# Small Cell Mite Counts



## JoshuaW (Feb 2, 2015)

Let me preface this by saying that this is my first year with bees. I started with three TF nucs in May, and they've built up to four 8-frame medium boxes (9 narrow frames each) on Mann Lake pf-120s. I started completely from scratch; no extra resources like nucs, drawn comb, etc. I did mite counts with the alcohol wash method in mid-August and found only one hive at 5% infestation. 

Yesterday (two and a half weeks later) I did another alcohol wash on a half-cup of bees (150 bees) and the numbers were: 

​Hive 1: I stopped counting after 22, but that was only about half the number of mites (probably 45-55 mites total)

​Hive 2: not a concern

​Hive 3: 8 mites / 150 bees (5.3%)

So my question is "Having started with the best scenario I could at the time (small-cell, treatment free bees to begin with), what other management techniques am I missing?"


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Just keep in mind, no one has a 100% survival rate. There will be some hives that can't manage the mites and will die. Put your energy into those that do well.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Rather than allow those colonies to die, when they start developing that "shabby" look and get the poor brood patterns, treat and requeen. Perhaps you will get lucky and get a queen with the genetics that will resist the viruses the mites transmit to the bees.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

University researchers who attempted to replicate the "rainbow and unicorn" claims of the vociferous advocates of small cell have been unable to duplicate the claims.

The internet promoters of small cell are exceptionally ambiguous and guarded about their actual real-world success. Comments this summer on Bee-L by independent observers that had inspected their apiaries in a recent autumn directly contradicted the advocates expressed claims.

If you assume the small cell claims are " big fish stories", I think you have your answer.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

AR Beekeeper said:


> Rather than allow those colonies to die, when they start developing that "shabby" look and get the poor brood patterns, treat and requeen. Perhaps you will get lucky


I think the key words are "Perhaps you will get lucky." In my experience, once you start seeing the "shabby" look, the hive is past the rebound point, no matter what you do.


----------



## VodoBaas1 (Mar 26, 2013)

I think small cell helps, doesn't mean that it's a silver bullet for varroa. I believe that genetics plays a big role as well.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Barry said:


> I think the key words are "Perhaps you will get lucky." In my experience, once you start seeing the "shabby" look, the hive is past the rebound point, no matter what you do.


I have had decent luck with treating and adding a frame or two of capped brood from another colony and then requeening. The healthy brood from another colony is key.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

JWChesnut said:


> University researchers who attempted to replicate the "rainbow and unicorn" claims of the vociferous advocates of small cell have been unable to duplicate the claims.
> 
> The internet promoters of small cell are exceptionally ambiguous and guarded about their actual real-world success. Comments this summer on Bee-L by independent observers that had inspected their apiaries in a recent autumn directly contradicted the advocates expressed claims.
> 
> If you assume the small cell claims are " big fish stories", I think you have your answer.


Did you see this from Cornell? http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/08/some-honeybee-colonies-adapt-wake-deadly-mites

Seeley's original interpretation of the feral survivorship of the bees in the Arnot Forest was that it was down to colonies spread out further and the adaptation of mites to be less virulent. Further research seems to be indicating adaptation by the bees as well including smaller bees. Smaller cells, produce smaller bees. Smaller bees may have shorter development times. Not causation, but it certainly warrants further study.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i might be way off base here, but i get the impression that jwc is frustrated because he has attempted all of the prescribed methods for managing bees off treatments but without success. his conclusion based on his experience is that all of the tf stuff is meritless mumbo jumbo snake oil and provides selected studies to support his view. what i find baffling is why such an obviously very intelligent individual wouldn't be more interested in exploring the host of other variables at play and attempt to get to the bottom for the discrepancy rather than spending all that energy lambasting those who happen to be seeing a different result than his.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Agree, Squarepeg. Most know by now the MO of JWC. I let it speak for itself.


----------



## VodoBaas1 (Mar 26, 2013)

Well said.


----------



## Karen of NH (Jan 30, 2014)

I don't think you are using the right equation. 1/2 cup of bees is approx. 300 bees not 150.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

JoshuaW said:


> Yesterday (two and a half weeks later) I did another alcohol wash on a half-cup of bees (150 bees)....


I also thought I should mention that a half cup of bees is ~300, not ~150. Hive 3 still looks in decent shape based on that.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The OP is looking at at 66% loss. The Marin Bee Club survey for TF keepers shows a 60% or greater loss. The data is consistent. Expect enormously high losses. Make up the losses by quickly dividing colonies and slurping up swarms. 

I provide a convenient punching bag for folks not wanting to acknowledge what the OP posted. I distract from the cold hard reality. Sorry to provide the distraction.

Now provide the OP with some real world solutions that don't involve starting over.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

I pulled a 4.9mm Mann Lake frame from a feral swarm (multi year bee tree) and place it in a nuc. This is capped brood. A few days later all but around 100 bees had emerged. So I popped the frame out and uncapped the remaining small cell bees to find something like 6-7 mites in the 100 cells.

This was one of a couple small cell frames in a colony otherwise full of 5.4mm Rite Cell.


----------



## ToeOfDog (Sep 25, 2013)

[This forum is for those who wish to discuss Treatment-Free Beekeeping, not for them to be required to defend it. There is no need to discuss commercial or other methods of beekeeping. There are multiple forums to address any and all subjects. Any post advocating the use of treatments, according to the forum definition of treatment will be considered off topic and shall be moved to another forum or deleted by a moderator, unless it is employed as part of a plan in becoming treatment free. Discussions of the definition of "Treatment-Free" will be deleted.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

JoshuaW, IMO, the mite counts you are reporting are not indicative of fully mite tolerant bees. I would approach this from the viewpoint that one colony is showing significant tolerance, a second colony is probably somewhat tolerant, and one colony is susceptible. I suggest getting 2 queens from a known mite tolerant breeder and requeen the colonies with mites. It is also important in this case to knock the mites back enough to give the bees a chance. If you absolutely must save the heavily infested colony, the queen has to be replaced and IMO, you will have to treat them, give them some healthy brood, and requeen them in that order.

Carpenter might still be able to ship. I've had good results from his queens. BWeaver's queens look very good so far. I have taken frames out of my 3 colonies with BWeaver queens and watched the bees dragging a larvae with attached varroa mite from a cell. I've seen the same behavior from my other bees so it is just confirmation that Weaver's queens are exhibiting desirable traits.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

To the op: Congratulations on having the good sense to approach your enterprise with objective information. Next season you will be explaining your successes and failures instead of asking why.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

zhiv9 said:


> I have had decent luck with treating and adding a frame or two of capped brood from another colony and then requeening. The healthy brood from another colony is key.


I'm not saying it can't be done, but one usually has to expend a lot of resources, sometimes at the risk of a setback from other hives, to save a hive that ends up being marginal, average at best. There comes a point where one learns to accept the loss and sees a greater value in putting resources into other hives.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> The OP is looking at at 66% loss. The Marin Bee Club survey for TF keepers shows a 60% or greater loss. The data is consistent. Expect enormously high losses. Make up the losses by quickly dividing colonies and slurping up swarms.
> 
> I provide a convenient punching bag for folks not wanting to acknowledge what the OP posted. I distract from the cold hard reality. Sorry to provide the distraction.
> 
> Now provide the OP with some real world solutions that don't involve starting over.


when adjusting for the correct number of bees in 1/2 cup it appears that only 1 out of the 3 hives is in trouble and may be lost, and if that's how it all plays out then that would be consistent with average losses across the board with or without treatments.

i remembered our discussion about marin county and went back and looked at the thread. it was actually a pretty good one with quite a few very good comments made:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-a-net-population-sink&highlight=marin+county

as i recalled losses were unusually high even for those treating there. my take away was that there were other factors involved, i.e. lack of experience, poor habitat, too many colonies competing for limited resources, pressure from migratory operations, ect.

i'm not looking for a punching bag. what i am hoping is that you might channel some of your energy and ingenuity into coming up with alternative hypotheses as to why the bees in your part of the country aren't faring as well as those in other locations.

it doesn't appear as though the op will have to start over, and as for solutions i think fusion_power provided a sound strategy.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>..."rainbow and unicorn" claims...

Are you capable of saying things without being insulting? Just curious if you possess that skill. If you do, I would appreciate if you would exercise it.


----------



## JoshuaW (Feb 2, 2015)

Great feedback! Thanks!

I should've mentioned that I re-queened two weeks ago with NWCs from Strachans (I shouldn't have done all three, but that was a newbie mistake).

I was wrong about my 150 bees (thanks Karen and zhiv9); still, hive 1 would appear to be on the "out". I figure it's worth testing for mites so I can make better decisions about which hives to rear queens from for splits. 

A few more questions:

1) Is it possible that small cells = smaller mites? 
2) I'm sure there are a few key management/manipulations that go into hives staying tf; genetics and small-cell seem to be key. Any more? What else might be easy to overlook? 
3) Does mite monitoring even matter in the TF world? (IMO it does or should)
4) What is the definition of "tolerant"? seems to me all hives are tolerant until it's too late.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

JoshuaW said:


> A few more questions:
> 
> 1) Is it possible that small cells = smaller mites?
> 2) I'm sure there are a few key management/manipulations that go into hives staying tf; genetics and small-cell seem to be key. Any more? What else might be easy to overlook?
> ...


1. No evidence of small cells = small mites. Recently published research from Indochina demonstrates that particular mites races are local to particular species when A. cerana and A. mellifera are in proximity and don't cross infect. Mites are inbred, the first sibling is a male that mates with his sister, only crossing occurs when two foundress mothers share the same cell. Mites on Africanized bees have been extensively studied in Mexico, and if there is a selective advantage to identifying drone cells, those mites would exhibit the greater selectivity behavior (and some evidence this is true). 

The Brazilian experience was a less virulent mite (the Japanese mitotype) was replaced by the Korean strain. The Korean strain is more fertile and virulent. All the experimental evidence is that mites gain in virulence, rather than becoming hypovirulent. This is because horizontal transmission (from collapsed colonies) benefits aggressive virulence.

I believe it is a strong hypothesis that the Korean (ie. Vladivostok) strain was selected for by interspecies competition when A. cerana and mellifera were mixed. A. cerana selected for a hyper-virulent form in a "Typhoid Mary" strategy, as it had better relative survival than the naive A. mellifera. That dynamic is also at play in a pure A. mellifera landscape -- the Africanized bees (and similar "survivors") have relative advantage over other races -- and competition for nest sites encourages virulence. This implies that the long-term landscape is for rapidly swarming wild bees and very virulent mites. Rapid swarming is a self-fulfilling selection, as long as new colonies can survive the winter.

2. If you want the bees to live long enough to select subsequent generations, then brood breaks, or artificial swarms will reset the colony population mite count to a "spring" baseline. Requeening 2x per year avoids the buildup of virus in the queen. Lots of documentation that the virus load on the queen (she is constantly fed with virus from her attendants) is a crucial determinant of survival. 

3. Breeding programs select against criteria. "Bond" style programs use survival year-over-year as the sole criteria. One will lose enormous -partial- genetic advantage with a "caveman" style selection. From the Strachan website::
Working with a diverse gene pool, our goal is to maintain careful selection protocols on our population of New World Carniolan Queens by using the Page-Laidlaw Closed Population Breeding Program. Annually, a new generation of breeders is instrumentally inseminated, established in full size colonies, and evaluated in the field. From these the top performing colonies are selected to establish the next generation. Selection is a continuous process and essential to maintaining and improving the desired traits of this population.​So yes, mite monitoring matters a whole lot in the real-world approaches. Contrast, the Solomon Parker experience, (he refuses to monitor), after 12 or so years of Bond selection he has seen the bulk of his genetic resources die off (for the third time). If you care about your germ line -- keep it alive so you can select the next generation from the best candidates. I firmly consider overwinter death in colonies is too random and contingent to be the sole criteria in an economic program of improvement. Parker has lost two or three years (to build out a breeding apiary) and if he imports new germlines, any internal selection gained is diluted beyond recognition.

In my own TF experimental apiary, I remove colonies and treat them (to salvage their value) when they manifest mite syndrome. The local splitting constellation remains the low-count colonies (not that the selection effects any improvement). Randy Oliver has recently published (on Bee-L) his mite counts on 150 hives in discrete apiaries of about 20-30 colonies. He describes a planned management of requeening the high count colonies. His data shows particular colonies with "spiked" counts in a lower count background.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

hi josh. those are good questions and as it turns out there doesn't appear to be a one size fits all approach that gives consistent results from location to location.

for example when it comes to cell size most of the comb in my hives was drawn on standard rite cell plastic foundation from mann lake. on the other hand there have been some who have gone with strictly small cell that didn't necessarily have success with it. what studies have been done on the subject seem to yield conflicting results. that said, i'm incorporating foundationless frames into my single deeps as i rotate the older comb out as part of nuc production. i am doing this to get more drone comb drawn as i want plenty of drones around during queenrearing season and i'm wanting to have less drone comb drawn out in the gaps between the boxes. i will continue to use the rite cell in the 4 to 5 medium supers that are above the single deep for durability during extraction, and during the spring build up those supers are where the brood nest is. i don't think that smaller cells = smaller mites. the observation is that mites prefer drone brood because the longer time the drone cell is capped gives the foundress mite longer to produce more offspring. having smaller worker cells shortens that time to a little less than it is with standard cells and it is thought that this may interfere with the mites' ability to reproduce.

another variable that may or may not make a big difference is whether or not artificial feeds (syrup) are used. many who are having success keeping bees off treatments allow the bees to keep enough of the honey they produce so as to not require feeding syrup back to them to get up to winter weight. the thinking there is that it is the viruses that are vectored by the mites that are the real cause for colony failure and an all natural diet may provide certain elements that help boost the bees natural immunity to those viruses. it could very well be that some locations have a measurably higher quantity and quality of field forage that would support this whereas other locations may be lacking in some of the essential elements. again, there are no solid studies that prove the point one way or the other.

many tf keepers don't take mite counts under the rationale that it's not going to make any difference in what they do or don't do anyway. i have been taking some more out of curiosity than anything. what i find is that my bees are tolerating much higher infestation rates than what is generally considered survivable. i think i'm for allowing a colony the opportunity to overcome an infestation, but draw the line by not letting it get so weak that it ends up getting robbed out thereby spreading the mites to nearby hives. turns out i've only had a few of hives succumb to mite failure since 2010. one of them was in the fall and i took it far away and shook it out. i later decided if that happened again i would just put the hive in the freezer and euthanize the bees and mites together. the others that were lost to mites went quiet during the winter months and so no robbing occured with them. most of my losses appear to be from queen failure occurring outside of the mating season.

my average losses are below 20% and i have incorporated queenrearing and nuc production into the operation. losses are very easy to recover from and surplus nucs get sold for a profit. i'm at about 20 hives, but i think staying sustainable would be possible with 10 - 12 hives. if you happen to be located where there are bees surviving in trees in the nearby woods your chances are much better, as that would indicate the environment is suitable and those feral colonies will be contributing genetics via their drones. good luck to you.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> Lots of documentation that the virus load on the queen (she is constantly fed with virus from her attendants) is a crucial determinant of survival.


i have suspected this as the cause for my queens failing (about 17% of them) between mating seasons. if there is a genetic substrate for being less susceptible to that i may see that number improving over a few more seasons. time will tell.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> "Bond" style programs use survival year-over-year as the sole criteria. One will lose enormous -partial- genetic advantage with a "caveman" style selection. From the Strachan website::
> Working with a diverse gene pool, our goal is to maintain careful selection protocols on our population of New World Carniolan Queens by using the Page-Laidlaw Closed Population Breeding Program. Annually, a new generation of breeders is instrumentally inseminated, established in full size colonies, and evaluated in the field. From these the top performing colonies are selected to establish the next generation. Selection is a continuous process and essential to maintaining and improving the desired traits of this population.​So yes, mite monitoring matters a whole lot in the real-world approaches. Contrast, the Solomon Parker experience, (he refuses to monitor), after 12 or so years of Bond selection he has seen the bulk of his genetic resources die off (for the third time). If you care about your germ line -- keep it alive so you can select the next generation from the best candidates. I firmly consider overwinter death in colonies is too random and contingent to be the sole criteria in an economic program of improvement. Parker has lost two or three years (to build out a breeding apiary) and if he imports new germlines, any internal selection gained is diluted beyond recognition.
> 
> In my own TF experimental apiary, I remove colonies and treat them (to salvage their value) when they manifest mite syndrome. The local splitting constellation remains the low-count colonies (not that the selection effects any improvement).
> ...


Majority of the original genetic material is lost in a small operation no matter what selection style is used. To use Page-Laidlaw Closed Population Breeding Program you need to have a large operation. Hundreds of hives anyway. 

In small operation there is a desperate need to requeen only from the very best material. There is not enough hives for salvaged queens and their genes. You need to have big enough sister groups from your best breeders to make sure they survive. I know this too well from my own experience. In small operation, there is always a battle going on: Shall I save this queen or not? Is this new queen better than the old one? If I don´t kill the old queen, where shall I find a place for this new one? ( I have solved this partly by having a small hive apiary to test queens.)

One needs to create a "treatment free drone zone". If this is not around your apiary naturally (in wild bees, not escaped swarms) you need to create it. If I remember correctly, some members on this form have done just this. 

Is Randy Olivers data somewhere else than in Bee-Line, can you publish it here?


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

Drone cells attract more varroa than worker cells. Would it be acceptable to use a drone comb frame in each brood box to attract the varroa to? Perhaps the bees would consider the drone brood as being expendable and would remove the pupa more readily than they might with it all being worker brood frames? Would it be acceptable in this forum to pull drone frames to destroy the cells and then put back in the hive?

I've read somewhere recently, but can't remember where, that having a drone brood frame in with small cell hives helped with varroa mite loads quite well.


----------



## ToeOfDog (Sep 25, 2013)

<<Would it be acceptable in this forum to pull drone frames to destroy the cells and then put back in the hive?>>

Ray: Thank you for having the common curiosity of not trying to just stir the puddin and asking what is acceptable in this subforum. Barry needs to do a troll count on this subforum and use coumaphos on the trolls. I'm sure there is a glass jar big enough. Just make sure its a sugar roll and not ether.<GG>

For the sake of this subforum the rules state:

Treatments do not include items considered to be manipulations or equipment including but not limited to the following:
Frequent queen replacement
Systematic splitting
Frequent replacement of comb/foundation
Small cell foundation
************Drone comb removal************
Screened Bottom Boards
Small Hive Beetle Traps
Honey Harvest
Pollen Harvest
Frame Manipulation
Hive Body Reversal
The Use of a Smoker
Sticky Boards
Any Method of Breeding

<< Would it be acceptable to use a drone comb frame in each brood box to attract the varroa to? and would remove the pupa more readily than they might with it all being worker brood frames?>>

Its called drone frame culling/removal. You pull a frame of capped drone cells and freeze them. The theory is all the mites go to the drone cells not the worker. It doesnt work as well in LC due to worker cell size.

<<I've read somewhere recently, but can't remember where, that having a drone brood frame in with small cell hives helped with varroa mite loads quite well.>>

I have five colonies. Last winter the favorite got mites. Last March 2015 they pulled a quarter frame of capped drone.It was the first drone comb of the year. I pulled it and did a mite count. 42 from 50 cells. This frame was replaced with a deep FL frame. Two weeks later it was drawn with capped drone. It was pulled and examined. One mite per 100. That was replaced with a FL frame and two weeks later it was pulled. No mites.

I have white inspection boards underneath the SBB. They are tight fitting oilpans. The mites started showing up on the favorite last January 15,2015. It was easy to tell they were there. The inspection boards are checked twice a week. There have been none since last March. My plan is to pull and freeze the first drone frames of the year from now on. 

Bees want a certain amount of drone cells. Why fight them? Give them a dedicated frame or two in the brood box just for drones. They fill them with honey when the drone urge passes.

***
Large cell worker bees emerge at 21 days on average. Small cell at 19 days. A medical doctor/large cell beek researching varroa and I discussed. When the new bee emerges all immature varroa dies. The first varroa matures at about 18 to 18.5 days. This makes it hard for varroa to exponentially expand in small cell worker brood cells. To survive they must go to Small cell drone cells where it is easy to catch and freeze them. 

<<Perhaps the bees would consider the drone brood as being expendable >> 

There is a body of thought by some in the small cell/natural cell world that in addition to stud service drones were meant to be sacrificial.


***
I kept LC bees for 10 to 12 years and kept TF SC the past 3 or 4. All I know is maybe all the gloom and doom will eventually catch up to me in the future. Maybe this is a unique situation. But right now my TF SC bees are vastly more desirable than the old LC's. There are just different techniques you need to learn. 

The main thing i learned was the filtering process. You cant turn the average south georgia package into TF SC bees. You have to filter the genetics.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

My mentor is a practical person, these are his instructions:

1. cut out a corner of 10% of the sc-foundation so the bees will have drone brood on every comb
why? as a mite trap, the mites don`t like sc-worker brood nests with beespace 3.2mm because it`s too warm for them and they go into drone brood as described above

2. look out for drones with defect wing virus, when the first ones emerge, pull brood frames with hatching worker brood and put it on the side or in the top deep so the bees will eliminate the drone brood and fill with honey
they do it themselves, he never takes out drone brood
we are happy if we have drones the whole year through (selection trait for us)

3. do everything strong, for splits use 3-4 brood frames, if they have no foragers, feed. Even feed, if they have foragers, so they will use more bees for cleaning
in his opinion survivability is a question of strength of hive

4. use locally adapted queens if possible
in his opinion, the bees want to raise their own queens , these queens are better because they had no laying break due to the mailing time 
bought queens are often superseded in the hives of our small SC-beekeeper-group 

5. only take surplus honey, if you have no flow, feed syrup with small amount of honey

6. never exchange comb or honey comb between different hives
every hive has his own microfauna and -flora
it is accepted to combine 2 colonies if they are too weak in order to save them
but they should be permitted to choose their own queen

7. make splits from the best hives, prevent robbery

8. never count mites, every hive has them, relax and trust your bees, only watch for DWV

in my area there are no feral bees or swarms, only escaped swarms (which cannot survive by themselves) from mainstream beekeepers
some old bee- houses we have in the forest, not cared for anymore, maybe there are some survivors established

i have yet to make my own experience in my yard, 4 of my hives requeened themselves this year, so these queens are adapted

everything could happen....


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

ToeOfDog said:


> Large cell worker bees emerge at 21 days on average. Small cell at 19 days.


You've measured this?


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

ToeOfDog said:


> Maybe this is a unique situation.


Not unique for Alabama seems to be the panacea for all honey bee ills.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

clyderoad said:


> Not unique for Alabama seems to be the panacea for all honey bee ills.


you may be right there clyde.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

ToeofDog; Controlled studies done in Canada on the development time of honey bees found that the range of development time for workers was 19.1 to 24.1 days, with an average of 20.1 days. The brood was in standard cells and kept at controlled temps. It is probable that many of the claims made for small cell is actually due to other factors. From what I have read, genetics and brood nest temperatures have much more effect than does cell size.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

http://www.king-cart.com/article.html


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I have finished doing 72 hour mite drops on the 5 colonies that I brought in from my Bond Yard in 2014. All of the colonies have replaced their queens from 2014, either by swarming or supersedure. Only one colony improved in the average number of mites dropped in a 24 hour period from September 2014 to this year. It reduced from an average of 81 to an average of 22 mites. The other 4 colonies are about 3 times their average in September 2014. Their averages per 24 hours are 79, 80, 204, and 266.

What I do find interesting is that even with the very large mite falls they are strong, each with 6 frames of brood of all ages that shows VSH but no symptoms of PMS. They all have filled the top deep with honey, and 3 had a full medium super. The flow here was not good this year, rain just as the clover started to produce. I am seeing many mites that are alive on the sticky board, as well as large numbers of immature mites. 

These colonies are from colonies started in 2006 with queens that were from a Buckfast mother, from Ferguson's Apiaries in Ontario, Canada. They were mated with drones from Russian stock. They are not small cell, they are on Pierco foundation, as they have been from the beginning.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

AR Beekeeper said:


> I have finished doing 72 hour mite drops on the 5 colonies that I brought in from my Bond Yard in 2014. All of the colonies have replaced their queens from 2014, either by swarming or supersedure. Only one colony improved in the average number of mites dropped in a 24 hour period from September 2014 to this year. It reduced from an average of 81 to an average of 22 mites. The other 4 colonies are about 3 times their average in September 2014. Their averages per 24 hours are 79, 80, 204, and 266.
> 
> What I do find interesting is that even with the very large mite falls they are strong, each with 6 frames of brood of all ages that shows VSH but no symptoms of PMS. They all have filled the top deep with honey, and 3 had a full medium super. The flow here was not good this year, rain just as the clover started to produce. I am seeing many mites that are alive on the sticky board, as well as large numbers of immature mites.
> 
> These colonies are from colonies started in 2006 with queens that were from a Buckfast mother, from Ferguson's Apiaries in Ontario, Canada. They were mated with drones from Russian stock. They are not small cell, they are on Pierco foundation, as they have been from the beginning.


How many colonies in your bond yard? What are the losses like in that yard? Is it self sustaining or do you have to keep making up the losses? Is it well isolated.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I started the yard in 2006 with 12 colonies on the edge of a National Forest. My home yard, 5 miles away, is the next registered yard close to it. The colonies swarmed, which I caught, and grew to number 20. They dwindled in number over the years, until after 8 years they numbered 6 hives. They received no management while they were in the bond yard. 

The colonies I brought home last year I made splits from them and the splits I manage to prevent swarming, the original colonies I feed as their only management. I clip the supersedure and swarm queens and collect the swarms from the original 5. I am leaving the original colonies mostly alone, pulling some larvae for queens, but little else. I want to see how long they can last. I have other colonies and nucs from which to make increase if desired.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

AR Beekeeper said:


> I started the yard in 2006 with 12 colonies on the edge of a National Forest. My home yard, 5 miles away, is the next registered yard close to it. The colonies swarmed, which I caught, and grew to number 20. They dwindled in number over the years, until after 8 years they numbered 6 hives. They received no management while they were in the bond yard.
> 
> The colonies I brought home last year I made splits from them and the splits I manage to prevent swarming, the original colonies I feed as their only management. I clip the supersedure and swarm queens and collect the swarms from the original 5. I am leaving the original colonies mostly alone, pulling some larvae for queens, but little else. I want to see how long they can last. I have other colonies and nucs from which to make increase if desired.


Great information, thanks. I have been considering setting up a similar yard. I am thinking I would need more colonies and expect higher losses due to the differences in climate.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

At the time I had 60-80 colonies, so I had bees to play with. Pick the best stock to start with, winter hard and with a lot of VSH, keep the area flooded with VSH drones. With your winters you should cull down to the toughest colonies rapidly.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

SiWolKe said:


> http://www.king-cart.com/article.html


A gem from this link and really all you probably need to know about it...
"Mites are a non-issue."


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jwcarlson said:


> A gem from this link and really all you probably need to know about it...
> "Mites are a non-issue."


Yep...that was as far as I read.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> Lots of documentation that the virus load on the queen (she is constantly fed with virus from her attendants) is a crucial determinant of survival.


I wonder where can I find such studies?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Juhani Lunden said:


> I wonder where can I find such studies?


Start with the bibliography of this research paper ---
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016217


Viruses Associated with Ovarian Degeneration in Apis mellifera L. Queens

Laurent Gauthier ,
Marc Ravallec,
Magali Tournaire,
François Cousserans,
Max Bergoin,
Benjamin Dainat,
Joachim R. de Miranda

PLOS

Published: January 25, 2011
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016217
Paper is open access download at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0016217&representation=PDF


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> Start with the bibliography of this research paper ---
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016217


From the conclusions:
"This suggests that the accumulation of viral particles in queen ovaries above a certain threshold may lead to the pathological symptoms we observed in some cases, although other factors could also be involved in this phenomenon, including as yet undescribed (viral) pathogens or the accumulation of chemical toxins through the large quantities of food ingested by the queen during its life and the presence of many chemicals residues in pollen [62], [63]. These additional possibilities require further investigation."

Ok, So this study is not about untreated hives, it is made with normal treated hives.
I made a mistake and thought you mean that the colony survival in TF beekeeping is with some studies found to be correlating with queens virus resistance. Which actually is probably the case, just nobody has done such a study with untreated hives as far as I know.


----------

