no honey to harvest.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

When you search the studies done on varroa, and their population growth rate, you find that it has been known for years that allowing a colony to swarm, or to split a colony artificially, can prevent varroa from reaching damaging levels for as much as a year. In my area making nucs after the nectar flow and using drone brood removal/sugar dusting will give a honey crop and colonies that don't require added treatments.

The early studies done in Europe told us that varroa infested colonies usually stopped swarming in their second year because they were too sick to build the populations necessary for swarming.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

clyderoad said:


> Doesn't sound like that is what is being suggested to me.
> My experience says this is untrue


 as I read it

",* I am suggesting* an alternative approach that *enables bees to live more like they do in the wild, and (hopefully) to enjoy the health that I am finding wild colonies possess*. 
I am calling this approach “small-hive beekeeping” for it involves keeping colonies in one deep 10-frame Langstroth hive body for the broodnest and honey stores, along with one shallow super over a queen excluder for the honey crop. This housing arrangement has the following features:

1) the colony occupies a small nest cavity (like in wild colonies),

2) the *colony is likely to swarm *each summer (as do wild colonies),

3) the colony produces a modest surplus of honey for the beekeeper.

I think this approach will be attractive to beekeepers who do not want to treat their bees for Varroa, do not mind if their bees swarm, and *do not seek a vast quantity of honey from each hive of bees*"

"I have completed a 6-year study in which I have transferred swarm caught in bait hives into hives consisting of one deep, 10-frame Langstroth hive body with drawn combs, and have then left the colonies *alone*, most (80%) of these colonies survive each year."

for counter point, what do you feel he is suggesting and how is it different from my take on it ?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The Seeley proposal was broached at a "pie-in-the-sky" conference in Marin, Ca. (Mark Winston's proposal was to convert commercial pollination tasks to native bees).

To think the proposal would immediately shift beekeeping practice misses the context.

Seeley must know that a high percentage of hives "left to swarm" blink out -- as the secondary swarms carry away all virgins, and the hive is left hopelessly queenless.

He cites 80% year-over-year survival in his experimental trials. I believe he may be disingenuous in this percentage, in that some substatial portion would represent reoccupied dead outs.

In his model system, with 300 m spacing between single colonies, reoccupation would likely be less common.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Maybe Seeley can get away with this practice in the Arnott forest or the faculty lounge, but it will not work in my neck of the woods. In my humble opinion this brood break is only good for the treatment of mites when there is no brood present otherwise the inevitable collapse is just extended in time and all you have done is give the bees and the mites a half time break and the game just continues to its end.
Johno


----------



## orthoman (Feb 23, 2013)

The speakers at this conference were billed as the "Thought Leaders" --- really scary but not a surprise coming from Marin County


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

JWChesnut said:


> ...In his (Dr. Seeley's) model system, with 300 m spacing between single colonies...


Thanks for the correction, 300m is not possible for most of us.


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

My colonies live in 3 D plus 1 M (10-frame) high stacks; they are spaced practically on top of each other (sometimes literally when I'm making increase using Snelgrove boards); I practice quite assertive anti-swarming techniques (I've never had a single swarm of my own bees - only had one a week after a friend's hive arrived here); my hives make a lot of honey which they donate to my splits and they draw comb like maniacs.

And my year over year, or rather year after year, my any-cause loss rate has been exactly zero. (And I caught that swarm from my friend's hive and threw them in a box and they're still here, too, starting their second winter with me.)

What I do, however, is treat for varroa in a minimalistic way, using OAV in the early/mid-fall and during the winter broodless period, and occasionally MAQS in summer. I watch the mite levels as if my hives' lives depended on it (and IMO, they do) - I monitor in some way every week. (Note I am in northern NY, so that means I pull sticky boards on every colony, every week, all winter long.) Without the monitoring I would have to treat more often, or I'd be surprised by sudden crashes.

I am a backyard beekeeper (just 14 colonies at the moment), with only modest interest in harvesting honey. All my bees are originally from swarms. If I lost 20% of my colonies every year I would regard that as an abysmal failure of my husbandry skills, and probably give up beekeeping in discouragement.

Does anybody else think there is something topsy-turvy about this? Honey bees are an exotic species of human-managed livestock brought here from the Old World. Some of them may escape and became feral, which has undoubtedly been hard on the native pollinators. But Seeley is now asserting an idealized model of "beekeeping" that seeks to mimic the tenuous existence of these outposts of escaped livestock as they crash and burn on a regular basis. This seems to me to be the ultimate in bee-havery, not bee_keeping_.

If the bee-gods smile on me they will not allow any of my neighbors to take up beekeeping in the Seeley-way. It's OK for the Arnot Forest tract, however. 

Enj.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

JWChesnut said:


> I believe he may be disingenuous in this percentage, in that some substatial portion would represent reoccupied dead outs.
> .


I had been wondering about that as well, but bees in the box is bees in the box yes? at least if your treating the apiary as a whole 

ok so now that we are done defining what was claimed….. Time to talk about the reality of it..
Digging threw his 2016 publish (witch I assume is the force behind his proposal ) "Testing the Importance of Small Nests and Frequent Swarming" looking at the data on the 2nd read vs just the “findings”

Not impressed……..
he makes the statement 
“the large-hive colonies experienced significantly higher mortality (10 out of 12) than the small-hive colonies (4 out of 12): 

“4 May 2013, we found that three of the small-hive colonies had died over the winter, so we replaced them. “
“One small-hive colony also died in September 2013” 
“By-mid September 2013, this colony had lost its queen and had collapsed; its hive was nearly empty of bees.” Large hive
“Nine more large-hive colonies died between October 2013 and April 2014, as did 3 more small-hive colonies.” 

By my math over the 2 year study that’s 7 out of 16 small hives dead not the claimed 4 out of 12… either way that doesn’t back up his 80% survival rate claim… however that was with feral stock, a whole other debate…lol 
So by your 2nd spring you have had to replace 7 for the small hive vs 10 for the big ones

once you digest the data and methods, it feels like he set out to prove his theory, not to really do any research. We know swarming knocks back mites, we know that untreated most “large” hives will crash there 2nd spring, no news there. 

“we manipulated the large-hive colonies in ways that reduced their likelihood of swarming” “dispersing frames of brood among hive bodies (to reduce brood nest congestion), and destroying all queen cells (to inhibit swarming) found during the colony inspections.”
then goes on to say
“2013, however, fully 10 of the 12 small-hive colonies swarmed, but only 2 of the 12 large-hive colonies swarmed. Thus, the small-hive colonies exhibited a significantly higher frequency of swarming than the large-hive colonies”

WTF…. The hives he practiced swarm controls on swarmed less then hives without intervention….ok no news there… but hardly any basis to make claims as he is creating the result he wants to see in the small hive. I think most will agree the small hive WILL be more smarmy from their experiences, however the study does not prove that as there is no large hive control 

IMO there should have been a set of large hives under the same condition as the small (not managed or swarm suppressed) to see the difference in swarming between the 2 sizes., a set of each used to make increase (1/2 a shook swarm, ½ walk away) and a set of small hives managed for swarm supresstion


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

enjambres said:


> My colonies live in 3 D plus 1 M (10-frame) high stacks; they are spaced practically on top of each other (sometimes literally when I'm making increase using Snelgrove boards); I practice quite assertive anti-swarming techniques (I've never had a single swarm of my own bees - only had one a week after a friend's hive arrived here); my hives make a lot of honey which they donate to my splits and they draw comb like maniacs.
> 
> And my year over year, or rather year after year, my any-cause loss rate has been exactly zero. (And I caught that swarm from my friend's hive and threw them in a box and they're still here, too, starting their second winter with me.)
> 
> ...


In nature, high mortality is the norm even in critters than invest much in offspring. To think other wise is to anthropomorphize our own personal fears on the bigger picture. Life is mostly about death, with a few successes. With bees, in a natural setting, lots can go wrong. How many die because no habitat is available? But as long as the population is maintained and is able to reproduce, all is good.


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

After reading about a queen making it for seven years by being kept in a nuc (with limited space to lay), we decided to try it with our favorite breeder queen. We can't say how it works long term, other to say that she's apparently still going strong heading into her third winter. She has tried to swarm only once, which produced a nice daughter hive. We robbed multiple frames of brood from her during summer to load a queen castle and to supplement a weak hive. Odds are good we'll lose her soon, but we'll see.

Our new breeder queen is in the nuc next to hers, also doing well.

Both have very low mite infestation rates, and appear healthy and strong.


----------



## BigBlackBirds (Aug 26, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> Early spring qc's, which incorporates a brood break. If mite levels are high at all an oxalic drip at 20 days after queen removal will give you a good cleanup.


Hi Jim
What do you do with the single at the end of the season? My assumption is send it south as a single to get it ready to head to almonds but maybe not? Then turn most of operation back into nucs/singles after california for summer honey production?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

BigBlackBirds said:


> Hi Jim
> What do you do with the single at the end of the season? My assumption is send it south as a single to get it ready to head to almonds but maybe not? Then turn most of operation back into nucs/singles after california for summer honey production?


Yup. We typically run about 2/3rds singles and 1/3rd doubles through the summer and ship some of each for pollination. I'll leave it at that. Don't want to hijack the intent of the thread.


----------



## BigBlackBirds (Aug 26, 2011)

Thanks. Just running scenarios regarding what might be my best options for just keeping one semi load worth


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

"This wild resistance isn’t new, according to Thomas Seeley, an entomologist at Cornell and co-author of the study. Although it hadn’t been seen in the U.S. before, similar changes occurred in Africa and Central America, where even well-managed hives had been forced to evolve. “When it got into Africa, people were thinking ‘Oh my goodness, it’s going to wipe out the colonies, what can we do?’” said Seeley. “But they couldn’t do anything because they couldn’t afford the treatments, and now, nobody cares. They don’t worry about the mite at all.”

Of course, natural selection comes at a cost. *In order for the managed hives in North America to develop the same kind of resistance that researchers see in wild populations, a lot of bees would need to die and leave behind only those rare individuals with disease-resistant mutations. In time, those mutants can propagate and establish hardier populations. Seeley says that they have identified which genes have changed* — suggesting a possible answer to what Diana Cox-Foster, a pollinating-insect researcher at the USDA, calls the “million dollar question.”

“What makes these bees so much better when they get parasitized by varroa? Why is that?” said Cox-Foster. “If we could figure that out, that would allow for a great deal of selection on different genetic traits.”

Some researchers are now trying to artificially select for more resistant bees, but Seeley says that it might be a futile effort unless your insects are isolated. *When you have hundreds or thousands of colonies — like many commercial bee keepers do — any genetic mutations tend to get diluted in the larger population.* Unless you can artificially select the majority of hives for resistance, it’s like trying to sweeten a pool with a teaspoon of honey.

“I am optimistic,” Cox-Foster said when asked about the fate of honey bees, “but it’s still not a great situation.” T. Seeley

In my opinion Seeley wants more feral swarms to have a larger population of untreated bees, and therefore nature have a larger recruiting base to build more resilient populations. How to get more feral swarms? Selley thinks beekeepers should let their hives swarm. Commercials will hardly do so for obvious reasons. Hobbyists may not resist the idea so much.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

msl said:


> “we manipulated the large-hive colonies in ways that reduced their likelihood of swarming” “dispersing frames of brood among hive bodies (to reduce brood nest congestion), and destroying all queen cells (to inhibit swarming) found during the colony inspections.”
> then goes on to say
> “2013, however, fully 10 of the 12 small-hive colonies swarmed, but only 2 of the 12 large-hive colonies swarmed. Thus, the small-hive colonies exhibited a significantly higher frequency of swarming than the large-hive colonies”
> but hardly any basis to make claims as he is creating the result he wants to see in the small hive. I think most will agree the small hive WILL be more smarmy from their experiences, however the study does not prove that as there is no large hive control


I have had since 2003 small colonies in my home yard besides large hives, 30m apart. The small hives are so called Mini-Plus hives. http://www.golden-green.ca/bee-supply/mini-plus-nucs/
A small colony has about 1/4 of the volume of a large hive(or less). 

I have no statistics, but an overall finding (on large) is that losses are simular in both groups year after year. Maybe if there is some difference the small ones have slightly smaller losses. This has been surprising, since I presumed that they would have greater losses because of wintering difficulties. Large, normal, hives are 18 mm plywood walls plus black tar paper in winter, Mini-Plus hives are styrofoam.

But for instance a slightly poor queen may be enough for a mini hive, while the same queen in large hive would have caused death. Recently I have had serious problems getting enough quality drones, matings and therefore queen quality has been lately a major issue. My bees do not swarm, either too weak or I ´ll do something to prevent it.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Eduardo Gomes said:


> In my opinion Seeley wants more feral swarms to have a larger population of untreated bees, and therefore nature have a larger recruiting base to build more resilient populations. How to get more feral swarms? Selley thinks beekeepers should let their hives swarm. Commercials will hardly do so for obvious reasons. Hobbyists may not resist the idea so much.


I agree 100% Eduardo. That is exactly what Seeley is suggesting and offering the small hive idea and it's "success" in his trial
as a way to get it done by recruiting hobby beekeepers to help save the bees.
I say Seeley is long on talk with this and short on action. I say do it in a scientific manner, use the backyards of Ithaca as the lab and then report on it. But that wouldn't be "bold" or "audacious" or "cool" and probably wouldn't be worthy of a San Fran hugs all around green meet up.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Taking higher first winter loses in the SH than the LH which had none (these are my findings as well; larger hives winter better than small ones);

"*5 May 2013 Replaced 3 colonies in the SH *group that died over winter. Strengthened 1 colony in the LH group with 3 frames of bees and brood"

Removing q cells does not stop swarming but will cause hives to go queenless.;

"4 May 2013 Examined all colonies. *Cut out swarm/queen cells *in the *LH colonies*. Gave all LH colonies a 3rd deep hive body (1st honey super) containing frames of drawn comb"

"5 June 2013 Examined all colonies, *cutting out swarm/queen cells *in the *LH colonies*. "

One bees with DWV a month later the hive is dead cause it's queenless; 

"The first sign of disease in the 24 study colonies came in mid-August 2013 when *a bee *with severely *deformed wings* was spotted in a *large-hive colony*. By-mid September 2013, this colony had *lost its queen* and had collapsed; its hive was nearly empty of bees."

A bigger population needs more honey stores to winter? Removing stores in LH may impact winter survival?;

"28 Aug 2013 *Removed 1 honey super from each of the 12 LH *colonies and extracted the honey (219 kg)."

Removing mites with a sugar roll monthly in every hive, *this will effect overall mite loads in smaller hives more than it will in larger hives.* More percent of the nurse bees in SH will be cleaned of their mites;

"We made measurements of the mite infestation rate of the adult bees (mites per 100 bees) in each colony using the powdered sugar method" "we measured the mite infestation rate in each colony in the middle of *each month from May to October*."

*3 of the SH were replace *because they died first winter! And *at least one of the large hives was likely made queeless *by removing q cells! The numbers come out quite different 9 out of 12 mortality and 7 out of 12 mortality. These *3 newly added SH * don't have a year old mite ticking time bomb as the rest of the hives in the study, the low mite counts from these 3 hives would also corrupt the data in the entire experiment likely show that the SH have lower mites;

"so that in the end only 2 out of 12 large-hive colonies were still alive. In contrast, the small-hive colonies had relatively low Varroa infestation rates, did not show symptoms of high DWV infections, and had better survival with 8 out of 12 colonies still alive at the end of the study."

2 out of 12 large-hive colonies were still alive plus at least one that was made queenless put it at 3 of 12, and the 8 out of 12 small subtract 3 that were added put it at 5 of 12.

The difference between 3 of 12 and 5 of 12 is not significant. Considering the monthly powdered sugar roll may have effected mites populations in the SH more than the LH. Took stores from the LH only. And we already know brood breaks effect mite populations which SH were aloud multiple swarm (as Mel Disselkoen shows in his split and timing) Considering all LH had QC removed many were likely made queenless. The "Summary of treatments of the 24 colonies over the course of the study." only show what happened up to the first LH queenless collapse (Oct 13). What happened after that point?

They never tested wild colonies;

"Our results suggest that the small size of the nesting cavities of wild colonies is helping them persist, despite having infestations of Varroa."

IMO The only thing this study shows that treated bees will die after a few years of no treatment. Whether they are in large or small colonies if they get a brood break or not. Further more it is not practice to be left with 25-41% of your bees after 2 years. 

He has more work to do before he can come to that conclusion; 

Did not compare large hives forced artificial swarms (for the same brood break as small hives)
Did not compare small hives that are forced not to swarm. 
Did not compare commercial "Georgia stock" in this study but mentions it in the "Bee Audacious Public Panel discussion and Conference wrap up" but and implies that they may not be able to survive.
Did not compare feral survivor stock to determine if the genes make the difference. Pretty sure they have a better than 25-41% survival rate. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788434/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788434/table/pone.0150362.t001/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDkR7looBio


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

enjambres said:


> ...my year over year, or rather year after year, my any-cause loss rate has been exactly zero...What I do, however, is treat for varroa in a minimalistic way, using OAV in the early/mid-fall and during the winter broodless period, and occasionally MAQS in summer. I watch the mite levels as if my hives' lives depended on it (and IMO, they do) - I monitor in some way every week... If I lost 20% of my colonies every year I would regard that as an abysmal failure of my husbandry skills, and probably give up beekeeping in discouragement...Seeley is now asserting an idealized model of "beekeeping" that seeks to mimic the tenuous existence of these outposts of escaped livestock as they crash and burn on a regular basis. This seems to me to be the ultimate in bee-havery, not bee_keeping_.


What Tom is putting forth is not especially notable in the context of current practices. Many of the top bar hives I've seen are similar in size to what he's suggesting, and in the wild many many organisms experience a die off rate of more than 50%, and if they didn't, the environment couldn't sustain them.

Enjambres, I have read enough of your posts to know that you're as anal and attentive as a beekeeper can get, and your idea of 'minimalistic' when it comes to varroa treatment - one or two oxalic treatments, maybe some Formic, and weekly year-round(!?) mite count monitoring - even for 14 colonies - qualifies as some pretty hands on, full-time intervention. 

Seeley is talking to actual minimalists.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

psm1212 said:


> Instead, he found that the feral bees of the Arnot forest survived by multiplying (swarming)......I think Seeley would say that this is why feral bees continue to survive in stable numbers in the Arnot forest with no treatment for varroa, while kept bees seem to need some help fighting these pests....


I believe Dr Seeley also said that it wasn't just swarming that kept low mite counts, it was that the colonies were at least a half mile away from each other. Another reason is that the Arnot bees are feral and not managed by people (beekeepers).


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I could be all wet but thought he also said something genetic happened to the bees that was supressing mite breeding capabilities. I could be getting mixed up on who said what but know that I have read this recently somewhere and thought it was his stuff I was skimming over. I only skim cause lots is over my head and I don't want my head to explode by putting to much in it that I don't understand.
Cheers
gww


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

clyderoad said:


> A pie in the sky proposal. The rest of society in many locations will not stand for hives kept in this manner. To call it ''management" is a stretch.
> There are many techniques available to effect a artificial swarm and still keep the bees under control.
> This proposal is not forward thinking and may cause more regulation on the very same hobby beekeepers that he's trying to reach to revamped beekeeping laws. Maybe he should try this in his neighborhood in Ithaca and see how it goes.


 I agree. Seems like there would be quite a few neighbors getting unwanted swarms moving into their houses, becoming nuisence bees.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

So I have stumbled into something that can be verified so far.
To keep them in splits with adequate stores all season long. Even the
overwintering nucs will only have 4 frames in them though side by side with another queen. Now is the test for a tf operation by removing the infected frames to another nuc hive cleaning up the current hives for the early Spring expansion. In the mean time the nuc hives are growing steadily without the mites to bother them much. I prefer them not to swarm so keep on stacking those 5 frames nuc boxes on top to keep them growing and make splits out of them easier on queen rearing days. For splits just take the top nuc box off and give them a ripe QC or incubator emerged virgin. No swarming here for the last 4 years in beekeeping. This system will work on a hive expansion operation that you keep on making the 5 frames nuc splits. They don't even have a chance to make a swarm this way! It is possible with this model here and I'm doing it right now going on my 2nd seasons.
How strong are the bees now? One nuc hive already have 4 frames of bees back to back with new cap broods on the way. Very hopeful this coming bee season. The swarms will help the bees on a brood break both the swarmed colony and the 
reuqeened colony. It will take some time for the new colony to get established. By that time most mites will be off the young bees giving them a chance to be mite free for sometime. The hive that successfully requeened will enjoy a brood break as well allowing more time for the mites to die off a bit. From a beekeeper's perspective this might be more work and not too economical. For the bees it is good to increase their colony size to naturalize their surrounding. Since we only have a strong Spring flow and a moderate long Autumn flow with a yearly summer dearth, I'm going to interrupt their normal summer brood break by planting more pollen and nectar producing plants this season. This will take my little bee experiment to another level to further evaluate the mites and bees cycle here.


Fat winter bees:


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Just a small point: that health in wild colonies that Seeley observes is of course not colony health in the conventional sense. The swarm colony has the same queen, but not the same bees, and 80% of the time dies, an unnacceptable approach to colony health....the colony left behind is a new colony with a new queen. This suggests that the definition of "the colony" is shifting in these discussions.

Implicit in the "Bee Provocative/Audacious" lectures is sparking discussion via fielding outrageous or contentious ideas. I do not personally care for that approach, which generates a lot of anger and dogmatic rhetoric, and strikes me as anti-collegial in an age when we need to work together, share information and thoughtful innovation, and stand united against the enemy....and that enemy is not the bee genome as it stands, but the Varroa and their genome.

The most audacious idea seems to be: let's fund Varroa research, and eradicate these little suckers.


----------



## jonsl (Jul 16, 2016)

The most audacious idea seems to be: let's fund Varroa research said:


> Amen, something like BT for mites would be the ticket.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I wonder what all we are unaware of in Tom Seeley's thinking. I bet there is more to it than what we have been presented here. Not that anyone was being underhanded or misleading, just in that there is usually more to the story. Is what was laid out for us to discuss in the OP all there is to Dr. Seeley's premiss?


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

jim lyon said:


> It's essentially what we have been doing with a large percentage of our operation for quite a number of years.


Very good point Jim, You, me and countless others, most I know in fact. A point I breezed over in my initial reading of the reply's and 
deserves to be pointed out.
I wonder if Seeley talks with commercial type beekeepers about what may be going on in the fields as his bold idea seems out of touch and dated.
The swarming issue still sticks in my craw, seems irresponsible to advocate this approach to most hobbyists and a poor neighbor
policy for newcomers who consume anything bee without consideration and just follow along. I hope he knows better and just got caught up in the moment.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Is his plan a way to encourage beehavers? I get the idea is that this plan is something he sees being better for the bees than conventional (whatever that means) methods of colony management. The Nonmanagement Management Plan, perhaps.

In some Eastern European Countries, as well as Russia, specifically, a single deep brood box and honey production box is standard. No supers, just frame exchanges regularly. I wonder how that would compare.

Seeley mentions annual swarming. I would imagine that a colony managed in one deep and one shallow would swarm two or three times in a Summer season here in NY. Wouldn't that contribute to potential Winterloss numbers?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> Tom Seeley has an interesting idea for hobby beeks: tiny colonies...


dr. seeley is reporting the results of some scientific experiments he carried out and the implications those studies may have for smaller scale beekeepers who are relatively isolated and are interested in a treatment free approach. These findings are more thoroughly presented here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVj4A6F1D_s

The bottom line is that colonies that are spread out from each other, have smaller hive volumes, and successfully swarm have higher survival rates off treatments than similar colonies that are placed in close proximity, have larger hive volumes, and don't swarm.

dr. seeley acknowledges that given what is known about the horizontal transmission of diseases and pests among honey bees that the results of his studies reveal "no surprises".

he further acknowledges that for many if not for most beekeepers managing bees in this why may not be practical or even possible.

he talks about virology studies in which the less virulent type b dwv is predominate in the arnot forest feral population vs. the more virulent type a dwv is found in a near by commercial apiary.

he also references work by dr. marla spivak with respect to the heavier propilizing of the hive walls being beneficial. i had heard about that before, plan to revisit the topic, and may consider lining the walls of my hives with a 'propolis screen'.

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/22/3689


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> ...


I know what you mean. Me too.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

squarepeg said:


> he also references work by dr. marla spivak with respect to the heavier propilizing of the hive walls being beneficial. i had heard about that before, plan to revisit the topic, and may consider lining the walls of my hives with a 'propolis screen'.


roughing the inside walls with a tool like this looks like a more practical way to accomplish getting a 'propolis envelope' in the hive:

https://anthonyhaycabinetmaker.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-toothing-plane-a-tool-of-our-time/


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> I know what you mean. Me too.


 i accidentally hit 'post reply' before i was finished composing. happy holidays mark!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

fwiw, there are several beekeepers around here including myself who are achieving decent results off treatments and not using the 'small hive' approach.

our hives range in size from the space equivalent of 3 - 5 deeps depending on the time of year, and we have been about 80% or so successful at swarm prevention.

we also have our hives lined up on stands in the same way that most beekeepers do.

we are likely benefiting from having a viable feral population as well as having reasonably good separation from treated yards, and we credit our success on these good fortunes vs. anything we are doing or not doing from a management perspective.

i believe dr. seeley's findings confirm what most of us have already been suspecting, and might perhaps provide a path forward to those who are interested in working on developing resistant stock.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> i accidentally hit 'post reply' before i was finished composing. happy holidays mark!


The best to you too, squarepeg.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

squarepeg said:


> roughing the inside walls with a tool like this looks like a more practical way to accomplish getting a 'propolis envelope' in the hive:
> 
> https://anthonyhaycabinetmaker.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-toothing-plane-a-tool-of-our-time/


When making supers we use the wood with one side finished other side rough cut which encourages propolizing inside. Someone had mentioned that this type of hive setup that Dr Seeley was proposing might encourage beehavers, I think it was Mark? I believe a new beekeeper having this type of setup will quit after a year in frustration.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Cloverdale said:


> When making supers we use the wood with one side finished other side rough cut which encourages propolizing inside.


yes, that was one of the recommendations in the lecture. are you getting a pretty uniform layer of propolis on those inside walls?


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

How about spreading a thin layer of paint on the inside wall follow by a
layer of saw dust sprinkle on top? The uneven surface should encourage more propolis deposited. We now have
the particle paint that look like uneven ceiling surface. Maybe those can be use too for a hive experiment.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

squarepeg said:


> yes, that was one of the recommendations in the lecture. are you getting a pretty uniform layer of propolis on those inside walls?


Believe it or not it depends on the bees! Some are more coated than others, and this within the past year or so. Have a wonderful holiday. &#55357;&#56842;&#55357;&#56349;


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

A local shop is making these "swarm keepers", to here them talk they are a thing in Poland, and the ones from BM are to short and the swarm cluster can shut down the entrance to the mother hive
any way it made me think it could be a way to easly manage the escaping swarm down side to Seeley's consept


----------



## smallhiveproject (Sep 21, 2017)

Hello,

Have a look at www.smallhiveproject.eu.
I am the author of this hobbyist beekeeping experiment.
The hive I designed is even smaller than 42 L (26 L).
You are invited to follow the project (Newsletter) or to participate by building your own small horizontal hive.


----------



## PepperBeeMan (Apr 27, 2016)

This would be neat to do if you lived on a large property, like a ranch. You could take it a step further with skep hives, meant to just provide a dwelling. 

After a few seasons, your property would be full of feral bees. I think for most beeks, this idea isn't feasible or legal.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I produce 5 frame medium nucs (which are 16.4 liter internal volume). The small hive design posted above is for a 18.9 liter base with a single leaf added to the back), or an overall 22 liter volume. These seem so small as to be completely unstable --- my single medium nuc will go to swarm in a month, even doubling these as 5 over 5 medium will fill out and swarm before July. A hive as small as the proposed design would require breeding an entirely different bee, one that doesn't build up like the current queens.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

They will be good for breeding the sting-less bees with that size. Maybe a bit small for the
honey bees.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Hi author,
I´m living at the lake of constance. This hive is too small for beekeeping here.
A 4.5 kg swarm lodged in will fill this completely with comb in no time with a good flow and swarm again.
In my moderate climate bees sometimes don´t stop breeding in winter. In a box like that there is not enough space then for storage.
It would be better only to have the bees swarm once in season or they have no change to get strong again for overwintering.
Good for queen breeding though.
Your neighbors will not love you if you place such a small hive on your balcony and throw swarms all the time.


----------



## AR1 (Feb 5, 2017)

enjambres said:


> I think to judge the "success" of this method you must also factor in the likely loss rate of the swarmed colonies.
> 
> I think it's Seeley's own work (though I may be wrong about the source) that found that 80% of swarms in the wild in NY perished in their first year.
> 
> ...


To answer the question 'how is that a success for the bees'. A 50% survival rate overall means a stable population, exactly what you would expect to see in any wild population of any species. You'd get year-to-year swings in population, but over several years you should see 50% survival. Seeley is suggesting that wild bees can survive varroa under natural conditions just as well as they did pre-varroa, that is, 50% survival.

This is obviously not a solution for commercial or urban backyard beeks. But I can use it with my hives on the farm, where no one would care if they swarm. It is basically the direction I am going, except that I plan to control swarming via splitting since I want to increase my hive numbers. If I lost 50% every winter, this won't cause spread of disease because the bees and varroa and virus are dead in the cold (Northern Illinois). In the south I'd have to do something different to prevent spread of disease between colonies. 

This year I have one badly infected split, so I treated with Apivar both it and its neighbor since I still don't have enough hives to try Seeley's method. 

Seeley's plan is far from ideal, since it would only really 'work' for a small number of beeks, those with lots of hives, in rural areas, who are not commercial. But for that small group, why not?


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

@ AR1. 

Thanks for the well thought out analysis. 

We live in an area surrounded by lakes and forests, with relatively few people or farms. 

As Beeks focused on overall honeybee survival w/out treatments, Tom Seeley's recent revelations/insights have greatly inspired us, and has already changed the way we keep bees. 

We've generally kept colonies small (between 2 and 5 mediums), but try to split them all in the Spring before they swarm (not always successful), we let them make their own queens (usually successful) or transfer Queen Cells from bigger colonies. We don't use foundation (not since 2007), we rough up the insides of the hive boxes and if feed/pollen is needed, we 'open' feed, unless a colony is in trouble.

We lost 'one out of five' hives last winter and are going into this one with nine healthy colonies, effectively doubling this season. 

We harvested almost 10 gallons of honey this year and are Looking forward to next season.


----------



## CBQueens (Sep 13, 2017)

I met with an experienced beekeeper Saturday who is headed towards semi-retirement as a small scale vegetable farmer. She keeps bees only for pollination. Has about 20 acres of woody, weedy bee heaven.

She has 5 hives. Says she hasn't touched the bees in a few years. The colonies swarm in, and swarm out. She doesn't care if they live in her woods or her hives.

I couldn't open the box but they appear to be small, not booming hives. One or two boxes on each.

So this works for her because 1. She wants pollination, not honey 2. She wants to be semi retired hands off 3. The bees swarm elsewhere onto her property.

If my bees swarmed, they would prob be lost forever.


----------



## smallhiveproject (Sep 21, 2017)

JWChesnut said:


> [...] an overall 22 liter volume.


The volume is 26 L.


----------



## smallhiveproject (Sep 21, 2017)

SiWolKe said:


> I´m living at the lake of constance. This hive is too small for beekeeping here. A 4.5 kg swarm lodged in will fill this completely with comb in no time with a good flow and swarm again.


4.5 kg swarm ? good nectar flow ? Unfortunately, what you say is rather the exception than the rule


----------



## Swarmhunter (Mar 5, 2015)

BeePro- Would you elaborate on your methods of Nucs and singles- step by step. Thank-you


----------



## smallhiveproject (Sep 21, 2017)

SmallHiveProject News:

(1) Hive construction video on http://www.smallhiveproject.eu/?plans.html

(2) Tree mount construction video on http://www.smallhiveproject.eu/?hivestand.html


----------



## smallhiveproject (Sep 21, 2017)

SmalHiveProject news:

*HIVE REPORTS* are online at http://smallhiveproject.eu/?forum/viewforum.php?f=16


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

I'd modify the proposal to trying both small *AND* large colonies. The colony strength allowed by Jumbo brood boxes is phenomenal, the honey reward is substantial, and we do know that the division of labor in the bee hive is NOT linear, but highly biased toward more honey and pollen heavily favoring LARGE COLONIES over snall colonies and "natural" bees that can't find a decent hive space.

Yes, you CAN keep more colonies in small boxes, but why not have a few giant Bee Bombs as well? Big Box Beekeeping is amazing, especially starting with a 2-queen system.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

+1 - IF given the opportunity, I'd keep both small and large hives.
Small - to stay afloat long term.
Big - to harvest stuff short term.
Heck, if enough small hives are laying around, it is pretty trivial just dump together 2-3 hives when needed, and have a quick honey boomer. So, really, lots of small hives is good to have on stand by all way around.


----------

