# Why Monitor???



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I did monitor for several years and I agree you may learn something in the process. If I had the time I would love to monitor what infestation levels are on small cell worker larvae and drone over the course of the year. In my experience often a colony would get bad before it got better. The numbers would go up and this would seem to motivate the bees in some way and then the numbers would go down. If you don't let the mites get bad this doesn't happen. Obsessing over counts can easily lead you down the wrong road and cause you to intervene when things were on the verge of resolving themselves...

Fetal monitors have become a "necessity" in labor rooms around the US. The mortality of babies in childbirth has not improved. The number of C Sections has skyrocketed... people often have too much information. "Blink" is a good book on the phenomena of too much information leading to bad decisions...

Here are a few Kirk Webster quotes on mite counting:

"We’re making the same mistake with our honey-bees. We’re trying to ensure the failure of modern bee-keeping by focusing too much on single traits; by ignoring the elements of Wildness; and by constantly treating the bees. The biggest mistake of all is to continue viewing mites and other “pests” as enemies that must be destroyed, instead of allies and teachers that are trying to show us a path to a better future. The more virulent a parasite is, the more powerful a tool it can be for improving stocks and practice in the future. All the boring and soul-destroying work of counting mites on sticky boards, killing brood with liquid nitrogen, watching bees groom each other, and measuring brood hormone levels—all done in thousands of replications—will someday be seen as a colossal waste of time when we finally learn to let the Varroa mites do these things for us."--Kirk Webster, http://www.kirkwebster.com/index.ph...thats-preventing-us-from-making-good-progress

"...all of these programs, as far as I know, are dependent on countless hours of peering into microscopes and counting mites on hundreds or thousands of sticky boards. Unless this is your favorite leisure time activity, it’s beyond the means of most of us who make all our living from bees in the ruthless American economic setting."--Kirk Webster, http://www.kirkwebster.com/index.ph...f-any-kind-putting-the-pieces-together-part-1

"And now I have another terrible confession to make. Not one as bad and un-American as passing up short-term gain and investing in the future—but still horrible: I have never yet counted even a single sample of mites from any of my bees. I consider counting mites as a way of evaluating Varroa resistance to be fraught with all sorts of shortcomings and difficulties. It’s very time consuming and hence the size of the apiary, the number of colonies tested, the gene pool, and the income available all start to shrink. It’s also very easy for the results to be skewed by mites migrating from other colonies or bee yards. And it doesn’t show which colonies are more resistant to secondary infections—a trait I consider very important.

"Other valuable traits can be lost by focusing too much time and energy on just one or two parameters. I also don’t enjoy employing people to do work I’m not willing to do myself. And let’s face it- this is a boring job. I’d rather spend that time propagating more colonies from untreated bees, and test them for survival and performance in the real world."--Kirk Webster, http://www.kirkwebster.com/index.ph...f-any-kind-putting-the-pieces-together-part-2

"It remains to be seen whether the bees now being selected by testing hygienic behavior, and by counting mites and Nosema spores—while still treating the bees—will someday be able to thrive without treatments..."--Kirk Webster, http://www.kirkwebster.com/index.php/collapse-and-recovery-the-gateway-to-treatment-free-beekeeping


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

I do (very reluctantly) treat my hives because I am a new beekeeper and I haven't got the epxerience, yet, to be confident that I am raising healthy bees in thriving colonies. My bees are all from "feral-ish" stock, meaning they were just bees living in my barn walls that were cut out and hived. 

But even if I didn't treat I would always monitor, if only to know what was going on inside my hives. You can't ask your bees how they are feeling, so you have to do what you can to find out in other ways.

I laugh whenever I see someone write: "I know I don't have mites because when I look at my bees, I don't see any mites."

I think lack of monitoring is partly laziness, but mostly wishful thinking reluctance to confront the possibility that one's hives may have problems. And once you know you have mites the question becomes, what you going to do about that, if anything. That's where it gets tough.

Just ny two cents.

Enj.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Once one becomes proficient at testing you will understand that it is quick, easy and inexpensive. The results provide information to do with it as you will. Perhaps it will steer people away from being pressured to treat if there is no real need, that would be a good thing I would think. MB is correct in that you have to have some idea what the data means in relation to the time of year and the amount of brood in the hive. My only observation is that it surprises me that most TF folks don't seem curious about mite levels and how it may or may not relate to success or failure of a given hive.


----------



## stan.vick (Dec 19, 2010)

I treat the apiary near my home with Apivar because I sell bees off those colonies and the state of Georgia tells me I have to treat prior to selling bees. I don't count the mites, I don't treat throughout the year. I have a fifteen colony apiary in the swamp that I don't treat or feed, I seldom visit, except to take brood combs to raise more queens. I don't think we will ever cure the mite problem, I do think evolution will enable the bees to find a way to co-exist with the mites and we take that solution away from them by treating them. We all need to draw our gene pool from the bees that have not been treated. JMO


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

I need the information about mite levels when choosing breeder queens. All hives with 2 year old, or older queens are monitored. 

If, for some reason, younger queen is coming to breeding it is monitored for interest, though it is mainly for curiosity, because the reason for breeding is something else than good recorded performance (last of the sister series, just imported new material etc.)

The rest of the hives are not so interesting. From 300 bee sample, breeder queen should drop less than 15 mites. Over 30 mites per 300 bees will make the colony restless and angry.

Earlier when I counted mites from every hive, there was a good correlation between mite load and winter losses.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

Counting mites/quantifying mite load levels - does seem pointless. Mites, nor anything else, except robbing of small nucs, has ever caused me colony losses. Sure, I see a few mites from time to time, I also see sick brood, and a few with DWV. I am well aware that Varroa mites are ubiquitous. 

I do admit to being lazy. I think that lazy helps me to be more efficient. I don't count pests/parasites: neither AFB spores, nosema, or anything else.

"As to which hives die over winter or fail to build up in the spring." None. So tying hive losses to mites would be an impossibly tricky thing. So far the only losses of full size nucs or colonies has been limited to those I sell or trade.

I examine my hives quite frequently. It is the main reason I even keep bees. In my last inspection I noticed one colony exhibiting symptoms of PMS. I see that in a few colonies, every other year or so. When I first spotted PMS symptoms, they caused me great concern. I once had two hives, side by side, that I though were going to be goners. Then I checked them again, a week later, and I could find no evidence they had PMS a week earlier. PMS always seems to present, this way.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

If you are of the mindset that it is best to do nothing and let the bees work it out that removes a lot of the reason to monitor mites. Not knowing removes the temptation to do something and I guess in a way it eases the conscience when colony losses occur. Personally I dont think it is a given that the bees will work things out in a manner that is going to be satisfactory to our general consensus. As we increase our understanding of the mechanisms of resistance or tolerance we could accelerate the selection process. Since there is not likely to be one "best" bee for all geographic locations or purposes it may take some specialization. Can the bees be expect to simultaneously adapt to a myriad of conditions? I think that is very much wishful thinking. 

Without monitoring a situation we are often guessing and observations made upon a hunch are very open to the criticism of lack of objectivity about cause and effect. _It is very hard to access funding without being able to project an orderly, documented and controlled process_. The lack of funding for concerted effort puts the experiment then into thousands of individual back yards.
Without documentation ones work cannot build upon that of others! Accepting someone else's opinion unfortunately can cause some long trips down blind alleys.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

Treatment free and management free are not the same thing. I have never actually used a chemical treatment on my bees, but constant monitoring lets me see which management technique works and which doesn't.

I had a hive that had been queenless for 1 week that had a 48 mite drop in 24 hrs. Yesterday (2 weeks later) that same hive had only 22 mites on the board. The next door hive, which has a deep and 3 mediums had a 63 count yesterday. I have just started putting apple cider vinegar in their food. If that doesn't lower the drop in 2 weeks, I will use oxalic acid. (don't tell on me.) That will the most drastic treatment I have used.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Fetal monitors have become a "necessity" in labor rooms around the US. The mortality of babies in childbirth has not improved. The number of C Sections has skyrocketed...


Fetal monitors have been heavily used in l&d for decades. They have helped clinicians make informed decisions impacting the health of mothers and newborns countless times during those decades. I think you might want to keep to a subject that you know something about.....and this isn't it.


----------



## estreya (Apr 20, 2014)

Dsegrest, i'm intrigued! Apple cider vinegar helps with mites, you think?

I've put a few drops in the beebath from time to time, when inclination strikes, but if it's more beneficial that i thought, i'll surely do it more often!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>They have helped clinicians make informed decisions impacting the health of mothers and newborns countless times during those decades.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the numbers won't support it.

Try a search on:
fetal monitors and c sections

And read some of the 2 million hits that come up...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> And read some of the 2 million hits that come up...


I love it when people take a narrow piece of research and attempt to apply it to a broader application. You should stick with what you understand.
PS overuse of c sections in this country are driven less by too much information but instead by excess litigation.


----------



## Duncan151 (Aug 3, 2013)

beemandan said:


> I love it when people take a narrow piece of research and attempt to apply it to a broader application. You should stick with what you understand.


Really Beemandan, you are going to make that statement here, on beesource? :lookout:


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

I have no reason to count mites in my apiaries. The inspector checked my hives for mites and didn't find any. You're genuinely welcome to come count them if you would like. Please keep any you find and feel free to come back and do it again. I would not enjoy counting mites or treating. I do enjoy getting honey, grafting queens, watching bees, and reading the works of longstanding, and even recent, bee masters. I also like to ride bicycles, tie flies, work on cars, do woodwork, and ride a little motorcycle. Some people even like to translate the Bible into the language of indigenous North American tribes. You do what you enjoy. You are even welcome to suggest that I count my mites. I'll let you know if it does any good. I hope the best for you, but I don't care whether we have consensus. Cheers.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Duncan151 said:


> Really Beemandan, you are going to make that statement here, on beesource? :lookout:


Yeah....it's just as entertaining here as it is in the rest of the world.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Seems like we got drawn off by a red herring or was that a strawman?  Here was the gist of the thread Why Monitor? "if your not going to treat, you don't need to monitor mite levels."


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

beemandan said:


> I love it when people take a narrow piece of research and attempt to apply it to a broader application.


It is very common these days. People think Google knows everything and is objective. Google search results are all subjective, because they are personated according to the user.

Back to the topic:


Michael Bush said:


> "Other valuable traits can be lost by focusing too much time and energy on just one or two parameters."


Traits are lost all the time, when doing selection. TF beekeeping is selection. Knowing mite loads is not the reason for that, knowing more of your bees is always good. I think someone denying this is lazy.


----------



## ApricotApiaries (Sep 21, 2014)

Thankyou everyone for your feedback. Some great discussion. 
To clarify, the main question is Why monitor -or- Why NOT monitor? it doesn't take much effort really, and we could all learn alot. Or If you do monitor, why do you chose to do so, even if you are not going to treat. In my humble opinion, i think we have a great deal to learn as beekeepers by collecting data, as well as understanding the overall "feel" of things. 
Mr Bush, thankyou for the input. I wholeheartedly agree that general survivalship, health and rigor should be our primary considerations for selection as opposed to narrow, focused traits. To illustrate this, Bob Danka showed some great data at the Oregon meeting (in conversation, not during his talk) last fall in which one trial they selected for hygiene and tested for mites. In another trial they selected for mite survival and tested for hygiene. The survival stock inevitably selected for hygienic behavior (as well as other mechanisms not discussed). The hygienic stock did not necessarily poses mite resistance. 
Additionally, I have found mite count data to be rather fascinating. As MB mentioned, the counts can get rather high before the bees are pushed to clean them out. I have seen this as well, but only because of monitoring mite loads. And personally, knowing that part of the mechanism gives me much greater faith in letting mite levels build up. We saw a hive clean up from 20% infestation to 4% infestation. Is this similar to the high loads you have seen bees turn around from?? 
Lastly, we can all learn an immense deal from Kirk Webster. He is one of my beekeeping hero's. And while he does not monitor mite loads, he also has years upon years of experience under his belt and an amazing understanding of his critters. This means that he has been able to interpret the overall change in hive character over the course of his stock development. Meaning, the depth of his observations go well past survive or die, win/lose. When I heard him speak last summer, he said very clearly that it took him a while to get used to what he was seeing, a very long slow spring buildup, an explosion just before the main honeyflow, and some fall shutdown not being uncommon. My understanding is that Kirk recognizes increased nuc production mid summer to be the backbone of his overall system, allowing a great deal higher resilience than a simple live and die methodology. 
So with that said, it still seems to me that monitoring mite levels has some value. Even if you are not using the data yourself, someone else might. But it is always a matter of personal choice. Lets keep the conversation going, keep it civil, and hear some good ideas... And I would like to add in a second question for the table, "If you do monitor mite levels, what are the highest mite loads you have seen your bees recover from?"


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

ApricotApiaries said:


> So with that said, it still seems to me that monitoring mite levels has some value. Even if you are not using the data yourself, someone else might.


TF beekeeping is in its early stages. Very often we here questions from treating beekeepers like "How much there are mites in your TF bees?" "How do you know they are resistant?" How do you know it is not just the system, which makes them survive?" "How do you know it is not just the mites which have changed?"

People are sceptical, and that is a good thing. TF beekeepers are pioneers. If we are not able to answer to these questions and convince sceptical treating beekeepers with heaps of knowledge what our bees do and why, there is never going to be a change. The only way to answer these basic questions is to make some research with your own bees and do some counting. I´m not saying you need to monitor them all.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

Juhani Lunden said:


> TF beekeeping is in its early stages. Very often we here questions from treating beekeepers like "How much there are mites in your TF bees?" "How do you know they are resistant?" How do you know it is not just the system, which makes them survive?" "How do you know it is not just the mites which have changed?"
> 
> People are sceptical, and that is a good thing. TF beekeepers are pioneers. If we are not able to answer to these questions and convince sceptical treating beekeepers with heaps of knowledge what our bees do and why, there is never going to be a change. The only way to answer these basic questions is to make some research with your own bees and do some counting. I´m not saying you need to monitor them all.


:applause:Well said Mr. Lunden


----------



## reminniear (Apr 7, 2014)

Ya might think I'm a bad beekeeper, but I do not monitor mites. My bees are a hobby, not a profession. They seem to do relatively well with or without me.

Many professional treatment free beekeepers (Michael Bush and Wyatt A. Mangum, Ph.D. just to name 2) have already done years of mite counts and people are still skeptical. There is absolutely nothing that I, as a hobbiest, could do with mite counts that would make a skeptic any less skeptical.

On the other hand, there is plenty I can accomplish with the additional time that's not spent fretting about mites. I'm growing to love building new hives


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

reminniear said:


> Many professional treatment free beekeepers (Michael Bush and Wyatt A. Mangum, Ph.D. just to name 2) have already done years of mite counts and people are still skeptical.


Can these results be found somewhere?


----------



## Tyson Kaiser (Nov 28, 2012)

Juhani Lunden said:


> TF beekeepers are pioneers. If we are not able to answer to these questions and convince sceptical treating beekeepers with heaps of knowledge what our bees do and why, there is never going to be a change.


Considering how much pressure there is to "prove" the validity of TF from skeptics, having some data on hand to counter at least the most spurious of accusations ("TF beekeepers are the anti-vaxxers of beekeeping") might seem like a handy thing. While I might feel no _personal_ requirement to counter specific claims, a TF breeding program could certainly use some documentation to verify claims of hygienic and resistant traits in a transparent and accessible manner. Mite counts would be the most simple and basic way of communicating success in selecting for varroa tolerant behavior, which in turn could lead to greater acceptance of TF regimens towards commercial sustainability.

Hobbyists shouldn't feel the need to prove anything, much less spend time and effort assessing the mite loads of a few hives.


----------



## reminniear (Apr 7, 2014)

Yes, the results/conclusions are readily available. For Michael Bush, read his website and buy his book. For Wyatt A. Mangum, Ph.D. buy his book and read his website. 

Now if you are looking for the complete raw data from which their conclusions were derived, then you will probably need to contact them directly. But if you are skeptical of their results and conclusions, then you probably will be skeptical of their mite research.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i think i'll join ramona who posted in the other thread that she was going to get some mite counts on her tf colonies. i plan to sample my oldest ones after i'm finished with the honey harvest.

the only count i've ever taken was to see if a severely dwindled colony (only a couple of handfuls of bees and the queen remaining) was infested and it was indeed (nearly 100%). it was obviously a goner and i took them away and shook them out.

i agree that it will be interesting to see what type of loads my colonies are tolerating. i also agree that it isn't really necessary to sample if one has decided to allow nature to take its course and winnow out the losers in favor of the winners. in the few years since i started i am already seeing that the winnowing process has resulted in improvement in the average strength of my colonies across the apiary, i.e. dinks are becoming rare for me.

the one case where i would want a count for management purposes would be if i were combining weak hives in the fall. i would want to know if one or the other was weak due to a high infestation and if so i wouldn't do the combine. so far i haven't found myself in that situation.

i think that it's a good idea for all beekeepers to adopt making increase as part of their program. i have found making nucs enjoyable and profitable. this is especially important for those who are planning on taking losses in a tf environment as it's not as painful when you can produce more than enough new colonies to replace the lost ones.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Tyson Kaiser said:


> Hobbyists shouldn't feel the need to prove anything, much less spend time and effort assessing the mite loads of a few hives.


In my opinion, the importance for hobbyists isn't about 'proving anything'. It is about knowledge. If you test and your infestation is high....and your colony collapses during the winter, you can safely assume that mites were a factor. If you hive comes out of winter booming....then you know your bees can tolerate a high mite load. Why wouldn't a beekeeper want to know this????????


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

It is about knowledge, Dan. I had 4 mite samples taken in June, done by the State Inspector, that averaged 9 mites per sample. That's how they were reported to me. What wasn't reported to me was how many bees were in the sample. 

When the Inspector was here yesterday he did two samples again. One showed 17 mites and the other 13 mites. But this time, being there, I saw how many bees he collected and it looked like about 200 bees. So if he took similarly sized samples back in June those samples would mean a 4.5 mite percentage. Which, in June, in my opinion, is not bad. Certainly a smaller percentage would have been nice and one sample had 4 mites in it, so 2 mites per 100.

I had applied one MAQS (formic acid pads) almost a month ago. So my mite loads a month ago must have been higher, I assume. I should have checked before applying MAQS. I have two jars and a can of ether in the truck now. And when I go out tomorrow I am going to check some hives in each yard and decide on treating. I have the Amitraz type strips to apply and I have a couple buckets of Apiguard yet to use.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> It is about knowledge, Dan.


I still find myself excited about beekeeping. Make no mistake....some days are a grind but....trying to understand the dynamics of the colonies and how they interact are fascinating....to me, at least. Whatever a beekeeper does....treat using different methods or buying survivor or hygienic or Russian queens or collecting local feral stock....I cannot fathom a lack of interest in knowing how well the choices work. I can only suppose that those who choose to stay uninformed are cut from a different cloth.....a cloth beyond my comprehension.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Some times one simply figures that mites are always there and the window of opportunity to do something about them may be restricted, so does one check or simply treat? Well, I am coming to believe again that checking before treating and checking after, as has always been recommended, is a good idea again.


----------



## Tyson Kaiser (Nov 28, 2012)

beemandan said:


> I cannot fathom a lack of interest in knowing how well the choices work. I can only suppose that those who choose to stay uninformed are cut from a different cloth.....a cloth beyond my comprehension.


I have an associate that not only believes in meticulous written record keeping, meaning a journal for every interaction with bees, that she cannot understand why everyone else wouldn't do the very same to the point of deriding those who don't do as she does. I certainly see the benefit of doing so but everyone approaches beekeeping in their own manner. Learning isn't a rote passage where one method works better than any other for everyone. I'm sure there are plenty that come to very serviceable conclusions about their TF regimen that may not satisfy you, or many people, but that doesn't make them less a TF beekeeper. 

I'm for monitoring, for the record, but I can see why many wouldn't see this as a primary responsibility depending on what they wish to do with beekeeping. It's their bees after all.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Tyson Kaiser said:


> I'm sure there are plenty that come to very serviceable conclusions about their TF regimen that may not satisfy you, or many people, but that doesn't make them less a TF beekeeper.


I certainly don't think everyone should keep bees the same way I do. I don't care what kind of records they keep. I don't think doing things my way makes anyone a better tf or conventional beekeeper. As with many things in life, if I try to 'do it' a different way, I want to see if the new way was better than the old. And maybe that's just my weirdness....and a personal weirdness that I don't understand lacking in others.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Can these results be found somewhere? 

I only counted them myself for two years to see if small cell/natural comb was doing anything. When it was hard to find mites to count, I quit. What is online is the state inspector's yearly inspection so I can ship queens.

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


----------



## bevy's honeybees (Apr 21, 2011)

beemandan said:


> I love it when people take a narrow piece of research and attempt to apply it to a broader application. You should stick with what you understand.
> PS overuse of c sections in this country are driven less by too much information but instead by excess litigation.


I have worked on a mom baby unit for 4 years (post partum; labor floor separate from us). I am not an RN but the things I know about C-sections and common reasons they are done, I cannot talk about here as this is a public forum and I need my job. I personally had home births for my 2 children and after all I've learned at my job, I'm so glad I did! 

I do not monitor mite count. I have some losses this year and I believe they were from queen failure, and/or weak hives robbed out. The 3 were not strong hives to begin with. I don't see any reason to mite count when I'm not going to treat anyway.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

bevy's honeybees said:


> I believe they were from queen failure, and/or weak hives robbed out. The 3 were not strong hives to begin with.


Why do you suppose those hives were weak? One of the classic symptoms of varroa infestation is a lack of colony vigor. 
I spent hundreds of hours in labor units during the late 90s. During that time I saw numerous bad decisions but I never saw one that was a result of too much information.
Good luck.


----------



## thehackleguy (Jul 29, 2014)

beemandan said:


> PS overuse of c sections in this country are driven less by too much information but instead by excess litigation.


Where I work almost everyone having a c-section is so they can "plan" the date.....Seems stupid to me. Sorry I know this is supposed to be about mites :scratch:


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I, like most self-reliant folks my age, have known a great many families that aspired to "natural" childbirth.

I, as a fortunate North American, assisting the third-world poor have known many families that had no access to labor and delivery services due to their crushing poverty.

I personally know of two States-based home-births gone horribly wrong, resulting in irreversible cerebral palsy due to apoxia and birth trauma.

I know of several third world deliveries that resulted in irreversible damage and death (of mothers and infants) due to birth trauma.

Bush's callous statement is typical of his high-handed dismissal of risk. Birth is a fraught process, and bringing healthy children and surviving mothers benefits from knowledge.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

IF you are a TF beekeeper, and decide to do mite counts, will the knowledge gained change your methodology? If you find high mite counts, are you going to then treat to knock them down? Or are you doing a study or simply seeking to learn? I think it is relevant to decide WHY you will do mite counts if you are TF.

TF beekeeping is at least 10 years old now. If people read Mike Bush and others like him who have done the work and revealed the results, and they are not believed, why is anyone going to believe me? Personally I have given up trying to prove it works. I simply report the results from my labors and my bees. I do not do and have never done mite counts, and probably (never say never!) never will. For ME in my operation it is a waste of time. I bought and tested several types of TF bees and continue to use the ones who worked best in my operation. I raise queens for my own use from my hives. 

Now, and this is crucial here, I believe and operate on the assumption that my bees have mites! Mites are always a factor in a colony, whether it fails or not. When I do my walk away splits and/or raise some queens, I always do so from a hive that is robust after one or two winters. That way I suspect the genetics are there to suppress the mites and deal with all the other stresses to which bees are subject. Being a back yard hobbiest, I do not have to be a scientist, or expert, I just have to be a good beekeeper practicing good animal husbandry. I do my dead level best to be sure the colonies enter winter in robust health with plenty of stores. And I try to start off with good stock.

The interesting thing of it is, :lpf: we are still discussing (arguing) the same things as we did ten years ago, before this forum became a separate part of the Bee Source Forum. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Regards,
Steven


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Bush's callous statement is typical of his high-handed dismissal of risk.

Wow! It's a good thing you don't want to make this personal... I've been watching the infant mortality rates and risks of mothers and babies across different countries for more than four decades now. I guess that is callous? I guess that is a "high handed dismissal of risk"? I think you should look at them. We (the US) are the 39th safest country for maternal deaths. Or to look at it another way, there are 38 countries where it is safer. Italy had 3.9 deaths per 100,000 in 2008. The U.S. had 16.6. It is 4 times safer to have a baby in Italy...

Here is a list of maternal mortality rates by country:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

The US is 39th. Here are all the countries where it's safer to have a baby than the US:
Italy, Sweden, Luxembourg, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Israel, Malta, Canada, Spain, Japan, Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Iceland, Finland, Poland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, Albania, United Kingdom, Greece, New Zealand, United Arab Emirates, Serbia, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, France, South Korea, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Qatar, Taiwan Province of China, Singapore, Lithuania 

And the trend is that it has been rising. In 2003 for the first time in decades it had risen above 10. By 2004 it had risen to 13. By 2008 we were up to 16.6.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


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



If the bee inspector cannot find any mites in sugar roll test, from 12 hives, the situation is very good, better than most treating beekeepers, 

or was 2004


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Juhani Lunden said:


> If the bee inspector cannot find any mites in sugar roll test, from 12 hives, the situation is very good, better than most treating beekeepers,
> 
> or was 2004


It should be noted these counts were all done in the spring when brooding is heavy, and the method used in the majority of tests were "visual" (not sure what that means). I do note the most recent test was in the spring of 2014 when an ether roll count yielded 2. My personal opinion on spring counts in a heavily brooding hive is that they don't tell you a heck of a lot, it's a "target rich" environment for a phoretic mite at a time when seasonally mite counts are at a low ebb. I still test my breeder hives as part of our selection process but it seems almost a waste of time. This past spring 38 of 40 ether rolls tested negative. By September 1 counts in those same hives were running 5% and over.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

My best breeders had about 2% infestation just before apple blooming. But this was a bad year, or a good year for the mites, some treating beekeepers lost hives in the middle of the season.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> Some times one simply figures that mites are always there and the window of opportunity to do something about them may be restricted, so does one check or simply treat? Well, I am coming to believe again that checking before treating and checking after, as has always been recommended, is a good idea again.


I couldn't agree more. I had high counts in early August and treated then only to find high counts again 4-5 weeks after treatment. I was glad that I did a follow up check. Its has been an unusual season with continuous brood rearing from spring to fall and almost always a little bit of a flow and no dry spell. It has caused a lot of swarming and seems to have been very good for the mites.


----------



## Tim Ives (May 28, 2013)

Why monitor? Getting paid to do so...


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I'd go for that! In fact, I have offered repeatedly, but nobody will pay me.


----------



## GreenWay (Mar 30, 2014)

What a great thread, I wrestle with this topic every other day. I went entirely treatment free this year and am going into winter with 18 queenright hives in configurations from supered nucs, single 10 frame deeps and 10 frame double deeps. I have not tested for mites and I deal with varroa (hopefully) using the brood break method. I try to keep records of each hive and brood break in the spring and fall just like "treating" beekeepers. I think I will start checking mite levels next year to keep more accurate records and start to understand more about my treatment free progress or lack of. Ultimately I have decided to accept the fact that I may lose 100% of my bees in any given year and have subscibed to the expansion method of beekeeping. I have one small story of hope to share for my season. I had a particularly strong hive in spring I donated to a naturopath friend who lets me keep bees on her property so I keep her boxes full of bees as a thank you. I was trying to get her some honey this year so I did not split her hive and just let them build up all season. I decided to do an ispection of her busting at the seams double deep in late July. This hive was by far the strongest hive in that apiary. What I saw when I got into the frames was very disturbing. Over 50 percent of the bees maybe more had DWV and just really looked very bad with horribly shriveled wing mutations very visible throughout the inspection. From what I was told by experienced beeks in my club, this hive was a goner and once bees looked like this even treating was no use. I made a quick call to find the queen and make a nuc with her and some bees and try the brood break method. The bees were 3 layers thick on those deep frames so it took me nearly two hours to find the queen. 9 days later I returned to this cell builder and made 3 nucs. This left the original colony pretty depleted from honey and brood. I checkerboarded the deeps top and bottom with new foundation and a couple foundationless. In 35 days I opened it back up and went through the frames. This hive had done a 180 degree return. I saw no more bees with deformed wing virus ( l looked hard ) They had a new laying queen laying like wildfire and almost all of the foundation had been drawn out and plenty was capped. I honestly could not believe how well that hive was doing. Right now that hive is full of honey with a new queen and ready for winter. My clubs vets always say you can't keep bees the way grandpa did because grandpas bees are all dead. I always think to myself this is a bad analogy because grandpa is also dead but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be a farmer.


----------



## Dellakay (Jul 27, 2014)

beemandan said:


> I still find myself excited about beekeeping. Make no mistake....some days are a grind but....trying to understand the dynamics of the colonies and how they interact are fascinating....to me, at least. Whatever a beekeeper does....treat using different methods or buying survivor or hygienic or Russian queens or collecting local feral stock....I cannot fathom a lack of interest in knowing how well the choices work. I can only suppose that those who choose to stay uninformed are cut from a different cloth.....a cloth beyond my comprehension.


Dear Beemandan,
This "lack of interest" clearly annoys you, doesn't it? You would save yourself LOADS of stress if you would just adopt the attitude that everyone has the right to choose how they run their bee operations, and those choices don't necessarily stem from character flaws such as laziness or disinterest in one's chosen hobby/business. There are always going to be beekeepers who are very detail oriented and feel the need to research and document every detail of their operation and you are clearly in that category at least to some extent, and there are always going to be beekeepers who are just going to let the bees do their thing and take care of themselves. This second group isn't flawed, just different. And difference isn't a bad thing. Here is my advice, for what it is worth; Find a group of like minded beekeepers who enjoy and/or find it necessary to keep records of the details of bee life and get together with them and compare notes. Railing against those who don't choose your path is rather useless and just creates needless stress in your own heart, and stress is deadly. (there is MOUNTAINS of research you can access to see how damaging stress is) Just because you "cannot fathom" the choices someone makes, doesn't make those choices unacceptable, either personally or corporately.


----------

