# Local absence and local extinction, a confounding factor in TF prescriptions



## JWChesnut

A modicum of information points to local Varroa free or Varroa minimized locations. The local absence or local hypo-virulence of the parasite may be a significant confounding factor in the reported success of TF prescriptions. I agree that hypo-virulence is part of the "virtuous cycle" that establishes when bees obtain a foothold against Varroa --- lower rates of horizontal transmission changes the infection dynamic to support the rapid selection of hypo-virulence in the population -- Dr. Seeley will likely publish the authoritative presentation of this dymanic.

Scotland maps Varroa free areas with precise granularity. There is an invasion front, and establishment on Isle of Lewes from commercially infected packages establishes there is no natural limit in the West. The researchers have found isolated populations often do not invariably lead to infection, as the rapid local extinction removes the infection. Local extinction is easier when the conditions are already marginal -- this is the hypothesis of Varroa free zones in Newfoundland and Thunder Bay, Ontario.


The original invasion in southern England was mapped with precision also. It demonstrates that some regions were tardy and resistant even in the initial invasion phase.


The US national mapping is limited in granularity. North Dakota is most careful.


A multi-year compendium map provides some detail for Kansas


The maps suggest that the famous 100th parallel division of the high plains may encourage local extinction or local hypo-virulence in this area. It appears ND-SD-NE-KS have a checkerboard pattern of 
Varroa density. Does the lack of diversity driven by intensive agriculture, or harsh winters account for this pattern? 

The maps illustrate the nostrum -- all bee-keeping is local, and may support the idea that the reported success with TF by Nebraska keepers is an accident of geography and not the result a particular, transferable cultural practice.


----------



## Michael Bush

>The maps illustrate the nostrum -- all bee-keeping is local, and may support the idea that the reported success with TF by Nebraska keepers is an accident of geography and not the result a particular, transferable cultural practice. 

And once again you ignore the dramatic difference when changing cultural practices in the same location. If your theory is correct then it should not matter what the cultural practices are, the success should remain fairly constant. But that has not been the case at all.


----------



## JWChesnut

**Everyone** I have personal, verifiable experience with saw no improvement with small cell culture. 

I think you could easily test your hypothesis. I wonder why you refuse. I know you say you have no need because you have solved your problems, but the legions of beekeepers trying to implement the solution have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think you owe some verification to them.


----------



## Michael Bush

> I wonder why you refuse.

The list of things I need to do and don't have time to do is almost endless. You apparently think I have a lot of spare time. I find your "legions of beekeepers" who have spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars" very suspicious considering I get hundreds of emails every week from people thanking me for what I've shared and who are succeeding very well on natural cell or small cell and no treatments and only a rare email where someone even reports losing a hive or two and usually those are not regressed yet. You would think at least a few of those "legions" would report on their massive failures.


----------



## Duncan151

JWC, why would Michael Bush owe you, or anyone else, a verification? You are free to take his advice or not, use it or not, and modify it to fit your needs as you see fit.


----------



## jwcarlson

Duncan151 said:


> JWC, why would Michael Bush owe you, or anyone else, a verification? You are free to take his advice or not, use it or not, and modify it to fit your needs as you see fit.


I always find it interesting how many people on the internet are hell-bent on proving others wrong on topics that have no personal impact on them. This is only my first year doing this, and nothing I read or see has made me anticipate anything other than total losses from all of my colonies this winter. Maybe that's a good attitude to build from... I don't know.

I've found Mr. Bush's website to be invaluable on a whole bunch of beekeeping topics while many conversations here end up focusing not on bees, but on the beekeeper. I don't expect double blind million dollar studies from a guy who has a free website about bees.

Who knows if he is right/wrong/lying/etc? All I know is that I suspect he's more right than he is wrong and he's probably not lying. At the very least, he seems more truthful than people who have ten hives telling him there's no way he can be doing what he's doing. His approaches seem to make great sense to me, and he is (on a larger scale) the type of operation I'd like to have at some point in the future... so why wouldn't I take his advice? The advice I got from the people we purchased packages from this year - "Make sure you treat them." Gee thanks!

I don't expect my package bees to survive treatment free for very long. The only reason I bought packages to begin with was to "get my feet wet" and try to get lucky finding some swarms/local genetics nearby. And only then because everyone I talked to said "there are no bees around here anymore", "I haven't seen a swarm in 20 years", etc etc. I haven't kept perfect track, but I've successfully caught five swarms. Turned down at least that many cutouts, turned down at least three swarm calls that were too far away, and arrived too late to two others. And if you listen to anyone else the sky is falling, varroa is killing every striped insect out there, and there's not hope. I just don't buy that notion. It's very easy not to see what you aren't looking for...

If it works for me, great... if it doesn't, I'll go from there... and all I'm out is the money I paid for the bees (5 of my 8 hives were free swarms) and the money I paid for my free choosing on following the basic principles of what Mr. Bush has shared (which was a whopping $0). But the idea of dumping/vaporizing all sorts of chemicals into a hive simply doesn't appeal to me. If I loose a bunch of bees that don't fit that bill... for me, where I'm at, and what I want out of this venture... who cares?


----------



## JWChesnut

Why do I expect to Mr. Bush to treat his own convictions skeptically?

Because in my world, intellectual honesty demands it. The fact that I have witnessed catastrophic failures (leading to personal tragedies) from folks attempting to emulate the prescription only reinforces my insistence that it is mal-practice to recommend a method without subjecting it to a critical assessment.



jwcarlson said:


> I don't expect double blind million dollar studies from a guy who has a free website about bees.


This is a false objection. A repeated measures study (use similar apiaries with a single change in culture (small/natural vs standard foundation) would yield a confident result in one year at n=30, or over 5 years with n<5. One could randomize the location yearly. It is, in the immortal peculiar Briticism of Mike Bispham, "bog simple".


----------



## jwcarlson

JWChesnut said:


> Why do I expect to Mr. Bush to treat his own convictions skeptically?
> 
> Because in my world, intellectual honesty demands it. The fact that I have witnessed catastrophic failures (leading to personal tragedies) from folks attempting to emulate the prescription only reinforces my insistence that it is mal-practice to recommend a method without subjecting it to a critical assessment.


Describe the catastrophic failure, please.


----------



## Duncan151

jwcarlson said:


> Describe the catastrophic failure, please.





JWChesnut said:


> Why do I expect to Mr. Bush to treat his own convictions skeptically?
> 
> Because in my world, intellectual honesty demands it. The fact that I have witnessed catastrophic failures (leading to personal tragedies) from folks attempting to emulate the prescription only reinforces my insistence that it is mal-practice to recommend a method without subjecting it to a critical assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a false objection. A repeated measures study (use similar apiaries with a single change in culture (small/natural vs standard foundation) would yield a confident result in one year at n=30, or over 5 years with n<5. One could randomize the location yearly. It is, in the immortal peculiar Briticism of Mike Bispham, "bog simple".


JWC, How, and why are you the appointed guardian of these people with catastrophic failures? Why do we never see these catastrophic reports posted here on Bee Source?


----------



## Michael Bush

I find it very strange that all these "catastrophic failures" while using my methods are reported to JWC and not to me and not on public forums... Also, though, I find it interesting since beekeepers all over the world have been reporting "catastrophic failures" while using the mainstream "recommended" methods, that JWC targets my methods as the cause.... Where is the empirical data to show there are any more or less failures?


----------



## CtyAcres

JWChesnut 
1. How many hives do you have?
2. Are they healthy and happy?
3. Do you treat your hives?


----------



## sqkcrk

The yellow counties in NY probably are that way because those counties are where Apiary Inspectors worked checking migratory hives. The absence of any color on the other counties can not reliably be taken to mean the absence of varroa mites, but the absence of anyone looking more likely.

I am willing to bet that there are no counties, or even Townships, in NY State where bees are kept where varroa mites can't be found. W/in the Adirondack Park, w/in the Blue Line as we say in NY, almost no bees are kept, so no varroa. But, even w/in the Blue Line, where there are bees there will be varroa mites.

Speaking as one who experienced the spread of varroa mites, from when there were none in some parts of the Sate until there were no places where they could not be found. Seems like that took about 5 years.


----------



## jwcarlson

sqkcrk said:


> The yellow counties in NY probably are that way because those counties are where Apiary Inspectors worked checking migratory hives. The absence of any color on the other counties can not reliably be taken to mean the absence of varroa mites, but the absence of anyone looking more likely.
> 
> I am willing to bet that there are no counties, or even Townships, in NY State where bees are kept where varroa mites can't be found. W/in the Adirondack Park, w/in the Blue Line as we say in NY, almost no bees are kept, so no varroa. But, even w/in the Blue Line, where there are bees there will be varroa mites.
> 
> Speaking as one who experienced the spread of varroa mites, from when there were none in some parts of the Sate until there were no places where they could not be found. Seems like that took about 5 years.


It seems so unlikely that any of these maps are reliably accurate. It seems the most honest would be the that's painted purple as "determined by concensus". The rest of the shades are probably different shades of denial.


----------



## Michael Bush

>The rest of the shades are probably different shades of denial. 

...or simply lack of data. A lack of data on Varroa does not indicate a lack of Varroa...


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> You apparently think I have a lot of spare time.


Kind of funny coming from a fellow with 45K posts here....and I bet if I checked some of the other beekeeping boards I'd find similar numbers.


----------



## JWChesnut

CtyAcres said:


> JWChesnut
> 1. How many hives do you have?
> 2. Are they healthy and happy?
> 3. Do you treat your hives?


CtyAcres,
I have been keeping bees continuously since 1973, save for two years starting in 1990 when the hives died off in the initial wave of Varroa.
I apprenticed at beekeeping with Appalachian hillbillies, and under the tutelage of university professors who themselves were von Frisch's direct students.

My beekeeping model involves a core breeding population and the sale of started hives to hobbyists and commercially. I find the dollar return on complete hives to be far better than nucs, and allows a fall bulk sale to the almond commercials. My geographic situation likely makes this model uniquely suited and difficult to transfer. Honey is largely a by-product, in our summer drought, we are never going to compete with well-watered honey production. Hive value is in the "count" and when a hive expands to support a split it is divided.

I keep about 64 overwintered mother hives, and the summer expansion is variable depending on the vagaries of our periodic droughts. Total expansion will be about 40 hives (10 pallets) this year (not counting 8 frame medium sales already made to hobbyists). The hives are scattered at outyards, no more than 4 pallets or 16 hives at any one location. Nucs will temporarily double or triple this number. 

My treatment regime has varied enormously. I have maintained a formal treatment-free test apiary since my return from Costa Rica in 2002 (where I was engaged in Bees). In the 90's some hive went untreated but in a mixed within an out-yard format. I have 2-3 years experience with Apistan in the mid-2000's, never used the off-label Taktic that supplanted it here commercially. I have used the fumigants (Formic, Thymol) and OA dribble and vapor. This past year I used OAV August-October, OA dribble in November-December, and MAQs on a symtomatic subset in May. 

The TF test apiary is stocked (over the years) with Glenn's VSH queens, and local feral swarms and promising splits from the other yards. For the past few years it has been 100% captured swarms collected from promising isolated wilderness traps. 

Are they happy, well yes. Healthy: the hives which are mite-reduced are free of DWV and Crawlers. I lost one young hive to starvation this week. Ill-health expresses in the fall in my hives (general, irreversible decline), EFB, and other maladies (chalkbrood shows up infrequently). Hives may struggle on to the next year, but fail to thrive.

My TF prescription would likely begin: Keep the hives under 18 months of age, constantly requeen and rebuild. The old idea of the 3-5 year old hive is un-obtainable.


----------



## JWChesnut

sqkcrk said:


> The yellow counties in NY probably are that way because those counties are where Apiary Inspectors worked checking migratory hives. The absence of any color on the other counties can not reliably be taken to mean the absence of varroa mites, but the absence of anyone looking more likely.


Absolutely, white means "no survey". The green color (I used arrows to draw attention) are the negative survey findings -- someone looked at some number of hives and failed to locate mites. How extensive the survey for the negative result is i= hidden in the base data for the map. The green concentrations (ND, SD, KS) are the interesting ones. Note that TN and WVA has both a "purple" consensus statewide result, and a "green" result for some few counties. Its possible that like Gypsy Moth, there have been waves of Varroa concentration over time.

The HI results are reliable, Varroa spread from one side of the Big Island to the Kona side after establishing in Oahu. Kauai and Maui remain Varroa free in my understanding.


----------



## Snowhitsky

The initial post makes for an interesting hypothesis even if rather vaguely supported by largely incomplete data. M. Bush's TF success on the other hand is fact. Either that or he is an extremely competent crook in which case he would make a much better living on Wall Street (or any other financial centre) than farming. 

What I fail to understand is why Nehawka, Nebraska and other successful TF apiaries aren't overrun by scientists trying to prove the reasons for their success. I don't see why M.Bush should be the one to have to provide scientific validation for the techniques he uses. 

From my point of view, I will try to emulate M. Bush's TF success but should I fail I wouldn't dream of asking him for an explanation. At most, I might humbly beg him to analyse my work to look for any mistakes I might have made.


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael Bush said:


> >The rest of the shades are probably different shades of denial.
> 
> ...or simply lack of data. A lack of data on Varroa does not indicate a lack of Varroa...


absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


----------



## sqkcrk

JWChesnut said:


> Its possible that like Gypsy Moth, there have been waves of Varroa concentration over time.


I am not familiar w/ Gypsy Moth infestation as much as I am Varroa mite. Please tell me what you mean by "waves of Varroa concentration over time"? How would you describe waves of concentration?


----------



## CtyAcres

Snowhitsky-Why is Nebraska and other successful TF apiaries not overrun by scientists?
THERE IS NO MONEY IN THAT DUDE!!


----------



## crofter

Yes it will have to show promise as a commercially viable system before it gets much traction. You have to have a model you can take on the road and demonstrate that it runs like promised wherever you take it. They made a movie of "Build It And They Will Come", but in real life it doesn't always happen.


----------



## sqkcrk

Maybe TF will come out of left field and take over noncommercial beekeeping. Who knows?


----------



## squarepeg

now we're getting somewhere.

i have suggested in previous posts that the plethora of variables involved with beekeeping make it very difficult to compare the experiences of one beekeeper or the results of one scientific study to the field truths of other beekeepers who are scattered about in different areas. these maps are another example of that, and hopefully someone is trying to figure out what is responsible for the regional differences seen in them.

i'm not surprised by hearing that what works there doesn't seem to work elsewhere. i agree that the effort is better spent in trying to figure out why the results vary as opposed to charging others with contriving and exaggerating reports or flat out dismissing them.

i'm not sure how to interpret what the maps are saying about alabama. we definitely have mites here. i have experienced one colony collapse directly attributed to high varroa infestion and i hive the mite count and pictures to prove it.

by and large though my bees don't appear to be bothered by the mites. are my bees hyper resistant or are the mites hypo virulent or is it a little of both? i don't know.

the more important questions are how to parlay what is happening here and in other locations into something that will help improve the bigger picture, and whether or not that is even possible.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> i'm not sure how to interpret what the maps are saying about alabama.


It could be saying that no one collected actual data from those Counties.


----------



## Oldtimer

jwcarlson said:


> Describe the catastrophic failure, please.





Duncan151 said:


> Why do we never see these catastrophic reports posted here on Bee Source?


Catastrophic failures and destroyed lives can and do happen due to varroa mites, to believe otherwise is head in sand stuff.

I have no interest in getting into an argument on the topic, been there done that, waste of time.

However in the interest of balance, when varroa first arrived, some businesses were wiped out. And since then from time to time there have been huge losses caused by varroa although pretty much all surviving commercial beekeepers treat now so it is not like when varroa first arrived.

There are reasons people don't recount all the details on Beesource, or nothing to personal to the victim anyway. But here's an "almost" catastrophic failure I had personal experience with. I was contacted by a young couple who wanted to buy 50 hives. Got chatting & turns out they started beekeeping 3 years ago & over the first 2 years built up to 300 hives. Don't treat & both quit their jobs now & going into bees full time.

I was real surprised when they told me they are now in the third season & don't treat because this is pretty much unheard of in these parts. Well it turns out that's why they needed to buy the hives. Just after both giving up their jobs and committing to bees full time & planning to expand, they went out & did the first spring check, and disaster. All hives badly overrun by mites, most with a queen but a tiny amount of bees that had no hope to recover. There were a few hives not quite as sick so they worked with them trying to save them but everything deteriorating rapidly. By the time they spoke to me they just didn't know where to go what to do, and were emotionally drained. The 50 hives they wanted to buy was because that was how much money they could scrape together & they were trying to save the business.

Anyhow they whole thing was pretty heart rending & I felt if I didn't help it was going to turn into a nightmare scenario for them. So I went through the whole thing with them & there were around 50 of their hives that were saveable, if the mites were killed. If the mites were not killed, in my opinion in a few months there would be no hives of theirs left. We had a straight talk and they decided to treat which I set them up with, plus they bought the 50 hives from me, plus the wife decided to go job hunting, that was their survival plan.

We spoke again the following spring when they ordered another 50 hives. I was scared to ask, but asked anyway, how things had gone. Awesome! They said. After treatment the bees had forged ahead. The bees from me had done really well also and been split at least once, one thing and another they had clawed their way back up to 250 hives, plus had their best ever honey harvest. The wife had not returned to work but was focussed on the niche marketing of their honey, they were happy & positive & looking forward to the future. They said they could now see by how well the bees were doing, that they realised how much mites had been dragging things down previously the whole time they had bees.

That was a few years ago. Since then they regularly buy batches of 50 hives from me, plus their own natural increase. Last time they had upgraded to a pretty smart truck and they are usually smiling. Could have easy gone the other way though if they had not dealt with the mites.

Disclaimer - I am not saying TF beekeeping cannot be done, nor do I believe that. I am saying that at this time, it cannot be done everywhere. Not commercially, anyway.


----------



## Michael Bush

And here we are again in the treatment free forum with most of this thread people posting "why it won't work"...


----------



## sqkcrk

Often what works and what doesn't work has much to do w/ how one looks on it. From some folks point of view treating bees doesn't work and isn't a sustainable practice. But, "Everything works if you let it.", right?


----------



## Saltybee

OT, your posts are clear and stick with what you have seen, free of an implied extension of a personal set of events to the totality. I appreciate your caution. There is an important difference between your statements that TF has not been possible for you, nor others you have personal knowledge of, and an extension of those observations to; it is impossible for anyone.

"Scotland maps Varroa free areas with precise granularity." Is not "precise granularity" an oxymoron? 

My TF was not successful for myself. I try to not be so arrogant as to extend my abilities, or lack thereof, as conclusive evidence of a conspiracy theory or ponzi type scam. But then, maybe it is just a lack of confidence on my part that I am not able to judge another as well as some are able.


----------



## Michael Bush

I've observed people in business for 40 years and mostly the plan that works is the one they believe will work and they work at making it work. What fails is usually what they don't believe will work and they have no investment in it working. Success and failure is all in the details and attitude has a lot to do with the details. A lot of the little decisions you make are based on your model of the world and if the main premise of what you are attempting is inconsistent with your model of the world, those decisions will often be wrong. Cognitive dissonance has a way of leading us down the wrong paths.

I think on any controversial topic in beekeeping, from simulative feeding to queen excluders, I could set up an experiment that will give you whichever results you prefer if we only state the problem in broad enough terms to start with. Success and failure are all in the details.


----------



## jwcarlson

Oldtimer said:


> Catastrophic failures and destroyed lives can and do happen due to varroa mites, to believe otherwise is head in sand stuff.
> 
> I have no interest in getting into an argument on the topic, been there done that, waste of time.


I have no doubt that varroa has probably cost a lot of people a lot of money. JWChesnut was pretty much saying that Michael Bush was causing "catastrophic failures" as though he has a gun to peoples' heads.



JWChesnut said:


> Why do I expect to Mr. Bush to treat his own convictions skeptically?
> 
> Because in my world, intellectual honesty demands it. The fact that I have witnessed catastrophic failures (leading to personal tragedies) from folks attempting to emulate the prescription only reinforces my insistence that it is mal-practice to recommend a method without subjecting it to a critical assessment.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> Cognitive dissonance has a way of leading us down the wrong paths.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Bush said:


> And here we are again in the treatment free forum with most of this thread people posting "why it won't work"...


How did I know someone would say that.

As I said I'm not looking to argue with anyone's beliefs Mike. The questions I quoted, were asked in this thread, I answered them, purely for informational purposes, and I do not intend to follow this subject any further in this thread. But if a question is asked, no point taking umbrage at the answer.

Saltybee, very balanced post, much wisdom in what you said.


----------



## Michael Bush

>The questions I quoted, were asked in this thread

Yes they were. The whole thread from the beginning was not about how to do treatment free beekeeping but rather looking for a reason to say it can only work in isolated situations.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> The whole thread from the beginning was not about how to do treatment free beekeeping but rather looking for a reason to say it can only work in isolated situations.


So I understand your point MB....in your opinion, the only posts that are appropriate to this forum are those that support the idea that treatment free beekeeping works in every situation. Did I get that right?


----------



## snl

Michael Bush said:


> And here we are again in the treatment free forum with most of this thread people posting "why it won't work"...


Because Michael, for most people, unfortunately it does not work.......


----------



## CtyAcres

snl - TF is like a queen excluder, when you know how to use the tool it works, when you don't know how to 
use it, it does not work.


----------



## squarepeg

snl said:


> Because Michael, for most people, unfortunately it does not work.......


that it does work for some ought to be of interest to all.

it's too bad that it always turns into a peeing contest here on the forum.

as a doctor my model of the world would definitely put me in the treatment column, but as luck would have it i ended up with bees that don't have to be treated. go figure, squarepeg all the way.

at this point i haven't formulated any prescriptions. my sense is that it is a combination of favorable genetics, quality habitat/forage, presence of feral survivors, avoidance of artificial feeds, and minimal management but who knows?

i have contacted researchers who have expressed an interest in studying these bees and samples have been sent, but the results may take awhile and whether or not anything of practical importance will be gleaned remains to be seen.

i have nothing at stake, no dog in this fight, and tend not to choose sides. jmho, but if as much energy was spent on cooperative measures to figure out why the differences in observations and experiences as is spent on disproving and renouncing each other maybe, just maybe, we could advance our understanding.


----------



## Saltybee

squarepeg said:


> that it does work for some ought to be of interest to all.
> 
> i have nothing at stake, no dog in this fight, and tend not to choose sides. jmho, but if as much energy was spent on cooperative measures to figure out why the differences in observations and experiences as is spent on disproving and renouncing each other maybe, just maybe, we could advance our understanding.


*1


----------



## CtyAcres

squarepeg- Your fourth paragraph hit the nail on the head. Favorable genetics, quality forage, survivors, no artificial feeds,
and minimal management is basically it for TF.


----------



## JWChesnut

squarepeg said:


> ..but if as much energy was spent on cooperative measures to figure out why the differences in observations and experiences as is spent on disproving and renouncing each other maybe, just maybe, we could advance our understanding.


Thanks for steering a middle course. That "figuring out why the differences" is **exactly** what I would like to see accomplished. I am a lightning rod, and don't seem to be able to pose the questions without the query being rejected.


----------



## crofter

squarepeg said:


> that it does work for some ought to be of interest to all.
> 
> <Snip> but if as much energy was spent on cooperative measures to figure out why the differences in observations and experiences as is spent on disproving and renouncing each other maybe, just maybe, we could advance our understanding.


Squarepeg, that would be contrary to human nature! We have been clubbing each other over opposing faiths for eons. Personally I try to consciously avoid accepting anything where there has not been established a clear physical cause and effect explanation. Even if something appears to work on a hit and miss basis, if it is not coming up on a wide base to be statistically superior to the alternative, I will tend to not embrace or invest in that idea. Maybe i am a bit like the "hundredth monkey"!

It is human nature for us to want to see acceptance of our positions and philosophy but when I sense I am being worked by "selective" information it puts up a little red flag in my mind. I think we have all had experience of being worked by politicians, investment counsel, advertisment, you name it. If there is not clear presentation of realistical outcomes and possible downsides, I am not going to buy in. Sometimes there can be other motivations beside financial so that is not definitive.

We can wring our hands about the apparent lack of acceptance but some factual ideas just take a lot of time to prove themselves and take hold; ask Gallileo! Other ideas will struggle to establish but fade away if they dont stand the test of time. How many times have we heard about cold fusion!

It appears that I may be able to go treatment free in my isolated location but the same genetic bees in another part of the province seems a totally different story. My sons location has a lot of beekeepers as well as ferals, and it is doubtful there that you could get through even the first winter without knocking the mites down. They seem to carry a high virus load.


----------



## Huntingstoneboy

In 20 years...maybe more...we will all have our answer! If you treat and keep your hives alive....your beekeeping....if you dont treat and keep your hives alive...guess what? Your a beekeeper! Argue all you want....from what I read (and its a lot) there is no right or wrong. Everyone takes losses...some more than others. Make a decision and run with it...when it quits working...change tactics! Way too much time wasted down playing everyone elses way of keeping bees! Just my 2 cents.


----------



## sqkcrk

Your idea is correct. You're right.


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> Thanks for steering a middle course. That "figuring out why the differences" is **exactly** what I would like to see accomplished.





JWChesnut said:


> There are really powerful statistical techniques that can implemented on a matrix of practices...


there we go. what would it take to conduct such an investigation?


----------



## Michael Bush

>So I understand your point MB....in your opinion, the only posts that are appropriate to this forum are those that support the idea that treatment free beekeeping works in every situation. Did I get that right? 

The purpose of this particular forum is to discuss HOW to do treatment free beekeeping, not to argue whether it is possible. You can argue that in the general bee forum. Why is this hard to grasp? There shouldn't even need to be rules. It's just common courtesy. But as a matter of fact there ARE rules.


----------



## squarepeg

Michael Bush said:


> The purpose of this particular forum is to discuss HOW to do treatment free beekeeping, not to argue whether it is possible.


i don't see that happening here michael. the discussion has been regarding why the tf approach renders different outcomes in one setting vs. another.


----------



## CtyAcres

Your right guys, its the HOW, not where you are located.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. I know that treatment free or at least semi-treatment free is possible, at least for hobbyist.

What I see here, in this forum, are beekeepers that preach that the only way to achieve treatment free is by using their particular methods. That is not true, but new beekeepers don't have the experience to know that. What should be done with this forum is to punt, re-group, and try to gather the different methods that are used to reduce colony treatments with the goal of elimination of treatments. 

It may be true that certain climates or beekeeping conditions will make treatment free unattainable. Beekeepers may not have the resources or experience necessary to achieve that goal, but unless beekeepers share knowledge without being dogmatic we will not learn what works and what doesn't. Having a special forum with rules that do not allow free discussion will hinder, not help, us to grow in beekeeping knowledge.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> The purpose of this particular forum is to discuss HOW to do treatment free beekeeping


In the original post JW points out one potential reason that some tf beekeepers seem to achieve success compared to those who find themselves challenged using the same techniques. Your argument is that posts like that shouldn't be allowed...only those suggesting universal success are acceptable? And no challenge to those claims is allowed?


----------



## Saltybee

JWChesnut said:


> The maps illustrate the nostrum -- all bee-keeping is local, and may support the idea that the reported success with TF by Nebraska keepers is an accident of geography and not the result a particular, transferable cultural practice.


Were I a NE beekeeper I might find the "reported"a bit skeptical. I do find JWChestnut's posts informative and outside my normal train of thought. for that am thankful. The conclusions; they may be correct, I'm just not ready to reach any conclusion other than I do not know the answer yet.(and probably never will)


----------



## FollowtheHoney

beemandan said:


> In the original post JW points out one potential reason that some tf beekeepers seem to achieve success compared to those who find themselves challenged using the same techniques. Your argument is that posts like that shouldn't be allowed...only those suggesting universal success are acceptable? And no challenge to those claims is allowed?



There are many places on BS to present your position on treatments. As one of those naive newbees I would love a place to share information about treatment free beekeeping, and this should be the place. Honestly, I have sought other outlets for TF info because this particular category is so divisive here that there is little chance to delve deeply into the topic. 
It is easier for me to believe it is possible because I work on a farm where no chemicals are used, no 'cides of any kind are used even those allowed in organic production. I don't live in a bubble where insects and disease don't exist, there are simply a multitude of strategies used to avoid or outrun the problems. I was planting in a field today which was a rocky weedy hayfield last fall. No round-up or vinegar or fire was used to ready it for veggies, just some old timer knowledge, hard work and appropriate farm implements. This seems to parallel a treatment free approach.
I wouldn't go into a thread discussing how to apply a particular treatment and say 'why are you treating?' Or walk onto a conventional farm and suggest they stop using chemicals. I would like the opportunity to discuss TF strategies and disappointments without those who are not even considering going treatment free piping in to say it can't be done.


----------



## JWChesnut

squarepeg said:


> there we go. what would it take to conduct such an investigation?


I would begin by creating a matrix of practices, and coding each participant by their implementation. These practices can be coded as binary (yes/no), categorical, and in some cases parametric (gallons of sucrose per hive). 

I am a botanist by training, and view the world through a lens of ecological communities -- which means the tools of ecological research, community analysis, come to mind first.

In essence, what is needed is a medical epidemological study -- where TF (no irony intended) is the "disease case", and the co-factors for the condition are teased out. The high-stakes involved in medical research means the statistical tools and pragma of epidemological research are well developed.


----------



## squarepeg

i do believe that such a project is worthy of a thesis and possibly a dissertation. i am considering contacting one of the entomology professors at auburn and bouncing the idea off of him. i would love to pursue such a project, but i've too much invested in the day job. 

it would be interesting to know if grant proposals will be accepted for some of the funds being allocated to the new pollinator task force.


----------



## beemandan

FollowtheHoney said:


> As one of those naive newbees I would love a place to share information about treatment free beekeeping, and this should be the place.


You want a place where anyone can say anything and regardless of its validity....it cannot be challenged? 
I'm not arguing for tf or against it. I simply think that someone should be able to share data that suggests that there are different reasons why some achieve success while others using the same methods fail. You don't want that? You don't think that's meaningful and appropriate in the treatment free forum?
Dee Lusby runs a forum over at Yahoo. You cannot post anything that she disagrees with....is that the type of place where you think you'll get useful information?


----------



## FollowtheHoney

No, not at all, I come here for the great variety of opinions.


----------



## beemandan

FollowtheHoney said:


> I come here for the great variety of opinions.


Good. Me too.


----------



## Saltybee

Thoughts on the TF study;

Multiple successful TF sites should be studied along with multiple TF sites that will fail. (smirking is allowed at this statement)
Queen lineage analyzed along with presence / absence varroa control genes.
# of different drones present in worker brood. The more diverse the drones the more resilience the hive should have.
Pattern and size of brood nests. Cell size (including cell depth as well as the famous dia.)
Density of nurse to brood ratio in nest.
Temp of the brood nest.
Spacing between caps of brood cells. Related to temp, density and grooming.
Make up of pollen in hives and any contamination of pollen.
Age and turnover rate of queens.
Separate study within the study of resident varroa.

My view of the outline of the basic data required before setting up works/fails experiments.


----------



## sqkcrk

beemandan said:


> Dee Lusby runs a forum over at Yahoo. You cannot post anything that she disagrees with....is that the type of place where you think you'll get useful information?


Not exactly a badge of honor, but, she asked me to leave. Saying that OB is a site for the discussion of keeping bees w/out treatments. That's the way I remember it. So, I'm probably somewhat wrong about that.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You want a place where anyone can say anything and regardless of its validity....it cannot be challenged? 

And that is the purpose and use of the general bee forum. Go over there and challenge whatever you wish. It's difficult to have a conversation on how to keep top bar hives when every thread gets 10 people saying you are stupid for using a top bar hive. It's difficult to have a conversation on how to do treatment free beekeeping when the same old arguments on why it is impossible are hashed out over and over rather than making any progress on the actual topic of HOW to keep bees without treatments. There are thousands of us keeping bees without treatments. Get over it.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Not exactly a badge of honor, but, she asked me to leave.


To my thinking, those seeking a one size fits all with no questions asked 'discussion'....Dee's got your number.
I don't see anyone on this forum suggesting treatments or saying tf is impossible. It seems ok in my opinion for those who've tried some of the recommended ideas and failed....to be able to say so, just as those that succeed do. There are those who've demanded the narrow minded, Dee Lusbylike rules. Some have gone on to make their own forums elsewhere. I say more power to 'em. On the other hand, I applaud Barry's allowance for open discussion here.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> It's difficult to have a conversation on how to keep top bar hives when every thread gets 10 people saying you are stupid for using a top bar hive.


Ya gotta love exaggeration. It's no substitute for rational discussion....but it fun all the same.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Ya gotta love exaggeration

I saw many top bar hive discussions that had at least 10 before Barry started moderating it. It is no exaggeration.
And there are a lot like this one that is on the top bar forum and simply starts out as an attack (kind of reminiscent of the treatment free forum...)

http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-235687.html

I'm have NEVER said we can't have a rational discussion on why someone thinks top bar hives or treatment free is a bad idea. But let's have them in the appropriate forum. And let's stop acting like bringing the same things up over and over is actually having a "rational discussion" when actually it's just harping and getting in the way of people who want to talk about how to do something.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> I'm have NEVER said we can't have a rational discussion on why someone thinks top bar hives or treatment free is a bad idea.


Once again...exaggeration. Nobody is saying tf is a bad idea. Somebody offered an explanation for why some things work in one place and not in another. 



Michael Bush said:


> But let's have them in the appropriate forum. And let's stop acting like bringing the same things up over and over is actually having a "rational discussion" when actually it's just harping and getting in the way of people who want to talk about how to do something


Any time you, or anyone else starts a thread on 'how to'....it doesn't dissolve into an argument about tf. This thread was started offering information and there was some rational discussion. It wasn't 'bringing up the same things', it wasn't harping. It could have been an informative discussion until somebody decided to knock it off track by insisting that it wasn't appropriate. 



Michael Bush said:


> Get over it.


And to you.


----------



## D Semple

Thanks for taking all the abuse and hanging in there Michael.


Don


----------



## estreya

Whew!

This is a dizzying read. But thanks to everyone for hanging in, and thanks to Squarepeg in particular for blowing a breath of fresh air into a smoke filled room.


----------



## mpgreer

Michael Bush said:


> But let's have them in the appropriate forum. And let's stop acting like bringing the same things up over and over is actually having a "rational discussion" when actually it's just harping and getting in the way of people who want to talk about how to do something.


agree. agree. agree. it would be nice if there was a treatment-free forum on beesource where we could focus on DOING treatment-free beekeeping. the rest of this is just noise.


----------



## Saltybee

So then the wolf said; " I was only trying to enjoy the grass without frightening the poor sheep".


----------



## TWall

squarepeg said:


> i do believe that such a project is worthy of a thesis and possibly a dissertation. i am considering contacting one of the entomology professors at auburn and bouncing the idea off of him. i would love to pursue such a project, but i've too much invested in the day job.
> 
> it would be interesting to know if grant proposals will be accepted for some of the funds being allocated to the new pollinator task force.


Squarepeg,

It would probably be an entire career of research and graduate students. The problem isn't to just find out what works. Michael Bush has a system that works for him. The problem is to find out what works and why it works. Without this knowledge we end up having the frustration of someone saying this is the way to do and another saying no this is the way to do it and a third saying none of it works.

The biggest frustration is to hear that this is the way to do TF beeeeping, you try it and then one day all your colonies are dead. And, you 'did' everything 'right.'

With a dynamic biological system like a honeybee colony there may not always be the absolutes some of us would like. But, understand the mechanisms needed for TF success leads to healthier TF colonies.

Tom


----------



## Michael Bush

>The biggest frustration is to hear that this is the way to do TF beeeeping, you try it and then one day all your colonies are dead. And, you 'did' everything 'right.'

That was my biggest frustration with treating...


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> That was my biggest frustration with treating...


Funny how our experiences can be such polar opposites. Not just different....but 180 degrees different.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I just read through this thread.... what a nightmare.

Once again, Mr. Bush hits the nail on the head. Many in this forum would like to see no need for it. Kinda reminds me of how people of a certain political persuasion who don't believe government can't do anything right, vote for candidates who go to Washington and prove it. Nothing can get done around here because there's a major cohort who actively campaign against the thing working. It's not new. I've given up.

And to address the topic directly, I still believe that TFB is universal, and the reason I believe that is I come in contact with TF beekeepers from all over the place. Hundreds upon hundreds of people from everywhere imaginable who are looking for people who do it like they do, or want to. It's not Nebraska or any other place that is special. I did it in Oregon, I did it in Arkansas, and now I'm doing it in Colorado. I've met plenty of people doing it in Oklahoma during my visits there. And TBHs are only becoming more popular.

The studies won't work because it's an entirely different method of beekeeping, a different mindset. What's the point in tests that do not replicate actual practice? Try removing the brakes and steering to isolate gas mileage and see how long the car stays on the road.


----------



## Daniel Y

JWChesnut said:


> A repeated measures study (use similar apiaries with a single change in culture (small/natural vs standard foundation) would yield a confident result in one year at n=30, or over 5 years with n<5. One could randomize the location yearly. It is, in the immortal peculiar Briticism of Mike Bispham, "bog simple".


So why don't you do that? You are the one concerned that anything be verified. why then expect someone else to do that which you are concerned about getting done?


----------



## TWall

> The studies won't work because it's an entirely different method of beekeeping, a different mindset. What's the point in tests that do not replicate actual practice? Try removing the brakes and steering to isolate gas mileage and see how long the car stays on the road.


So, treatment free beekeeping uses voodoo to be successful? It can't be researched? Where is the Wizard of Oz when you need him??

Of course treatment free beekeeping can be researched, just as gas milage in a car can be studied.

There are many of us who would like to understand how treatment free beekeeping can be successful so we can implement it. I don't care to just keep letting honeybee colonies die until I stumble across some that won't die.

Just because someone might use treatments does not mean they cannot understand other ideas or mindsets. Some us just want a little more detail than just shutting up and doing as told.

Tom


----------



## Solomon Parker

TWall said:


> It can't be researched?


You didn't actually see that written, did you? How can we have a civil conversation if you are twisting what is said? "Do not assign a position to an opponent that they will not own. Always put their argument in the best light." - Tim Keller




TWall said:


> Of course treatment free beekeeping can be researched, just as gas milage in a car can be studied.


Of course it can, but if you had actually considered the analogy, you'd realize that you can't test mileage without the whole car in operation or you crash. The small cell and so called treatment-free studies abandon major parts that are the praxis of TF beekeepers. The researchers show vast and fundamental misunderstandings of what TF involves, and all they have to do is ask. I'm sure Mr. Bush would be happy to break out the quotes (again) to demonstrate how biased the researchers are.




TWall said:


> There are many of us who would like to understand how treatment free beekeeping can be successful so we can implement it. I don't care to just keep letting honeybee colonies die until I stumble across some that won't die.


That right there is exactly what I mean. You take one aspect and misunderstand it, boiling off the nuance and application, and then proving it won't work. That's called a straw man.




TWall said:


> Just because someone might use treatments does not mean they cannot understand other ideas or mindsets.


I don't find that to be the case. I agonized over that sentence, but I can only share my experience.


Numerous posters have said something to the effect that if we really were successful, breeders would be beating down our doors to get what we have. But it only further proves the point that the breeders, the professionals, the researchers, simply aren't interested. From what I've seen, they refuse to believe it's possible and then subconsciously set out to prove it. This forum is overwhelming evidence of that. I've only ever had one person who was any sort of professional beekeeper ever even try to buy bees from me.




TWall said:


> Some us just want a little more detail than just shutting up and doing as told.


A truly American mindset. Imagine how many great martial arts masters there would be if nobody did what they were told before they knew why. If you cannot exercise discipline and humbly learn from the masters, you cannot achieve what the masters achieve. If you already know how to keep bees, you'll find it pretty hard to keep bees TF.


----------



## Saltybee

People see what they expect to see. I took TWall's post as fairly open. 
Putting out a puff of smoke with gasoline does not help. Yes, I know this is your campground.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> I still believe that TFB is universal....


hmm. i'm more inclined to accept that there is some dependence on location. old timer's experience in new zealand for example, (and i believe he observed all of the the tfb tenants).

and your experience solomon when your colonies were moved into proximity of a commercial breeder and you observed changes in traits and survivability.

i'm no expert, but it seems reasonable that if there are unmanaged colonies surviving year to year in the wild, then there is the right mix of genetics and habitat to support that, and it is likely that one could end up keeping bees successfully off treatments in these areas.

in places where this is not happening, like new zealand for example and perhaps certain regions in this country, the conditions may not present (yet) for tfb to produce the same results as what you and others have experienced.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> and your experience solomon when your colonies were moved into proximity of a commercial breeder and you observed changes in traits and survivability.


Actually, yes. I discovered there was a queen breeder about half a mile from one of my yards. 5/6 hives died in that yard last winter.

New Zealand is an interesting case, however, I believe TF is possible there too. Maybe not with existing beekeeping practices, but that is the case everywhere.


----------



## squarepeg

i thought i remembered it going something like that. i assume you applied the same methods to those colonies as you had been using. granted it was an exceptionally hard winter and higher losses were recorded in the north last year, but worthy of consideration is that your queens may have mixed it up with those commercially bred drones and the survivor traits and/or mite resistance may have became diluted.

if so, and if that contributed to the higher losses, then it would exemplify how location can have a greater influence than practices.

a lot of if's and maybe's i know. just some food for thought.


----------



## Barry

So instead of posting message after message attacking each others position or understanding, how about sticking to the meat of the thread? Is location a significant factor in TF beekeeping.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> Is location a significant factor in TF beekeeping.


Of course, but not in the sense that "you can do it there, but I can't do it here."

It is in the sense that "bees from there won't be much good here until they've adapted."




squarepeg said:


> if so, and if that contributed to the higher losses, then it would exemplify how location can have a greater influence than practices.


It's hard to consider those results representative when half of the total lost colonies from three yards happen in one yard. The other yards lost 2/8 and 2/11. Location has little to do with that data point, since if treatments were ended, the vast majority of those bees in the area would disappear in one or two years, leaving the ones that can survive. So the solution is not "I can't keep bees here because it doesn't work," it's "weak genetics in kept hives in my area are dragging me down." Even so, it can be overcome with expansion model beekeeping. The solution is not to add more urine to the gene pool, the solution is to flush the pool.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> It's hard to consider those results representative when half of the total lost colonies from three yards happen in one yard.


small sample size to be sure, but it does suggest that there was something 'different' about that location, no?



Solomon Parker said:


> ...since if treatments were ended, the vast majority of those bees in the area would disappear in one or two years, leaving the ones that can survive.


i suppose if one could convince all of the nearby operations to stop treating it might happen, but how likely is that?



Solomon Parker said:


> So the solution is not "I can't keep bees here because it doesn't work," it's "weak genetics in kept hives in my area are dragging me down." Even so, it can be overcome with expansion model beekeeping.


if your losses in that yard were representative of what to expect going forward, it would take a lot of expansion to overcome 83% losses each winter.

like barry said, what we are trying to flesh out here is why tf outcomes vary from this one to that one. it seems that you are positing that failures occur only when the prescription isn't followed properly. oldtimer followed the prescription to the letter and still failed. your high loss yard was (un)treated the same as your other two. just sayin' that there may be other factors at play beyond practices and we're trying to figure those out.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> small sample size to be sure, but it does suggest that there was something 'different' about that location, no?


About the location? No. What was different was extremely heavy influence of a queen breeder (albeit a very poor one, mean and non-resistant bees). 





squarepeg said:


> i suppose if one could convince all of the nearby operations to stop treating it might happen, but how likely is that?


I'm trying every avenue available to me.





squarepeg said:


> if your losses in that yard were representative of what to expect going forward, it would take a lot of expansion to overcome 83% losses each winter.


I refuse to attempt to predict the future. If you're expecting 83% losses, then you ought to do 120% increases. However, I still do not believe this is impossible to overcome. One cannot overlook the influence of placing a yard within an already overpopulated area. Was it the genetics alone, or how much was competition involved, disease pressure, etc.?





squarepeg said:


> oldtimer followed the prescription to the letter and still failed.


I don't know what prescription he was following, certainly wasn't anybody I know of. From the evidence I observed, just about the only thing of consequence he did was change cell size. He is still a commercial beekeeper through and through.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> About the location? No. What was different was extremely heavy influence of a queen breeder (albeit a very poor one, mean and non-resistant bees).


i guess in my way of looking at it solomon the influence of nearby genetics, competition, and disease pressure, are part of what makes a location a location, and one of those things that can potentially have an effect on tf success or tf failure. that's what this thread is attempting to sort out. looks like you and i are talking in circles again, but i understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I fully understand what you're trying to say and how you're saying it and I am not agreeing to your terms. 

What you're forgetting is the change in mindset, I do not see an 83% loss as a failure. It's a stepping stone. I still have that sixth hive and it appears to be doing just fine at the time of this writing.

And attitude toward the operation (as we've seen) seems to have an effect on survival. The truth is, no, I did not treat that yard the same as the others. I got tired of the mean bees. I gave up on that location after I found the queen breeder. One of the hives was a swarm from a kept hive and had not yet proven itself treatment-free. But locations are hard to find and I was eager to reduce numbers for the upcoming move, so letting five unfit hives die (plus four more, and killing off a couple more after that) is just farming. But it's outlandish in the mind of a beekeeper too influenced by modern commercial beekeeping. 

At any rate, it totally disproves the meme that we TFs are pumping sunshine and not talking about our losses. Believe me, it's far more difficult and time consuming to talk about and defend it than it would be to just shut up. Losses just aren't as important to us as they are to you, because we're better at compensating for them as part of the method.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> What you're forgetting is the change in mindset, I do not see an 83% loss as a failure. It's a stepping stone. I still have that sixth hive and it appears to be doing just fine at the time of this writing.
> 
> Losses just aren't as important to us as they are to you, because we're better at compensating for them as part of the method.


i won't claim to understand the mindset of the nominal beekeeper, but i would venture to guess that when it comes down to the sweat equity and treasure required for this pursuit not many are going to be invested enough in the concept to see it through under those terms.

luckily for me the tf winnowing process has been relatively quick and painless. i believe it happened that way more because of where i am located and not because of anything special i did or did not do. i would have certainly adopted a more practical strategy had it not worked out this way.

i couldn't agree with you more however on the importance of all beekeepers able to compensate for their losses and this is something that ought to be part of one's plan from the outset, kinda what michael palmer has been preaching for some time now.


----------



## heaflaw

Maybe the secret to successful treatment free beekeeping is something like:

10% Competent Beekeepers
10% Genetics of the local bees
80% Genetics of the local varroa mites


----------



## CtyAcres

Lawrence- I'm liking that 80%. Someone else on BS, mentioned no new mite genetics were being brought into their
yards that were sustainable hives existing with local mites.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> not many are going to be invested enough in the concept to see it through under those terms.


I totally agree with you there, hence the few who are actually willing to "let it ride" on the scale necessary to succeed.




heaflaw said:


> Maybe the secret to successful treatment free beekeeping is something like:
> 10% Competent Beekeepers
> 10% Genetics of the local bees
> 80% Genetics of the local varroa mites


Since I don't assent to the varroa genetics hypothesis as enumerated by most treating beekeepers, I'd have to adjust the portions a bit. If any varroa with amazing virulent genetics do pop up, they kill off any untreated hive in which they operate, thus killing themselves and being removed from the gene pool.

I'd say it's at least 70% competent beekeeping practices and maybe 30% bee genetics, developed, not necessarily found. But these are really fundamentally overlapping and interconnected, so one really cannot assign fair probabilities. To restate, it's practices and methods that count more than "luck" as it has been lately explained here. It boggles my mind how so many supposedly scientifically minded people still call upon luck to explain what they cannot understand. I actually heard a professional sports announcer (on NPR no less) explain a game win as "luck."

I do not believe in luck. I believe in chance and skill. Chance is the number of questions on the test to which you know the answers. Skill is the total number of answers you know.


----------



## heaflaw

My numbers were exagerated for effect from my current opinion but not by much. The reason I think beekeeping practices do not matter much is because of the surviving ferals in forests where there are no beekeepers for miles. And we have all heard stories of an old hive that's been sitting out behind a barn or something and hasn't been touched for 10 or 20 or so years. Beekeepers have no influence on them at all and they still survive.


----------



## Solomon Parker

heaflaw said:


> Beekeepers have no influence on them at all and they still survive.


Let me point out the obvious: That's not beekeeping. We are here to keep bees and make honey, are we not?


----------



## CtyAcres

Yes it is Solomon. The bees are doing the keeping. We are the idiots.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Speak for yourself. :lpf:


----------



## heaflaw

Solomon Parker said:


> Let me point out the obvious: That's not beekeeping. We are here to keep bees and make honey, are we not?


Good point. The ferals make very little surplus honey.


----------



## heaflaw

Solomon Parker said:


> If any varroa with amazing virulent genetics do pop up, they kill off any untreated hive in which they operate, thus killing themselves and being removed from the gene pool.


My way of looking at it is that the amazing virulent genetics are in the treated hives. Only we treatment free beeks and ferals have the non amazing virulent genetics.

What so you guys think?


----------



## Solomon Parker

If that is so (and I am not saying it is), it is because we took the hit and made it that way, not because we lucked into it. But if there are amazing virulent genetics (and I am not saying there are) they will exist in treated hives, with the treatments reducing their virulence so the bees can survive. If that is the case, then it's those hives that if they were to stop being treated, would die, and we'd be quickly rid of those mites. But, though the treaters propose this virulent mite theory, and have the solution right in their own hands, they raise their fists in a resounding "NO!!!" when the obvious solution is proposed.

One way to evaluate a theory is to see what its proponents do with it when you carry it to its logical conclusion. That's one reason I don't buy it. The other is that when treatments cease _so many_ hives die as a result, and yet the same does not happen for established TF hives which by Roland's own assertion _should have_ massive dieoffs every couple years. In 11 years, I can only say I've had one massive dieoff (5/7) which was largely traceable to yearling hives from warm climates.


----------



## estreya

I hesitate to add my comment here, since i could engrave what i know about beekeeping on the head of a pin. In three languages. But based on what we've read, hubby and i have decided NOT to treat this year (unless you consider sugar dusting a treatment, which it seems many people do). We dusted today and were encouraged that things don't seem to be getting any worse. Next week, we may have a different story to tell.  Pictures can be seen here: http://wabeekeepersforum.proboards.com/thread/1796/photographs-inspection-varroa-edition-photo


----------



## heaflaw

Solomon Parker said:


> . If that is the case, then it's those hives that if they were to stop being treated, would die, and we'd be quickly rid of those mites. .


That's what Michael Bush keeps saying. 

I believe that we have less virulent mites. It just makes sense. It seems to be the conclusion to Tom Seeley's studies. There are some very good beekeepers who have tried treatment free and it did not work for them. I believe the reason is due to the more virulent mite theory. It may be partly luck, but we worked and went through some rough years to get this way. Others just didn't persevere long enough or had the bad luck to be in a geographical area with more virulent mites kept by treating beekeepers.


----------



## heaflaw

Since our queens mate with area drones, it is our own best interest that as many colonies as possible around us are also treatment free survivors. It also expands our gene pool. I believe that the only way we will convert the country to get rid of the virulent mites and go back to the days of no beekeepers having to treat is by expanding treatment free geographically. Somehow get all of southwest Lincoln Co to be only treatment free for example. Get local government to pass laws stating that if you keep bees in the county, you cannot treat. I realize that's probably not realistic, but you get my point.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Get government to do it. I hadn't considered that. Could be very effective if you can either be rich or sneaky enough.


----------



## dleemc1

I agree, I am going to go treatment free, no foundation, and I am going to go back to using box hives like my grand father had 55 years ago, that way I have no money in them.


----------



## Daniel Y

Solomon Parker said:


> I do not see an 83% loss as a failure. It's a stepping stone.


Only if it leads to better than 67% survival. Which is the number I have set as the national average in the US. That is a huge improvement to be banking on. Very likely impossible. OF course anyone is free to set the bar for themselves as to what is good. But better is a measurable thing set by the second best.


----------



## Daniel Y

Solomon Parker said:


> Losses just aren't as important to us as they are to you, because we're better at compensating for them as part of the method.


So 83% losses are not a failure as long as you don't mind loosing 83%? Sounds to me like people that simply declare failure to be a success and move on. Sort of like the thinking that whatever you achieve no matter how inadequate it is is considered good enough.

I on the other hand am clear on what I am looking for. That is 90% survival on average. I don't find it acceptable to work for nothing. I can do nothing and get nothing so working for it is a mistake on the level of being a character flaw.

I also do not agree with the replacement claim. How do you get your time back? your money back? In general your investment that failed to produce a profit? You lost and everything put into it is lost and cannot be recovered. every time you loose a hive it is one less hive. and it will always be one less hive. So even if you reach 2000 hives. it should have been 2001. And nothing will change that.


----------



## Daniel Y

Solomon Parker said:


> 1. I'm trying every avenue available to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.One cannot overlook the influence of placing a yard within an already overpopulated area. Was it the genetics alone, or how much was competition involved, disease pressure, etc.?


1. So it is not your poor beekeeping. It is everyone elses poor beekeeping in the area? Those poorly kept bees that are still alive? Something in the math is not adding up for me.

2. So this is like saying, the methods would work if it where not for all those things that make it fail? I woudl agree with that concerning pretty much any method. Where is the method that works regardless of those factors?

In all I don't see better beekeeping I simply see an acceptance of poor beekeeping. If you can't beat em. gain acceptance?


----------



## Oldtimer

Daniel Y said:


> I also do not agree with the replacement claim. How do you get your time back? your money back? In general your investment that failed to produce a profit? You lost and everything put into it is lost and cannot be recovered. every time you loose a hive it is one less hive. and it will always be one less hive. So even if you reach 2000 hives. it should have been 2001. And nothing will change that.


It's actually even worse than that Daniel as I found to my cost when I was doing TF. 

Let's say Solomon is as he said, so much better at making up losses than everyone else. Imagine he can turn that 17% survivors back to the original number. That requires turning each hive into a little more than 5. Thing is though, if a beekeeper is that good, all the hives that were lost could also have been multiplied by 5, if they had survived. So people with big losses actually loose heaps, but they may not know it. 

That's the part that really stung me when I was trying TF beekeeping.

That of course is not saying I'm against TF beekeeping, I'm just pointing out an error in the maths that I've seen made a few times. It's why a guy can start with 20 packages, and after 12 years of battling to do so called "expansion model beekeeping", still have less than 20 hives. The theories expounded are bogus, faulty maths, or, maths lacking some of the input data.


----------



## Saltybee

If you have a top producing Holstein do you breed her and her calves and call it good? Or do you do the bee equivalent of embryo implanting; requeening.
You could let the rest of your dairy herd die to improve the breed, maybe even bring in some wolves to increase the pressure. In the purist sense, you would let your best milker die in favor of the fastest runner.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Daniel Y said:


> I on the other hand am clear on what I am looking for. That is 90% survival on average. I don't find it acceptable to work for nothing.


TF beekeeper can only compete with himself. You have to have something you are looking for. 
My target is at the moment to get honey crops back to normal. To the level they used to be before TF beekeeping.

Although I had only about 17% winter losses, many hives are not producing much. My hives produced this summer from 0 to 100kg per hive, but the average is only 30kg. The biggest problem is that my bees are making such a small brood nest and the progress they are making is so slow that making nucs has become very challenging. Bear damages don´t help much.


----------



## Ralf_H

Daniel Y said:


> So 83% losses are not a failure as long as you don't mind loosing 83%? Sounds to me like people that simply declare failure to be a success and move on. Sort of like the thinking that whatever you achieve no matter how inadequate it is is considered good enough.
> ...


Hi Daniel Y,
I think you misunderstood Solomon a little bit. As far as I understand, TF-beekeeping is something of a way and not a status at the moment. I think no TF-beekeeper has the goal of loosing 83% of his hives, but if that happens at one point of the way and leads to better bees in the future, that will survive better, to me it's also acceptable. 
Best regards
Ralf


----------



## Andrew Dewey

What I'm hearing/reading is that hives best able to cope with mites are at this point not very productive, in part perhaps due to small colony size. I'm asking for speculation here, and speculation is often not worth a whole lot: Do you think we are looking at a restatement of what TF bees ought to be able to produce as surplus? My criteria was always 1) can they survive Maine winters? and 2) can they produce surplus? It sounds like the current state of the art is focusing on smaller everything, including surplus.

So next my mind wanders to the commercial TF beekeepers - three that quickly come to mind being Dee Lusby, Tim Ives and Kirk Webster - and I wonder are they experiencing reduced by traditional standards yields? I understand Kirk is focused on bee production and I don't know to the extent he seeks a honey crop. I do not know the operations of the other two: perhaps someone who knows their operations can provide us with information.


----------



## Ralf_H

Andrew Dewey said:


> ...
> It sounds like the current state of the art is focusing on smaller everything, including surplus.


As far as I understand the situation, a TF-beekeeper in the most regions of the world need to strongly select for varroa-resistent bees. So, as long as there are mostly non-resistent drones flying around, one needs to focus the breeding on this single item. In a few years perhaps or in some regions of the world, when all drug-dependent bees are gone, one can focus his/her selection/breeding on other items like honey surplus etc., like in the era before varroa.
Best regards
Ralf


----------



## Juhani Lunden

JWChesnut said:


> The maps suggest that the famous 100th parallel division of the high plains may encourage local extinction or local hypo-virulence in this area. It appears ND-SD-NE-KS have a checkerboard pattern of Varroa density. Does the lack of diversity driven by intensive agriculture, or harsh winters account for this pattern?


To check if that is true, you need to order 10 queens from some of these TF beekeepers and test their queens. 

As I did 2009 to prove my bees are resistant.

Lundén Buckfast
Lundén Resistant Queens
The Best bees without treatment *

(* "The Best" in this advertisement slogan does not mean my bees are the best, it means we get the best bees for the future without treatments, just to irritate people to think)


----------



## cristianNiculae

My understanding about TF is that you need to take some losses... for some these are unacceptable. Our speculating now global economy is pressing way too much upon everyone trying to make a living so most of us are giving up from the start because we are afraid. This pattern does not refer to bees only, you can find it in many other areas. The quantity has a far higher priority then quality. We live with an insane speed.

I also think that the locality matters... meaning the quality of bee food. You cannot compare a wild area with an agricultural one. It's logic. People are more healthy in these regions too.

Sad.


----------



## Oldtimer

heaflaw said:


> Get local government to pass laws stating that if you keep bees in the county, you cannot treat.





Solomon Parker said:


> Get government to do it. I hadn't considered that. Could be very effective if you can either be rich or sneaky enough.


The idea has some appeal, it would be interesting to see what would happen.

However before a government would do such a thing they would consider the effect on the economy, pollination, productivity, etc. To gauge those things they would have to look at the existing treatment free hives people have and see how they measure up.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Andrew Dewey said:


> What I'm hearing/reading is that hives best able to cope with mites are at this point not very productive, in part perhaps due to small colony size. I'm asking for speculation here, and speculation is often not worth a whole lot: Do you think we are looking at a restatement of what TF bees ought to be able to produce as surplus? My criteria was always 1) can they survive Maine winters? and 2) can they produce surplus? It sounds like the current state of the art is focusing on smaller everything, including surplus.
> 
> So next my mind wanders to the commercial TF beekeepers - three that quickly come to mind being Dee Lusby, Tim Ives and Kirk Webster - and I wonder are they experiencing reduced by traditional standards yields? I understand Kirk is focused on bee production and I don't know to the extent he seeks a honey crop. I do not know the operations of the other two: perhaps someone who knows their operations can provide us with information.


From my experience I find it hard to believe anyone telling that tf bees can produce as much as normal bees. 

Resistance has, in all forms of life, its costs.


----------



## squarepeg

Andrew Dewey said:


> What I'm hearing/reading is that hives best able to cope with mites are at this point not very productive, in part perhaps due to small colony size.


i've was able to harvest about 150 lbs off of a couple of hive last year. these were colonies that i was able to prevent from swarming and had enough supers of drawn comb so that no foundation had to be drawn.

there's a big difference in harvest from the hives that swarm vs. those that don't, (small vs. big colony).

i'm still harvesting this year so i won't have my numbers for another month or so. i dedicated 8 hives for honey production back in the spring, using the rest for queenrearing, splits, ect. i did a cut down split on one of the 8, and a couple of of the others ended up issuing small swarms late in the spring so i had to shift some of the supers off of them to other colonies.

the way it's looking now is that i should end up harvesting 125 -150 lbs average per hive, after leaving each a least one super of honey for overwintering. i'll report back when the actual numbers are in.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

squarepeg said:


> i dedicated 8 hives for honey production back in the spring, using the rest for queenrearing, splits, ect.
> the way it's looking now is that i should end up harvesting 125 -150 lbs average per hive, after leaving each a least one super of honey for overwintering. .


Is the average counted to those 8 hives dedicated for honey production or as an average to all your hives?


----------



## squarepeg

it would be for those eight juhani, but those numbers may have to be revised down after visiting the yard yesterday. one production colony in particular that i was expecting two or three more supers from was found to have brooded up through their honey and issued a swarm.

i try to keep 12 colonies at my home yard. after dedicating those 8 for production the other 4 slots were filled with caught swarms and splits. 

this spring the production hives grew to 5 - 6 medium supers over a single deep. a lot of those supers got filled with honey that did not get capped before the nectar flow slowed down this summer. (spring started a month late here but summer came right on time). in some cases i moved supers that were pretty full but not capped to one of the caught swarms or splits to finish and harvested it from there.

i went out yesterday expecting to harvest some supers only to find that they still weren't capped as completely as i want them to be. at this point looking like the 125-150 lbs average was a little too optimistic of a prediction. i think i'll just wait and see what i end up with and report that.

to andrew's point about bees kept off treatments not being productive, in my case i'm seeing that the bees are very capable of producing a nice surplus but they are also very good at swarming and when they do there is not much surplus. so i don't think they are inherently nonproductive but rather doing a better job at achieving their own goals over mine.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Juhani Lunden said:


> Is the average counted to those 8 hives dedicated for honey production or as an average to all your hives?


Honey production hives produce honey. Nuc production hives produce nucs. Packages producers produce bulk bees. Cell builders produce queens. How many pounds of bees did you sell from your honey production hives? How many queens did your bulk bees hives produce?  The TF beekeeper does not only make honey, they make queens, nucs, wax, and maybe even pollination too. It would be myopic to only measure honey output.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Solomon Parker said:


> It would be myopic to only measure honey output.


Yes, but honey production is generally understood measure of the productivity of bees. If they can make 80kg of honey, they are considered to be normal productive bees by any T or TF beekeeper. 

How you make money with their productivity, is up to you.

I always count my average crop kg / wintered hive. This takes it into account winter losses too.


----------



## Solomon Parker

It would seem to make more sense to count money rather than honey.


----------



## squarepeg

all true sol and juhani.

i came out of winter with 10 established colonies and 5 five frame nucs.

two of the established colonies were combined to form a queen cell builder/finisher, two others were slow to build up and exchanged for two more promising nucs from the nuc yard.

this left me with eight hives dedicated for honey production, a queen rearing colony, and five at the nuc yard that were built up for splits.

i lost a couple over the season to queen failure after swarming that were shook out and their comb redistributed.

i sold 13 five frame nucs, and kept the rest to get my numbers back up to 19.

i have reports from the beekeepers that purchased nucs that most of those colonies grew to one deep and two mediums and they are harvesting one medium from them. (this with no feeding)

the nucs i kept were made later in the season. they have grown to one deep and one medium and from these i won't harvest any honey.

so i'll be going into winter again with 19 colonies, all established, stronger on average than last year, with more drawn comb, and this should allow for more nucs in the spring.

the season is not over yet, and the numbers aren't in, but i'm fairly confident that the income from nuc and honey sales will put me about 40 - 50% above what it was last year (from roughly 4000 last year to 6000 this year), and the only thing i had to purchase was a ventilated suit. 

i'm hoping to dedicate 12 hives to honey production next season, and i'm contemplating cut down splits for all colonies to prevent swarming and keep the stacks from getting too high to work comfortably. i may introduce queen excluders once the colonies have requeened themselves after the cut downs. i also hope to sell between 20 - 30 nucs. the potential for next year if all goes well should be close to 10,000 in sales.


----------



## Oldtimer

Very impressive!


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks ot. my reason for posting that information was not to boast, but rather to address the perception that bees kept off treatments aren't productive. these have performed satisfactorily for what i feel is a reasonable return on investment. this may not be productive enough for some and granted it is only one example.

i think that the success has as much to do with the availability of quality forage as it does with the ability of the bees to defeat pests and pathogens. including myself there are six beekeepers that i know of using this stock and not using treatments or feeds, all located in three adjoining counties and mostly seeing similar results. what remains to be seen how these bees perform outside this immediate area.


----------



## Oldtimer

My theory about cases such as yours is that the bees have the mite numbers down close to zero, therefore they perform well.

Where there is poor performance of non treated hives is where the hives are struggling with higher mite numbers. Surviving, but struggling.


----------



## squarepeg

understood ot. i have just one colony at this point that fits that description, surviving, but lagging behind its cohorts. i plan to get a mite count on that one when it cools down a bit here. if the count is really high, i'll most likely put the whole works in the freezer killing mites and all the bees. if the count isn't so high, i'll chalk it up to the queen not being up to par, give it a chance to overwinter, and use it for nucs next spring.


----------



## Oldtimer

Could also pay to have it lab tested for _N cerana_. An evil relative of _N apis_, introduced from _A cerana_ to our bees. It has been doing the rounds in my country the symptoms are barely noticeable other than just failure to thrive.

Can be properly diagnosed at a lab.


----------



## squarepeg

good tip ot, many thanks. that particular colony started as a small caught swarm that i suspect had a virgin queen. she got lost to mating, so i combined with it a queenright nuc over newspaper. when i removed the remaining newspaper two days later the brood looked a little off color making me think they got overheated. it's possible that the queen suffered a bit from the heat as well.


----------



## JRG13

I don't see why people get so focused on one method or another. All hives are different, hives change over time. If you're trying to expand, you can't afford just letting hives go. Beekeeping is very locational, I always put it out there to send queens my way to test in California in our low to moderate flow area with high pressure due to almond bees coming and going but no one ever bites, I guess they don't truly believe in their genetics or something or maybe they just do realize how locational beekeeping is and how much their own inputs truly matter which is what I'm hearing a lot in this thread anyways. I guess the take home message is you have to achieve TF on your own to truly be successful in that realm and not rely on the experiences of others but to use their experiences to build upon for yourself. 

I don't understand why people need to draw that hard line on being treatment free or not. I treat a hive if it needs it, don't treat if it doesn't. If treatment free has an advantage, genetics should naturally drift that way.


----------



## squarepeg

excellent points there jrg.

i'm currently waiting on the results of mitochondrial dna tests to see if these bees are derived from some a queenline other than those used for commercially bred bees, but the bottom line is that at this point they are very highly hybridized with everything that has been brought into the area for many decades now. 

next spring we are going to send some queens to baton rouge so they can observe for and quantify resistant traits.

in the meantime, i'm working with my supplier and we are going to try expanding our nuc sales beyond the local area and hopefully into neighboring states to see how they do. i've been corresponding with the head bee inspector in north carolina who has expressed an interest in locating some up there.

i totally agree with your last statement about the 'hard line'.


----------



## JRG13

Cool deal Square,

Pm me where you're getting the test done, I'd like to look into it some day, not to say mDNA says much about the bee in general other than it's maternal parent but it's interesting stuff to know if you take some samples around you and from your apiary. I've got about 10 separate lines I'm hoping to work with next year and I'm always interested in acquiring more. I still float it out there, if you want to send me queens I will take them. I'll pay all costs involved and whatever price you want for them. 

People have inquired what my plans are for bees when they look at my background and it's hard to say. I'm really interested in the genetics and seeing how far that will take it. I believe in a broad base of diversity which is why I like to bring in other's peoples bees to test out but I'm also interested in longevity, productivity, hygenics etc... I'd like to do some almond pollination to test the bees out, but I think my system would be production hives pollinate after their first winter then get retired to a treatment free longevity test in a decent honey production setting for evaluation until the queen is superceded or needs to be replaced. Exceptional queens with good survivability will be used as breeders to keep feeding the pollination to TF cycle while at the same time I'd always be maintaining 20-30 breeder colonies and bringing in other genetics to keep diversity.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hey you two stay in touch, maybe something really good may come if you work together. 

It's great to see people taking things a little further than the previous philosophy of breeding from what lives without much other investigation.

JRG13's comments about mitochondrial DNA are correct, it can give you who the original mother of the maternal line was way back, but may have little to do with the current bee, which is mostly about Nucleic DNA. Just something to bear in mind. I figure you already know that Squarepeg and say it with respect because I would not presume to teach a Doctor how to suck eggs.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I think perhaps a smiley  ought to go with that, OT.


----------



## Oldtimer

Straight up, I considered a smiley, but did not want to appear trite.

But my sentiments were leaning towards a smiley.


----------



## squarepeg

it was taken in the spirit with which it was intended.

i figure the mdna results will be helpful either way. if they end up showing some line outside of what is being used commercially it may be worthwhile increasing the effort to propagate from them. if on the other hand there turns out to be nothing special about the lineage, it means that the common lines have just as much potential to develop resistance as not.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

squarepeg said:


> i sold 13 five frame nucs, and kept the rest to get my numbers back up to 19.
> 
> i also hope to sell between 20 - 30 nucs.


Keep in mind that you are selling a lot of mites with those nucs, if you have mites. What is your average infestation rate?

I have an idea that my bees were having a bit harder times after I decided that I will make max. 1 nuc out of one (strong) hive. Before I used to make many, up to 3, from a good hive. Remember that our season is short, so there is no point of making 1-2 frame nucs after midsummer. I don´t sell nucs. Kirk Webster does, and some time he said that he is starting to think it might be this system, making nucs and selling them, which is the secret of his success.

I´d love to have my bees investigated in Baton Rouge as well.


----------



## squarepeg

Juhani Lunden said:


> Keep in mind that you are selling a lot of mites with those nucs, if you have mites. What is your average infestation rate?


good point juhani. not only selling mites but causing a brood break as well, although most of my colonies so far have not been split at all and have good survival. since this is a sideline venture for me monitoring infestation rates is something that i have made time for. i do look for mites in drone brood when i come across it and can find one from time to time. i plan to check the one weaker colony in my yard when the weather cools, and any others if they should dwindle.

the decision to cut down split all colonies next year was more for swarm prevention and limiting the number of supers that have to be added. i have split the queen and three frames of bees out of my favorite colony these past two springs, mostly to make grafting easier. this splitting gives me a new colony, prevents swarming, and i harvested four mediums of honey from the parent colony both years. i'd be happy if i could consistently get that result across my yard. in terms of retail sales, that would be almost $1000 income per colony combining the sale of the nuc and 130 -140 lbs of honey.


----------



## mike bispham

Just read the thread. My take is that the OP's questions were properly, if quietly, addressed between 77 and 85, but that that went unnoticed.

Squarepeg in 77 responded to Solomon:

"I still believe that TFB is universal...."

"hmm. i'm more inclined to accept that there is some dependence on location. old timer's experience in new zealand for example, (and i believe he observed all of the the tfb tenants).

and your experience solomon when your colonies were moved into proximity of a commercial breeder and you observed changes in traits and survivability."
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...tor-in-TF-prescriptions&p=1150031#post1150031

It seems to me that both posters agree that proximity to treating apiaries is at least a, if not the, major factor, given that adequately functioning genetics are available and in play.

That is: if you have 'survivor-thriver' bees, and are clear of treating apiaries, you should be fine _anywhere_. 

Here's the problem: when Solomon uses the word 'location' he's thinking large-scale. Within, say, the location of NW Arkensas (of which I know nothing), tf is possible.. as long as the conditions are met.

In contrast (and here's the nub of the problem), when Squarepeg uses the word he means 'immediate/local'

Once you take this difference in use of the keyterm into account, you see that both agree on pretty much everything.

Both Solomon's and Squarepeg's analysies fit all the data - JWChestnut's account, their own accounts, Oldtimers account - and all other accounts.

The difference-maker is (initial and incoming genetics and) presence of treatment dependent drones. 

Not 'place' unless by 'place' you mean 'immediate-local'. In which case, 'place'.

And that's it. 

It was a great thread that illustrates beautifully the dreadful muddle that can arise when people fail to agree key terms, fail to notice they're talking at cross-purposes. The thread could have been resolved between 77 and 85. Instead its dribbled on until any incomer who looks at the beginning and end gets the impression that the question is not just not unresolved, but irresolvable. 

It also illustrates the multi-year failure of the tf movement to indentify clearly its own trump card, and to use it decisively.

_Genetics is the primary difference maker in tf. That's the foundation. Attention to it is utterly necessary. 

Everything else is built on that._

And that is universal. True of every location. Which disproves the well worn saw: 'Everything in beekeeping is local'

Some things in beekeeping are local. Others aren't.

Mike the philosopher (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Happy New Years Mike.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Happy New Years Mike.


And the same to you and All

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Mike 

But hey. While EVERYTHING in beekeeping may not be local, beekeeping IS local.


----------

