# Anybody Else Using the "Live Or Let Die" Method For Mites



## slickbrightspear

I have been doing this for 4 years but I only run russians so far works for me
Eric


----------



## adamf

NeilV said:


> Anybody else doing absolutely nothing to treat for mites? What have your losses been like?


Hi--we have been using this method coupled with carefull selection, to breed from the hives that do well without treatment. The first few years we had severe losses (one year was 90%). However by selecting from the hives that performed well despite varroa, and adding in replacement stock that was potentially tolerrant to varroa (vsh stock), and then selcting from the ones doing well in the following years, we've had good luck. We're going into our 10th season this way.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Michael Bush

I go to a lot of bee meetings and meet more and more people who lost all their bees the last time that they DID treat and decided they would rather lose them and not contaminate all their equipment. So they stopped treating and lost less bees that way. It seems to be a growing trend from what I'm hearing.


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

Just finished my 5th season. 18% loss last winter. Made them up with overwinterd nucs


----------



## Ian

I also know of a commercial outfit here who lost well over 80% of his stock that put him right out of the bee business, so what exactly are we asking of ourselves?

Why waste all your bee stock to the distructive mite, and use the queen stock from all these "survivours" to keep all of our stock alive.

You know what? I havent heard of any kind of a breeding program that will give you a queen that will provide an operation without treatments for over 4 years. 

Lets compaire apples to apples here, simple stock selection isnt the whole story . Perhaps an annually maintained replacement nursery, perhaps some IPM practices used. 

I dont think there is a beekeeper in my country, or yours that would put 1 million $ of borrowed money on the line to prove a point,


----------



## deknow

http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/villaferal2008.pdf


----------



## JBJ

*Break a few eggs to make an omlet, but dont drop the carton...*

It is possible to use the Bond test and not risk your whole operation. One can simply run a selection yard to vet the most tolerant and resistant queens. The larger the selection group one can afford the better. Once the best queens are identified, they can be propagated to requeen susceptible and untested colonies in the rest of the operation. If more beekeepers start doing this collaboratively the best bees can be identified and incorporated into commercial stocks faster without unnecessary colony losses.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Been doing it here for more than forty years. Of course, not just for _Varroa_, but for everything. Just recently I had my very first losses. A very upsetting experience, but I plan to continue letting the bees do what they do best - take care of themselves.


----------



## tecumseh

neilv writes:
Anybody else doing absolutely nothing to treat for mites? What have your losses been like?

tecumseh:
absolutely nothing? sounds like the dream of a very lazy individual.

how about raising cattle without proper vaccination for black leg?

how about raising horses without proper shots for sleeping sickness?

how about raising a dog without treating them for heartworm or rabies?

how about raising kids without vaccinating them for polio?

back to subject...
I threat within limit and only when necessary. I test first using the hives that show significant numbers as material for splits. I do treat these prior to splitting to hopefully knock off any excessive mite numbers to give these new starts an even chance. when I do treat I don't use anything that looks like it will assist the mite in being bigger and badder in later gerations than it is now. I do employ some aspects of integrated pest management more so than any chemical. It likely didn't hurt my current endeavor with the bees to start out with b weaver stock and pretty much stick with b weaver stock.... with the exception of adding a bit of minnesota hygenic bloodline along the way in the past couple of years.

I loose and or replace about 15% of my stock yearly. my normal goal is to rear approximately 1/3 of my existing stock for replacement or for expansion purposes.

I guess more accurately neilv you should likely have stated losses from varroa of trachael mites? years back it was not that uncommon for some beekeeper to experience winter death losses (essentially starvation) of from 33 to 50%.


----------



## odfrank

*Me, about 50% loss*

Me, yes, about 50% loss the last two years. Ferals die, small cells die, at first hives two years old. This year I lost several new caught feral swarms, and saw lots of mysterious queen losses. Can't positively attribute any of this to mites. See lots of deformed wing bees.


----------



## Ian

deknow,

could reference the link, but I am assuming your linking a reference to the Lusby farm?
If so, I am familiar with thier operation,

but I have to say one thing, do you perhaps figure they have Afficanized genetics expressed in thier bees? I have seen video links of Dee working her hives, and boy those bees look hot!


----------



## Natalie

I went to my beekeepers meeting the other night and they had a speaker who works with Dee Lusby on a regular basis and he had video clips and a whole presentation on natural beekeeping and the live and let die method that they use.
He also stated that her bees do have varroa but they are in small quantities and she does nothing to treat them.
She also takes any frames of foundation affected by disease and puts them out and allows the bees to clean them up.
He said he was shocked at first because everything he has ever been taught is to destroy them and not spread it.
She had no bee loss from ever doing that and claims it helps them develop a resistance to it.
If the bees looked hot it could be the same video that I saw. 
He told us that in the video he showed with the bees all over the place that they had opened up a couple of hundred hives that day and they do not smoke her hives ever.
He said that they use the smoker on their own clothing and thats it. He attributes the bee frenzy in the video to the fact that there are literally millions of bees in that yard and they disturbed a huge amount of them and add in the fact that they not using smoke and disturbing them so much makes it look worse than it is.
I am not claiming to know anything about her operation one way or the other, just that I happened to go to this presentation the other night and sharing some info.


----------



## Kieck

The person you heard speak wouldn't happen to be deknow, would it?


----------



## George Fergusson

I stopped treating for everything 2+ years ago. Lost about half my hives. Currently have 10 going into winter.


----------



## Brandy

I'm also in the Live and Let Die mode. Raise queens each year from the best producing survivors, strongest to overwinter in my climate. Variably cold warm cold etc.. I see lot's of varroa on the slides so they're dealing with these mites daily. This will be 4th or 5th winter and my losses are usually in the 20-25% range with 30 + or - colonies, although it's my nuc's that get hit the hardest with the smaller clusters. Because I have access to new queens each year I don't think I can say that any of these surviving colonies are really 3,4,5 years old since I can move colonies to cell builder, nuc's, combine, or production hives fairly easy and do. So, an interesting process..


----------



## Ian

>>He said he was shocked at first because everything he has ever been taught is to destroy them and not spread it.
She had no bee loss from ever doing that and claims it helps them develop a resistance to it.

You talking AFB here?


----------



## Ian

>>bee frenzy in the video to the fact that there are literally millions of bees in that yard and they disturbed a huge amount of them and add in the fact that they not using smoke and disturbing them so much makes it look worse than it is.

All I can say is that when I was watching the video, I felt those bees looked hot, and did not envey the guys working them at all. I enjoy working bees, and that video I did not enjoy watching, although I did enjoy seeing the huge hives and their precieved great production.
I have video taped my work in my operation before, during a honey pull, millions of bees leaving the boxes, and they sure did not come across as being hot as they did in this video. I would think anyone watching this video would say the same.


----------



## Kieck

I agree with Ian's comments on the video. I think we've seen this video before here on BeeSource? And I seem to recall that deknow posted them before? And we've had the debate about Africanized/not Africanized. That's why I was wondering if deknow was the speaker at the meeting that Natalie attended.


----------



## Natalie

I have to say that I don't know who deknow is. I am new here and have to find my way around. Although I guess its possible it was him, but I don't know.
Anyway, the hives could be hot I really don't know I was just sharing the info I had and just took him for his word. Maybe they don't seem hot to him?
As I said, don't know anything about that operation but I really enjoyed the presentation.


----------



## Natalie

Ian said:


> >>He said he was shocked at first because everything he has ever been taught is to destroy them and not spread it.
> She had no bee loss from ever doing that and claims it helps them develop a resistance to it.
> 
> You talking AFB here?


I was talking about the natural methods she used in not treating for disease and allowing the bees to clean the frames.


----------



## Ian

Not treating for disease, and letting them clean the frames, meaning what?
and by doing so, how do you figure they become resitant to disease? And what exactly what disease are you talking about?


----------



## Natalie

As I said in my post I was simply repeating what was in the presentation in the presenters words, not mind. 
As in, SHE lets the bees clean up the frames, the ones affected by disease and SHE feels it helps develop their immunity.
I don't FIGURE anything. 

If you read my post what I have said is pretty clear. You are asking questions that I have already answered. The answer is not going to change as I do not have anymore information than I have already given.

Its says she lets the bees clean them up, you know how bees clean things up I don't know what else to say about it.

I think you are under the impression for some reasons I don't understand that I am making these statements when in fact if you read my post I am, as I said, sharing some information that I recieved at a presentation where her methods were mentioned and I thought it would be helpful to share, or maybe the information would be useful. It was obviously a mistake and I wonder now why I said anything at all.

I hope this clears things up. I was relaying information that I recieved at a presentation, what I have already stated is the extent of my knowledge as I said in my post. I know nothing more of her operation.
If you have anymore questions I can't help you, maybe you should contact her and ask her what you want to know.


----------



## kirk-o

Thank You Natalie
I don't treat for nothing.I do Starter Strips all natural comb.I don't like being a Para-Medic for Bugs.I loos my hives to ants mostly.I never count mites waste of time.The Strong Survive the weak succumb.Read Backwards Beekeeping by Charles Martin Simmon I follow his Lead.
kirk-o


----------



## Hambone

*Off Topic*

I have been watching and reading this thread. "Live and let die" has been in my head all day long. I went to the trusty Ipod to listen to it. Didn't have it. I do now. Beatles not GNR....

Pardon the interruption,

Derek


----------



## Natalie

Thank you for the book recommendation kirk-o. I am always looking for more information on natural beekeeping. It seems odd to me that anyone would be against it.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Ian said:


> Not treating for disease, and letting them clean the frames, meaning what?
> and by doing so, how do you figure they become resitant to disease?


Bees won't become resistant to anything unless they are constantly compromised by the pest or pathogen. If you want AFB resistant bees, the bees have to be exposed to AFB. When the exposure stops, the resistance will disappear...over time. Same with Varroa tolerance, and resistance to the viruses vectored by the mites.


----------



## deknow

Michael Palmer said:


> If you want AFB resistant bees, the bees have to be exposed to AFB. When the exposure stops, the resistance will disappear...over time.


dee's approach to afb is anything less that 6 cells with scale (both sides of the comb) is left in the hive. heavily infected frames (more than 6 cells with scale) are burned.

by what we are told "by the experts", dee's whole operation should be dead from afb (afb is present, equipment isn't burned, and equipment is moved from yard to yard). ...yet, they are not dead, and the rate of infection stays quite low without growing.

i believe it was michael palmer told me of an old timer who advocated treating afb by combining the sick hive with a strong one.

deknow


----------



## odfrank

kirk-o said:


> I loos my hives to ants mostly.kirk-o


I have never seen ants kill a hive. A weak divide, or maybe a nuc with a queen cage with sugar. If you are finding hives you think were killed by ants, I suspect that it died from some other reason and the ants are just there scavenging.
>The Strong Survive the weak succumb. 
I bet you will change your tune on this quote with a few more years experience.


----------



## soupcan

*Never kill a hive!*

We have been raising, picking queen cells from our super strong hives in the spring for the last 10 years or better.
We will even run hives in triples & croud them to force a swarm/queen cell issue.
I will be very honest as we have a lot of bees that at times are some what mean to work with.
But on the same hand we worked bees this year into September in t-shirts with no problems.
I no longer look at a hive that is real easy to handle for a queen raiser.
I have found that the agressive trait more times than not will result in a hive that is more apt to remove varroa & or bite a leg or two off and they can no longer hold on to the bee. 
The 1st thing we look at in the spring is as to how clean the bottom board is.
I will then pull a comb & introduce a ant or two to see the the reaction that the house bees show.
If the invader is tolerated I keep looking.
If the invader is not tolerated I will then introduce varroa from some drone brood.
More times than not the bees will tear off a leg or two in just seconds.
There will be some hives that the bees will fight among themselves to tear the legs off the bee.
There will also be hives that I swear the house bee can smell the varroa as they will run 4 or 5 inches across the frame over the top of other bees to grab the varroa.
I keep telling myself that this is what needs to be done to cure our varroa problem.
Bees are a very smart insect.
Look how long they have been on this earth.
They have learned to survive by taking care of thenself.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> i believe it was michael palmer told me of an old timer who advocated treating afb by combining the sick hive with a strong one.
> 
> deknow


Nope, not me.
Mike


----------



## Ian

>>I think you are under the impression for some reasons I don't understand that I am making these statements when in fact if you read my post I am, as I said, sharing some information that I recieved at a presentation where her methods were mentioned and 

Sure, but what exactly is she talking about? Nosema, chalkbrood, EFB, AFB, ?

>>dee's approach to afb is anything less that 6 cells with scale (both sides of the comb) is left in the hive. heavily infected frames (more than 6 cells with scale) are burned.

this is what I was asking for,
though, knowing how invasive AFB is, I feel buring in the most proactive approach.
Naturally, AFB is left to decay after the colony dies off. Naturally, combs arnt used and reused or seperated and divided into different colonies.

Natalie, you got me all wrong, I wasnt intending to insult you, but I was intending to press you for an important detail in your statment. As you said , you were there, I wasnt, all I was trying to clear up was what exactly was she reffering to,
The problem with conversation over a fourm like this, simple typed words can so easily be mis understood


----------



## Kieck

One of the problems I have with the "natural beekeeping" claims made by some (and I'm not accusing anyone here) is that some of those same beekeepers continue to keep bees under what can at very best be described as artificial or managed conditions.

Go search out some unmanaged colonies. Map their distributions. I would like to see any example out there of 10 or 20 or more unmanaged colonies existing within feet or each other like colonies do in beekeepers' yards. Until those artificial concentrations are reduced, none of it can be described as "natural beekeeping," in my opinion.

On another line, was it you who made the presentation that Natalie attended, deknow?


----------



## Michael Palmer

Ian;384038 knowing how invasive AFB is said:


> I agree, and do the same. But, it is possible to develop resistance to AFB. Classic example was the wax works at...I think...Dadant. For years and years AFB contaminated combs came in to be rendered. There was an apiary there, too. Well, that apiary developed resistance to AFB, and the bees were propogated, anf the resistance was real.
> 
> When AFB combs were no longer rendered at the plant, the resistance in the bees was lost. I'm sure that others could give more names and dates, etc than I did. Still, the bottom line is that bees can develop resistance to AFB. But, when you stop pressuring them with AFB, the resistance fades.
> 
> I believe Dee is keeping the pressure on.
> 
> Oh, I forgot to mention..."Don't try this at home."


----------



## deknow

sorry, i missed part of this thread.

yes, that was me that gave the presentation. i'll try to get back here tonight...but i'm late, and gotta go.

deknow


----------



## Ian

>>I believe Dee is keeping the pressure on.

Okay, I guess. I am not agreeing with it, but for discussion sake, I will grant you this one.

But I have to add, if some beekeeper is trying to develope resistance to AFB by keeping on the pressure, they better know what they are doing, and make dam sure they keep ontop of things.
Wouldnt your neighbour just love to know that you were putting infected combs out to rob out, trying to maintain a AFB resistant beeyard!

Its easy to say, but I also have talked to beekeepers who couldnt get a handle on thier problem, ending up burning all the equipment after shaking the medicated bees onto foundation.


----------



## Kieck

The advocacy for developing "disease resistance" in bees by deliberately exposing them to the pathogens is along the same lines as people who believe that children should be exposed to diseases so the kids "get them out of the way."

While that might be fine for exposing kids to relatively harmless diseases, would you want to deliberately expose your child to smallpox or polio or other such diseases?

Same applies to bees, at least to some extent. Bees exposed to some of these diseases _may_ develop some immunity or resistance, or they may simply die. If you have a hive come down with AFB, and you choose to spread those combs out for robbing, all the rest of your hives may prove to be susceptible (that is, they don't have or develop resistance), and all may die, too. Such a circumstance would be pretty disheartening for most hobbyist beekeepers.

And, kind Ian pointed out, that says nothing about your beekeeping neighborly relationships.

As far as the bees in the videos, as I recall from previous discussions, the bees were claimed to be completely of European descent, yet some of thought the bees looked awfully "hot" and wondered how they could be so certain that no crossbreeding with Africanized bees was occuring in a location shown to have populations of Africanized bees. Regardless of whether or not the bees are truly Africanized, some of us thought the bees in the video appeared far "hotter" than we would like to handle, and didn't feel that the hives looked exceptional in any other way from what we could see.

No offense intended to deknow or Lusbys or anyone else involved in the video and/or project. Just trying to point out that what is being held up as an example might not really be any better or even as good as what other beekeepers are doing, especially depending on your ambitions in beekeeping.


----------



## Michael Bush

>i believe it was michael palmer told me of an old timer who advocated treating afb by combining the sick hive with a strong one.

"The great beekeeper Dr. John Eckert relied solely on having strong colonies for the control of AFB. If he came upon a colony with AFB, he simply combined that colony with the strongest colonies in his apiary and let the bees clean up the disease" --The How-To-Do-It book of Beekeeping, Richard Taylor


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> The advocacy for developing "disease resistance" in bees by deliberately exposing them to the pathogens is along the same lines as people who believe that children should be exposed to diseases so the kids "get them out of the way."
> 
> While that might be fine for exposing kids to relatively harmless diseases, would you want to deliberately expose your child to smallpox or polio or other such diseases?


...this is a common mistake. if you wanted to "breed humans for disease resistance" (not something i'm advocating), you would not give children vaccinations, and you would "breed" the next generation from those children that didn't succumb to disease. ...the difference is, we care about individual humans (especially human children), and generally put their individual wellbeing over that of the the genepool in general.

with bees, we are free to allow unsuitable stock to die off. there may be short term financial incentive not to do so, but there is no real moral (or legal) problem with this. once we define the "environment", we look for suitability. if the environment includes treatment x, antibiotic y or pollutant z (either in the hive or picked up from the outside by the bees), we breed bees that are well adapted for this environment.



> Same applies to bees, at least to some extent. Bees exposed to some of these diseases _may_ develop some immunity or resistance, or they may simply die. If you have a hive come down with AFB, and you choose to spread those combs out for robbing, all the rest of your hives may prove to be susceptible (that is, they don't have or develop resistance), and all may die, too. Such a circumstance would be pretty disheartening for most hobbyist beekeepers.


1. individual colonies may develop resistance...or the ones without resistance might die off (or both).
2. i don't recall (nor know) anyone spreading the combs out. dee simply leaves any comb in place if there are less than 6 cells of scale.
3. the poor hobbyist is a "victim" of how bees have been treated by the "pros". the bees die off because previous generations were medicated or kept away from afb.
4. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/284/2008/00000057/00000004/00009202?crawler=true
some research out of sweden shows that there are some aparantly novel bacteria in the honey stomach of honeybees. their populations increased when afb was detected (in the lab...no clinical symptoms were seen)...afb infection was quite high (i think 8million cfu/bee if i recall correctly)...and then disappeared (still without symptoms). there is some speculation that these other bacteria in the honey stomach might have something to do with fighting the afb. using a wide spectrum antibiotic is likely to kill off these other bacteria. there is a good parallel in humans...our inner ears have bacteria that keep strep in check. when we get an "ear infection" and take antibiotics, we kill off the "good" bacteria as well as the "bad". recurrence of such an infection is common, as the strep often will come back faster. there has been some success inoculating children with this "good" bacteria. 

whether the bees own immune system develops resistance, or if their microflora (by not treating with antibiotics) are able to deal with the problem, i don't know. i do know that dee's operation is not free of afb (anymore than any commercial operation with 700+ hives is), and that her practices have not resulted in her bees dying, or more than 1% or so of afb infection...and she moves boxes from yard to yard.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> One of the problems I have with the "natural beekeeping" claims made by some (and I'm not accusing anyone here) is that some of those same beekeepers continue to keep bees under what can at very best be described as artificial or managed conditions.


what are the claims you are objecting to?



> Go search out some unmanaged colonies. Map their distributions. I would like to see any example out there of 10 or 20 or more unmanaged colonies existing within feet or each other like colonies do in beekeepers' yards. Until those artificial concentrations are reduced, none of it can be described as "natural beekeeping," in my opinion.


dr. erickson, at the 1989 AHPA meeting (4 years before ahb was found in arizona), spoke of 15-20 feral colonies per square kilometer...and specifically an area with 16 colonies in an area 1/2 block by 1 block....in the desert.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Derek said:


> "Live and let die" has been in my head all day long. I went to the trusty Ipod to listen to it. Didn't have it. I do now. Beatles not GNR....
> 
> Pardon the interruption,


the interruption is one thing....calling "live and let die" a beatles tune (when it was wings) is close to inexcusable!

deknow


----------



## Kieck

> ...this is a common mistake. -deknow


While I agree with the concept of individual humans having importance to other humans, and, therefore, not "breeding" for "disease resistance" in humans, I think you're missing the point.

To many hobbyists, especially those relatively new to beekeeping or with very few hives, individual hives have at least some importance.

Hypothetically, let's say that you had a unique but very small number of hives with some very special trait. Say, complete resistance to _Varroa_ and CCD. However, your beekeeping neighbor believes in creating some resistance to AFB in his bees, distributes comb for robbing as mentioned in this thread, and those rare bees of yours in this hypothetical situation do not have any resistance to AFB. You lose them all. How would you feel about that beekeeper's decision? What if the combs were not distributed, but were simply not destroyed and everything else was the same in the hypothetical situation? How would you feel then?



> with bees, we are free to allow unsuitable stock to die off. -deknow


"Suitable stock" is a matter of definition. As tecumseh, I believe it was, pointed out, we vaccinate other livestock to reduce disease problems. Their susceptibility to disease doesn't make them "unsuitable" overall. We just see benefits to managing them in specific ways to suit (and "suit" is the base for "suitable") our purposes.



> and that her practices have not resulted in her bees dying, or more than 1% or so of afb infection...and she moves boxes from yard to yard. -deknow


And that's good and well, but presenting such material to a group including novice beekeepers or those with little to no experience dealing with such disease may leave them with the impression that diseases such as AFB can be dealt with by trying to "create resistance in their bees."

Most small-time beekeepers have too few hives and too few resources to operate breeding programs to develop/create/find "resistant" bees. And their beekeeping neighbors' proximity and much greater numbers of hives are likely to overwhelm any efforts of this sort anyway in most cases.



> what are the claims you are objecting to? -deknow


First, the claim that all of the problems associated with beekeeping in this country can be solved by simply letting the bees do what they "want" is objectionable. If that is true, then so be it. But keeping bees where we want them contradicts that assumption. 

But I think you saw that already with the next quotation you took from my post.



> dr. erickson, at the 1989 AHPA meeting (4 years before ahb was found in arizona), spoke of 15-20 feral colonies per square kilometer...and specifically an area with 16 colonies in an area 1/2 block by 1 block....in the desert. -deknow


Maybe, but I've never witnessed such concentrations. Anywhere.

If the environment in those locations supported such concentrations, though, that may have been. But if you read up on ecological principles, you'll find that dense populations or concentrations of similar organisms increase probabilities of disease and/or predation. 

Oh, and don't forget that honey bees are not native to North America to begin with. Their introduction to the western hemisphere released them from some of the parasites/predators/pathogens that limited them in an ecological balance in their native range.


----------



## mountainvalleybee

*hello all*

hello all interesting discussion


----------



## mountainvalleybee

*Live or Let Die*

I noticed in an earlier post that it was mentioned about the term Live or Let Die evoking a Musical Response but for me all it caused was a Reversion to Visual Images.


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> To many hobbyists, especially those relatively new to beekeeping or with very few hives, individual hives have at least some importance.


...and their bees will necessarily live if they follow your procedures? what percentage of new beekeepers loose their hives even when they use fluvalinate, terramycin, formic acid, etc? i think it's important to allow people to make their own decisions as to what is important to them (even new beekeepers).



> Hypothetically, let's say that you had a unique but very small number of hives with some very special trait. Say, complete resistance to _Varroa_ and CCD. However, your beekeeping neighbor believes in creating some resistance to AFB in his bees, distributes comb for robbing as mentioned in this thread, and those rare bees of yours in this hypothetical situation do not have any resistance to AFB. You lose them all. How would you feel about that beekeeper's decision? What if the combs were not distributed, but were simply not destroyed and everything else was the same in the hypothetical situation? How would you feel then?


1. i believe that natalie misunderstood me. dee does not "lay out" comb for robbing with scale, she leaves it in the hive where it was found.
2. you are describing a problem that is of our (beekeepers) own design. keep treating for this or that "short term", and you loose any long term resistance. this is where we are at. don't we have some afb that is resistant to TM? how do you think that happend? i'm not trying to dodge your question, it's just that the big picture of "how we got here" is so much more important than "what happens if your neighbor does x".




> "Suitable stock" is a matter of definition. As tecumseh, I believe it was, pointed out, we vaccinate other livestock to reduce disease problems. Their susceptibility to disease doesn't make them "unsuitable" overall. We just see benefits to managing them in specific ways to suit (and "suit" is the base for "suitable") our purposes.


here's a hint. who gets more $$$ for their eggs/meat/milk/etc....those that use more treatments on their livestock, or those that use less? who will do better in a "very bad year" when treatments might not be available or affordable? who will be impacted more by drug resistant strains of disease? of course there are benefits to treating...but there are also drawbacks...and there are benefits and drawbacks to not treating.



> And that's good and well, but presenting such material to a group including novice beekeepers or those with little to no experience dealing with such disease may leave them with the impression that diseases such as AFB can be dealt with by trying to "create resistance in their bees."


well, this is information i have...information that virtually no one else will talk about. i give even "novice beekeepers" enough respect to tell them the truth, and not to assume that i know so much more than them that i should only tell them some true information. this was not a beginning beekeeping course, but a meeting of a bee club that wanted to hear about treatment free beekeeping. i gave them the best and most accurate information i have. disease such as afb _can_ be dealt with by creating resistance...i've given one example, and both michael's have each supplied another example each. it is important to know about this if one is to actually understand how bees live. it is "the industry" that has failed these novice beekeepers (by perpetuating stock that isn't afb resistant in the name of short term gains), not me for telling them the truth.



> Most small-time beekeepers have too few hives and too few resources to operate breeding programs to develop/create/find "resistant" bees. And their beekeeping neighbors' proximity and much greater numbers of hives are likely to overwhelm any efforts of this sort anyway in most cases.


most "small time beekeepers" are also interested in bees. how can one expect to learn about bees without knowing how they actually deal with disease in the absence of treatments? this is like trying to understand humans by studying how the stork brings babies.



> First, the claim that all of the problems associated with beekeeping in this country can be solved by simply letting the bees do what they "want" is objectionable. If that is true, then so be it. But keeping bees where we want them contradicts that assumption.


can you quote anyone having said such a thing? ironically, your statment does make a certain amount of sense...the problems associated with beekeeping are solved by not keeping bees ("letting them do what they want"). the problems with beekeeping go well beyond bees...it has to do with how we produce food in this country. i don't think that there is a situation involving humans where 'all problems' can be solved.



> Maybe, but I've never witnessed such concentrations. Anywhere.


yet this highly qualified professional (dr. erickson) has.



> But if you read up on ecological principles, you'll find that dense populations or concentrations of similar organisms increase probabilities of disease and/or predation.


yes, it's amazing that social insects (from a single colony) don't all simply die off from disease...yet, they don't.



> Oh, and don't forget that honey bees are not native to North America to begin with. Their introduction to the western hemisphere released them from some of the parasites/predators/pathogens that limited them in an ecological balance in their native range.


seems to be plenty of ecological pressure on honeybees in the western hemisphere to me, no?

deknow


----------



## Hambone

deknow said:


> the interruption is one thing....calling "live and let die" a beatles tune (when it was wings) is close to inexcusable!
> 
> deknow


Sorry about that. My wife runs the Ipod for me. (I Tunes) I think it's called. Is on her laptop. I give her a list of the songs I want and she puts them on there. On the list I put "live or let die" "Not the Guns and Roses - I want the Beatles/Paul McCartney" But it isnexcusable non the less. Music Sin.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

NeilV said:


> Anybody else doing absolutely nothing to treat for mites? What have your losses been like?


I bought 15 nucs with Minn Hyg, queens in them last year that are kept in a secluded area away from my other bees, for purposes of discussion we will ignore them as they have no contact with my main stock that has not been treated since about 2003. In 2003 I requeened all my 35 hives at the time with NWC. I did try to infuse my stock with Purvis queens in 2005 but none of those lived past the first year.

Scince I have stoped treating and buying queens I have expanded to over 100 hives. I do some splits but mostly rely on catching swarms and removals for increase. My winter losses have steadily declined from 35% the first year to 8% last year, all the time expanding in numbers of hives. I expect that this year I will have more losses due to my not getting them fed up to the point before winter that I think that they should have been.

I think that one of the main factors in my ability to do this is that I am using all new equipment, none of it being contaminated with chemical treatments, and perhaps to a smaller degree, small cell. And the fact that I rely on feral stock and open breeding. I expect that I am most likely breeding to stock that has swarmed away from my yards.


----------



## honeyshack

here is the low down on disease resistance. As per cows. I will use the example of calf scours

Calf scours is a management issue 90%. There are management things that can be done to lessen the scour load.
Some are simple management techniques like more space. Good quality colostrum for passive transfer. Good nutrition
Others are vaccinations

Here is the deal

Resistance only works as long as the threshold has not been breeched. Resistance in a calf is only as good as the management techniques to keep the virus below threshold levels.
Cows naturally poop out the viruses that cause scours. When a cow gets stressed, it poops out more. The calf comes in contact with the crap by getting crapped on on the head while stealing milk, laying in a warm pile, sniffing to check it out. Curious buggers.
As long as the virus numbers stay below threshold the calf can fight off the sickness because the passive transfer of colostrum provides protection. Once the virus numbers surpass the threshold, I am out there tackling a 120# calf trying to shove two boluss down it's throat and give it a needle and tubing electrolytes, all the while trying not to get killed by the momma.
Thus this is where phyiscal management comes in so i do not get killed and home intime to make dinner for hubby.
For example, to decrease stress on cows, we would give them alot of space. WE would make sure the nutrition is up there pre and post calving. We would make sure they have adequate bedding and bush for protection from storms. The calves would have shelters to get out of from storms. We handle cows in a stress free manner. Using low birth weight bull with good calving ease, thus keeping calving stress down.
All these things are management issues to address the balance of the threshold of disease to resistance to disease. Once the balance is lost, you are in big trouble
With bees, you might be trying to have AFB resistance, but if another stress enters the hive, like say varroa, weather, stressfull handling of a hive, you have just decreased the threshold for AFB, thus creating that perfect moment when the momma cow wants to kill you for making her baby cry!


----------



## Kieck

> ...and their bees will necessarily live if they follow your procedures? -deknow


No guarantees. Obviously. But encouraging new beekeepers to spread AFB among hives is more likely to lead to losses, in my opinion, than encouraging new beekeepers to burn AFB infected comb.

And at least one of the beekeepers listening to the presentation interpreted the comments as meaning that diseased combs should deliberately be spread out for robbing to "increase resistance" in other hives.



> keep treating for this or that "short term", and you loose any long term resistance. -deknow


Peculiar in my mind that beekeepers are now seeming so anxious to "develop resistance" in bees. And the presumption that "resistance" is long term also seems peculiar, I think.

Look at the examples of "resistance" that have been bred into plants and have been overcome, and look how quickly those resistant forms have been overcome. Closer to home, look at how quickly two chemical acaricides were overcome by _Varroa_ mites. Don't confuse "resistance" with "management to reduce problems." Ideally, I think, beekeepers can manage hives to avoid most problems at damaging levels. Genetics are one component, but seeking to solve problems strictly through genetics (that is, "breeding resistance") is putting all of the eggs in one basket.



> who gets more $$$ for their eggs/meat/milk/etc....those that use more treatments on their livestock, or those that use less? -deknow


Obviously, those who use more treatments on their livestock.  I know, I know, that's not the answer you're expecting. But think about it for a minute: if you claim otherwise, you are in essence calling agricultural producers stupid. Most producers rely on "conventional" management (not "all natural" or "organic" or whatever). The money that producers make is directly tied to both their costs of production and the value of their commodities. Look at the most profitable producers, then, to find which makes more money.

Now, if you ask, "Who gets more $$$ per unit of commodity when they sell, those who use conventional treatments or those certified organic?" then you should get the answer I suspect you were expecting.

But that's beside the point in this discussion.



> yet this highly qualified professional (dr. erickson) has. -deknow


I don't think I made myself clear on this. What I was attempting to point out is that such concentrations are rare, I think. Have you witnessed such dense concentrations of unmanaged colonies?

But again, we're getting off topic.

The bigger issue is that the concentrations of bees today is far beyond even what cite. Sixteen colonies? How about 20,000 colonies in a square mile, even if for just a short time? How about more than 1,000,000 colonies going to almonds in California, then getting spread back out to the rest of the country? I think most biologists would agree that the massive concentrations and the movements of bee hives for commercial pollination are ripe for disease problems.



> seems to be plenty of ecological pressure on honeybees in the western hemisphere to me, no? -deknow


Probably not as much as on bees in their native range. But again, I probably didn't make this point abundantly clear: Honey bees are not native to the western hemisphere. If you wish to participate in truly "natural beekeeping," you shouldn't keep _Apis mellifera_ in the western hemisphere. Do so is inherently "unnatural."


----------



## JBJ

Or one could argue that humans are natural, therefor human activities of humans are natural, therefor it is natural for humans to keep bees in these densities in this hemisphere. 

Both arguments are a bit tautological. This would make all treatments natural, which I think we can all agree is not the point of this thread.

Genetics as a first line of defense as part of an overall IPM strategy seems like the most rational strategy to me.


----------



## Ian

>>Once the balance is lost, you are in big trouble
With bees, you might be trying to have AFB resistance, but if another stress enters the hive, like say varroa, weather, stressfull handling of a hive, you have just decreased the threshold for AFB, thus creating that perfect moment when the momma cow wants to kill you for making her baby cry!


This is another very important point that has to be considered in the whole question, as it is with hives varroa tolerance levels,


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> And at least one of the beekeepers listening to the presentation interpreted the comments as meaning that diseased combs should deliberately be spread out for robbing to "increase resistance" in other hives.


yes, apparantly she did. on the other hand, i've been out with our local inspector, and in every case where treatment was suggested face to face with the beekeeper (and a written report with instructions), they showed no signs of understanding what treatment they should buy from where, or how to apply it. fortunately, the beekeeper in question is part of a very strong local club, with their own forum and lots of mentors.
many beekeepers misapply treatments (treat with honey supers on, don't remove apistan strips until spring..if at all, extract honey from treated broodcombs and don't differentiate it from their edible honey, overtreat, "shop towel treatments"....i've seen treated afb hives that still show symptoms with no bottom board ripe to tip over, open feeding of treatments, etc). the fact that there was a misunderstanding is of concern....but it's hardly a unique situation.



> Look at the examples of "resistance" that have been bred into plants and have been overcome, and look how quickly those resistant forms have been overcome. Closer to home, look at how quickly two chemical acaricides were overcome by _Varroa_ mites.


this is a well understood phenomenon you are talking about here. using the input of a specific substance that acts in a specific manner against pests will (unless 100% effective) eventually breed resistance. this is why bt corn is known to have a limited useful window of time...and why they are already at work on it's replacement.
on the other hand, do we have "ladybug resistant aphids"? "bat resistant moths"? "toad resistant ants"? yes...in these examples the prey has some mechanisms to avoid the predator...and the predator has mechanisms to eat the prey. if the predator eats too much prey, there is not enough food to sustain the predator population...the the prey is too good at avoiding the predator, they mulitply to the point of outstripping their own food source, or increasing in numbers enough that the predator can find plenty to eat. this is the kind of balance that nature provides...and exactly what pesticides and acaricides are NOT....in these cases, you have only applied pressure to 1/2 of the equation...and the equation will tend to balance itself out.



> Don't confuse "resistance" with "management to reduce problems." Ideally, I think, beekeepers can manage hives to avoid most problems at damaging levels. Genetics are one component, but seeking to solve problems strictly through genetics (that is, "breeding resistance") is putting all of the eggs in one basket.


what are "damaging levels"? they are certainly different for a feral population than they are for a migratory pollinating unit.
...and i agree genetics are only one component...and nature uses more than one component. the other (and majorly overlooked) mechanism is the microbial environment. there is good evidence that the microbes (even the pathogenic ones) are important to keep the balance in the colony...and that when in good shape, it is very adaptable and dynamic. of course, between the genetics of the bees, the microbial culture bees harbor, and the wider environment, the bees have evolved into what they are, and they have shows long term survival in the face of countless challenges and stresses. as you point out, the use of "treatments" has proven to break down over a relatively short period of time.


wrt the prices of treated vs untreated stock:


> Obviously, those who use more treatments on their livestock.  I know, I know, that's not the answer you're expecting. But think about it for a minute: if you claim otherwise, you are in essence calling agricultural producers stupid.


well, my own personal experience is that i can get much more for honey produced without treatments than even "certified organic" honey fetches. wrt calling ag producers stupid...i have no opinion, but i assume ag producers buy lottery tickets just like most of the rest of population...does that make them "smart"? all one has to do is go to the supermarket and check the prices of food "produced without the use of hormones, antibiotics or artificial additives" to see the facts on the ground rather than your theory. it isn't uncommon for humans to make choices for short term gains over long term sustainability.




> Most producers rely on "conventional" management (not "all natural" or "organic" or whatever). The money that producers make is directly tied to both their costs of production and the value of their commodities. Look at the most profitable producers, then, to find which makes more money.


do you have numbers to offer up? but this is a good point. i should have qualified with "producers of similar size"...otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges.



> Now, if you ask, "Who gets more $$$ per unit of commodity when they sell, those who use conventional treatments or those certified organic?" then you should get the answer I suspect you were expecting.


i have no interest in "certified organic"...at the farmers markets that i attend, the "certified organic" produce doesn't fetch a higher price than the "non certified" produce where the farmer is careful about what is used, is honest about what is used, and who's customers trust that he is honest.



> The bigger issue is that the concentrations of bees today is far beyond even what cite. Sixteen colonies? How about 20,000 colonies in a square mile, even if for just a short time? How about more than 1,000,000 colonies going to almonds in California, then getting spread back out to the rest of the country? I think most biologists would agree that the massive concentrations and the movements of bee hives for commercial pollination are ripe for disease problems.


you won't find me defending (or encouraging) such practices...it's just asking for trouble...but a stationary yard with 20, 30, 50, 100 hives (in an area that can support that many) doesn't seem to be a big problem.



> Probably not as much as on bees in their native range. But again, I probably didn't make this point abundantly clear: Honey bees are not native to the western hemisphere. If you wish to participate in truly "natural beekeeping," you shouldn't keep _Apis mellifera_ in the western hemisphere. Do so is inherently "unnatural."


well, i'm not sure where you got the idea that i'm a proponent of "natural beekeeping"....there is no such thing. managing bees within as close to a natural system as possible is important for purely practical reasons...not out of some philosphy.

deknow


----------



## Natalie

*enough is enough*

Okay, I have not been back to read this thread until now and I just skimmed it.
First off I believe that things have been take wholly out of context by people that have some sort of preformed opinion on methods that differ from their own.
Its obvious that the way I worded something was fixated on and this thread took on a life of its own.
When I said left out, that means not taken and burned. When I remove something from my yard, I take it in. If I leave it I leave it out. Whether this is a regional way of speaking or my own I have no idea but that is the manner in which I speak and I think its fairly obvious anyway that this is a subject that members here have been debating for a long while. way before I ever said a word and a few took the opportunity to jump on someone who does something differently than you do, as in he is wrong, does it the wrong way and used my post as a catalyst.
Do You REALLY think that anyone is going to put something out in a communal area including even frames that had honey left on them?! Seriously, I don't even think a new beekeeper would leave out anything in a beeyard to start a robbing frenzy.
Now to address all these accusations thrown at deknow, he did not come to some new beekeeping school and tell anyone to do anything.
This is a club full of adults that hired him to speak and share methods that are being used by other people.Why because that is what we do, hire people to share information that may be of interest to some.
He wasn't the first and he won't be the last. We are all grown ups and if we want to hire someone to come and speak about painting our bees purple, we are able to do that and if you decide to go home and paint your bees purple thats your business, if you decide that the presentation was just some entertainment for the night then thats fine too.
Anyone who goes to any kind of presentation is not there to mimic anyone, they go and may decide to investigate that method further.
The club full off beekeepers are already untilizing their own methods of keeping bees and no one is going to convert to an entirely different method based on one presentation.
Someone made a comment alluding to the fact that I am so green that I would just do whatever a presenter at my club does.
Funny how assumptions, especially the uniformed ones can set off a whole situation based on more and more assumptions.
Just read this thread, it is all assumptions from people that don't know me.
For one, that is completely abusurd and two I am not as green as one may think.
I may be new here but I am certainly not new to the concept of beekeeping. When I first became interested I read some books, like 15 and then I signed up for not one but two beekeeping schools so that I could glean info from different people. The same reason why I belong to more than one club and more than one forum.
My planned method of beekeeping was formed a long time before I ever met deknow or had bees.
I have a concrete method and nothing is going to sway me from how I keep bees.
Will I keep trying to educated myself by going to as many different presentations and workshops as possible even though I am practicing what I believe is the best method for me? Absolutely!
For one, I find it interesting to hear about other people's experiences and two, you never know when something might be better. I would hate to think that I know everything there is to know and I know best, a closed mind is a dangerous thing.
Almost as bad as assumptions.
So someone took the fact that I am a new member of this forum and I was at a beek meeting(not a school) where they have a presenter that I am a student in a beekeeping school. 
Just to clarify, there was no misunderstanding with what deknow said, more like the way that I typed. I don't spend alot of time on these boards, I am too busy and when I type I try to get my thoughts down quick. If you care to check, this is probably the longest post I have ever written in my entire life. 
But its obvious that people really tear apart each post, disect them and take what they want out to fixate and debate upon even if it ends up being baseless in the end. 
He got beat up for no reason, well probably not for no reason as I suspect that this subject has been tossed around before. I sense there is some underlying issue here, its seems his practices have been disected, oops I mean debated before since someone automatically threw his name into the ring.
The methods I chose is based on my own research and what I am confident will work for me in the long run and I am not looking for anyone's approval.
All this talk is nice, its just talk. Everyone does what they want to do and no one is right or wrong. 
People need to stop looking for someone to blame for the world's problems.
Why does anyone care what anyone else does with their bees. Their methods should not be up for scrutiny. My only conclusion is that the ones that have an issue with the way someone raises bees is not satisfied with the way they do it themselves or is not confident their methods are working for them to the fullest extent their insecurity lends to aggressiveness and attacks on others methods.
At least that is what is coming across.
The question posed in this thread was does anyone use the live and let die method and some people got very upset by that. 
Why is it anyone else's business if someone wants to let their bees die instead of treating them? Its their bees they absorb the expense of replacing them and it in no way affects you. The tone of a couple of posts seems like a couple of people feel threatened by that method.
Again, that is what comes across. It comes across because certain people cannot let something go.
What is the fixation on labeling methods? Do whatever you feel like doing and don't try to put other people's practices in a catagory. 
Instead of live and let die why not live and let live.
I don't busy myself with what others do in their own lives and I am alot happier for it.
By the way, if anyone wants to respond to my post then you are talking to yourselves because I am done with it.


----------



## Kieck

> the fact that there was a misunderstanding is of concern....but it's hardly a unique situation. -deknow


I suspect you're dead-on right about beekeepers often not knowing how to treat for a problem. And I believe you're right about the other beekeeper on this thread (who, judging from her comments, also knows enough not to do what I and others presumed from the statements here). My concern was and is the beekeepers who may be reading this thread, not know, and decide to "create AFB resistance" by doing what this thread suggests.

The up side to this technology that we use is that the information becomes available to everyone. The down side is the same.

For most small-time beekeepers, "developing" and "maintaining" breeding lines of bees is not realistic. That's not to say that it cannot be done. Just that it's very, very difficult with small numbers of hives. And -- I think -- that describes most of the beekeepers here on BeeSource.

Realistically, a beekeeper with half a dozen hives in the backyard is unlikely to develop a novel line of bees. Unless strictly instrument inseminating, the vast number of "non-line" drones will render those efforts largely futile.



> this is the kind of balance that nature provides...and exactly what pesticides and acaricides are NOT....in these cases, you have only applied pressure to 1/2 of the equation...and the equation will tend to balance itself out. -deknow


Yes, right. But that balance may lie at a point where no extra or profit or gain or whatever exists. In the case of bees, that balance my lie below generating a surplus (or a "harvest") of honey. As you suggest, the needs are far different for different groups of beekeepers. For someone purely interested in observing and interacting on some level with bees, that might be fine. For someone wishing to make a little honey for personal use, that may still be fine. For someone making a living from bees, that may spell bankruptcy.

Ideally, we can get to that equilibrium where mites are not so much of a concern, and where we are not treating so regularly. But look at other crops/livestock. Every once in a while, even among issues that usually are at an equilibrium below a damaging threshold, a problem becomes enough of a problem to warrant some action.

And "treatment" in the case of bees varies quite a bit, too. I consider drone trapping a "treatment." I also consider hive modification specifically to reduce pest populations "treatments." Sure, those aren't chemical, but they are done with the specific goal of reducing mite levels.



> but a stationary yard with 20, 30, 50, 100 hives (in an area that can support that many) doesn't seem to be a big problem. -deknow


Again, "support" and "generate surplus" may be two different things. But show me a group of 100 hives in a single yard in any situation, and I'll show you a yard ripe for disease/pests. 



> Do You REALLY think that anyone is going to put something out in a communal area including even frames that had honey left on them?! -Natalie


I know you said you were done with this thread, Natalie, but I would just like to point out that, yes, I do know people who do such things.


----------



## Ian

>>The question posed in this thread was does anyone use the live and let die method and some people got very upset by that. 

No, I dont agree with that, 
The question is posed between two very differnet beekeeping camps,
Nothing wrong with discussion and debate, 
I to have only skimmed the posts made, I dont think there are any personal attack.

Natalie, this question posed will always raise the hair between beekeepers of differing opinions. I dont think anyone was trying to pin you to your thoughts, but from what you said had to be clarified, becasue it was extreemly relevant to what is being discussed.

I can tell you one thing, I have learnt an extreem amount of knoledge off this fourm site. And you know what, I learn the most amoungst conversation between beekeepers with differing opinions. They involve the most useful thought and opinion.
I am sure these guys tend to get heated from time to time, but that sometimes brings out the most interesting thoughts and insights, especially here, where we can talk without boarders


----------



## NeilV

Whoa, this thread went ballistic.

Just for the record, when I started this thread, I was really refering to treatment from mites (tracheal and varroa) and possibly Nosema. The beekeeper who coined the "Live or Let Die" term probably would burn a hive with AFB in it, although I have not asked him and AFB is really rare here anyway so it's a moot point.

Also, the guy who has adopted "Live or Let Die" as a method also tells brand new beekeepers to adopt some type of treatment, preferably not hard chemicals. His reasoning for that is very simple: (1) it stinks when a new beekeepers only hive or hives die; and (2) its really hard to learn anything from a box with no live bees in it.


----------



## BEES4U

*the "Live Or Let Die" Method For Mites*

I have made some very important observations over the past years and the method does not work!
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## deknow

...i do hope natalie is still reading.

to be clear, how afb is treated does affect neighbors. i was none too happy to see a hive with drug suppressed (symptoms visible) afb ready to fall over near my hives. it was in fact, moved into the area to get it away from the beekeepers other, healthy hives (thanks).

there simply aren't enough examples of operations that have "kept the pressure on" to know what is right here.

i do suspect that the use of antibiotics will kill the live afb, and at the same time kill the other bacillus species that keep afb (bacillus larvae larvae) in check.

if this is correct (and i believe it is), it has some really interesting implications:
1. perhaps this is why the "starvation" method often written about in the past worked well then (putting the bees on new foundation and making them use their honey to build comb removed the bulk of the infection, without impacting the bacillus species that live in the honey stomach of the honeybee, and likely help combat the afb infection), and why it doesn't appear to work now ("common sense" would be to dust the bees with terramycin upon putting them in the new box...killing the afb antagonistic bacillus. hives treated regularly with terramycin are also going to have repressed flora).

2. if you have developed afb resistant bees (and/or microbes), and your neighbors treat with terramycin, they may well come down with afb. in a case like this, is it really "your fault"?

deknow


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL

BEES4U said:


> I have made some very important observations over the past years and the method does not work!
> Regards,
> Ernie


Don't tell my bees that! And to think that I thought the only absolute in beekeeping was that there are no absolutes. :no: :doh:


----------



## slickbrightspear

An earlier post stated that bees that are live and let die may not make enough honey to keep the bee keeper from going bankrupt. I would like to see some studys that show the expense of the treatments and the cost in labor in applying them and how much more honey a treated hive makes than an untreated hive. then look and see if the untreated hives actually bring in more profit even if they make less honey as there is so much less expense in producing that honey. not to mention in my opinion that there would not be the poisons contaminating the honey.


----------



## Kieck

> I would like to see some studys that show the expense of the treatments and the cost in labor in applying them and how much more honey a treated hive makes than an untreated hive. then look and see if the untreated hives actually bring in more profit even if they make less honey as there is so much less expense in producing that honey. -slickbrightspear


That one is pretty simple. Just "Google" the key words "threshold" and "Varroa," and maybe throw in "economic" to get to the economic threshold for mites, and you'll find plenty of reading to get you started.

Whether or not you agree with those thresholds is up to you, but the research results are available.



> not to mention in my opinion that there would not be the poisons contaminating the honey. -slickbrightspear


That's a different matter, and while you are correct (although keep in mind that legal applications must be made in ways to minimize contamination), toxins get into honey and everything else simply because of the way we live. Pesticides are present in at least low concentrations in virtually drinking water now. Waste products from the manufacture of non-stick coatings show up in liver analyses of polar bears. Lead concentrations are higher along highways still because of leaded gasoline (before the switch to unleaded). Compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury. And, living in an agricultural area, I'm pretty certain that all honey produced around here -- even if a beekeeper were to strictly avoid deliberately using chemical pesticides in hives -- contains at least low concentrations of pesticides.


----------



## slickbrightspear

so far my hives have not met a mite threshold that may happen at a later date but not yet. I should clarify my other statement that less chemicals than if we add them into the hive. I realize the amount of chemicals in our environments and what is used in ag. grew up on a tobbacco and cattle farm.


----------



## Kieck

Be careful not to confuse "economic thresholds" with "injury thresholds." The two may be similar, or may be very, very different.

As prices paid for commodities increase, economic thresholds tend to decrease. In other words more specific to beekeeping, as the price of honey rises (assuming the cost of treatment does not change), the benefit of treating for mites is likely to appear if treatments are applied because fewer mites are present in the hives.

Think of it like this: let's say that honey is at $1.00 per pound. A hive has an infestation rate of 10 percent. The cost of treatment might be $5.00 per hive. To get to that economic threshold, that infestation rate would have to cause a reduction in honey production of more than 5 pounds.

If that price for honey were to rise to $2.00 per pound, and the cost of treatment is still $5.00 per hive, the anticipated reduction in potential yield would be more than 2.5 pounds.

Now, if having a 10 percent infestation of mites would reduce the honey yield in a hive by 3 pounds in a year, the price paid for the honey is the variable that needs to be known to determine whether or not the infestation has reached economic thresholds.

For more on chemicals, this thread has some interesting information:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225134


----------



## Allen Dick

This has been an interesting topic. Personally, in reading through, I did not see signs of overheating in the process of debating the question. Disagreement is healthy, and misunderstandings always arise, since it is difficult sometimes to express ideas clearly and unambiguously.

I can add a few things to what has been mentioned already. I was, at one time, long ago, a bee inspector and it also happens that I have visited Ed & Dee several times and inspected, at their invitation, all the hives I cared to. I saw no AFB, and very few varroa mites. I also did not see much honey, but it was January both times. http://www.honeybeeworld.com/Lusby/default.htm

I wrote about in in two articles in Bee Culture http://beesource.com/pov/dick/bcjun02.htm, and have to say I have great respect for Dee and her beekeeping abilities. I also have to say that in spite of much discussion with her, I disagree with her about many things. Maybe that is because I had to make a living keeping bees and she did not. Although she has managed to recover from serious losses, she has never to my knowledge produced much honey for sale. At the same time, many beekeepers with the same number of colonies were shipping a number of 45,000 lb truckloads annually.

In my opinion, she does have some pretty good bees. They are feisty, but I have worked worse bees, and some of the worst were golden italians! I think her bees are pretty resistant to most pests, and, although she is pretty cagey on the topic, I personally think that africanization has quite a bit to do with it, along with the live and let die philosophy. 

The bees in Tucson are africanized beyond a doubt, and Lusbys kept bees in Tucson and also collected swarms there. Other than being a bit hot, Lusbees are a perfect hobbyist bee because they take care of themselves, can be kept in four boxes, and (I think), don't produce too much honey. (I am a hobbyist these days, and hate producing honey since it is so much work to extract and handle. I split as much as I can and that is my varroa control). 

As for the live and let die idea, it can work for some, and not for others, simply due to location and environmental factors. For some, the economics are simply not there, at least in the short run, and in any particular case, there is no guarantee of success. A lot depends on what stock you start with! There is a lot of AFB resistant stock now, but not as much tracheal mite resistant stock as we might hope for.

The Santa Cruz experience http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/bcjun1996.htm proved that bees can fail to adapt to varroa. Jose's work in Louisiana, mentioned earlier http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/villaferal2008.pdf seems to prove that sometimes they can. Danny Weaver reported survivor colonies that could handle varroa at Apimondia back in 2000.

For beekeepers who specialise in honey production and/or pollination and depend on others to supply them with stock, of course live and let die is probably not a productive option, since they are obviously not breeding their own stock and qualities wil not be passed along. For those isolated enough from other beekeepers and from economic pressure to produce honey or bees, it may be an option.

Of course, the ideal is to operate without any chemical or management treatments. Very few want to treat, but sometimes things happen and treatments can keep bees alive when all would die.

Also, one very large question is whether the survivor bees that currently suggest resistance are economic in the situations where various susceptible bees strains are. I have heard from commercial beekeepers who have experimented with varroa resistant strains that the bees do not measure up in important quailties such as honey production. 

For one thing, varroa thrives best on bees that raise plenty of brood and have large populations, and do not do well in smaller colonies, so breeding for varroa resistance tends to select for bees that have smaller populations. Swarming helps control varroa, so selecting for varroa tolerance may also be selecting for swarming. We don't know what else we may be losing in gaining a varroa tolerant bee, For hobbyists it does not matter much, but for commercial beekeepers it does. A lot.

It is a complex question, and there is no one size fits all answer. Moreover the answer for some today may not be the answer tomorrow.


----------



## Barry

allend said:


> I can add a few things to what has been mentioned already.


Greetings Allen -

Good to hear from you again. As always, I enjoy reading your input.


----------



## Kieck

Very eloquent post, allend! Nicely stated, and well thought out. I think you covered the issues well.


----------



## Allen Dick

Thanks guys. 

Barry, I hadn't been here for a while, and am quite enjoying the various discussions and the well-moderated forums.

This particular topic is a very interesting one, and not at all as simple as it might seem at first blush. In some ways it holds at least part of the key to the future of beekeeping. Ultimately, the key to our many pest problems has to be in genetics, however we arrive there, whether by elimination of the unfit or by selection of the fittest or both.

Personally, I have limited confidence in our ability to select and breed bees without making big mistakes, or to maintain artificial stocks once they are bred, so the natural attrition approach appeals, but I expect the answer will be a combination of the two. I'm hoping to read more ideas on this question. 

FWIW, 'live and let die' has considerable respectability. I recall sitting in a darkened conference room in Niagara Falls in 2002 listening to Marla speaking. At the end of her talk she suggested that commercial beekeepers consider leaving a yard untreated to see what happens. Not long after. I met the fellow who coined the 'James Bond' term and had practiced it for some time, in France. (As I recall he was researcher type who had gone on his own and was raising queens. His first name is John, but his last name escapes me. Maybe someone here knows).

Heresy, it seemed to many at the time, but the idea has been catching on since. Ultimately, we are going to have to reduce treatments to emergency situations. After all, these treatments were intended as stop-gap measures to allow commercial -- and hobby -- beekeeping to continue with minimum disruption while a real solution was found. 

Unfortunately, a lot of people got hooked on these well-advertised 'solutions' and new beekeepers never knew a time without treatments. Moreover, due to the respite offered by chemicals there was less pressure and funding to find a better way.

Live and let die is not without its drawbacks and risks, but many beekeepers apply treatments the way they brush their teeth, reguarly and automatically, without checking to see if it is actually necessary. They would never know if their bees suddenly became tolerant to mites or discover what level of mites can be tolerated.


----------



## JBJ

I believe it is John Kefuss from France. Genetics is just one part of a healthy balanced IPM strategy. Think of it as one leg on the pest management stool. To this we add management, nutrition, and treatments only when necessary. 

There are Survivor Stock bees that maintain the economically valuable traits that we have come to rely on to feed our families. Genetics is an ongoing process that is about to take on new dimensions now that we have the honeybee genome sequenced.


----------



## Allen Dick

> I believe it is John Kefuss from France. Genetics is just one part of a healthy balanced IPM strategy. Think of it as one leg on the pest management stool. To this we add management, nutrition, and treatments only when necessary.


Yup. John Kefuss. I met him in Reno. Very interesting guy.

You mention nutrition. That is one of my pet subjects. I have been advocating supplementing natural protein sources for a long time now and found huge improvements in my own operation using simple formulas. Less wintering loss, less disease, no more puny deformed little bees in spring, and generally a whole lot less work. 

There are some who are very vocally against 'artificial' feeds for various reasons that seem hypothetical to me, but in my situation, they made a huge difference. I remember a friend from the South Carolina who told me that there was a band of country west of him where a beekeeper could do no wrong because of the pollen sources. In his own area, he said he had no such luck and had to pay attention to pollen sources. That illustrates why what seems obvious to one beekeeper may make little sense to another.

I definitely believe that augmenting nutrition when indicated can reduce the need for treatments and help bees stand up to parasites.



> There are Survivor Stock bees that maintain the economically valuable traits that we have come to rely on to feed our families. Genetics is an ongoing process that is about to take on new dimensions now that we have the honeybee genome sequenced.


I have noticed that the new crop of young scientists are very different from the old school and are able to focus on and pin down things that were very illusive in the past. It is very exciting. The senior scientists are no slouches either and are employing the new tools in amazing ways.


----------



## Ian

>how much more honey a treated hive makes than an untreated hive

In my beeyards, dead hives dont produce anything


----------



## Ian

Hey Allen, glad to see you here
would like to see your input continue!


----------



## deknow

hi allen, good to see you here.

i agree with much of what you said (especially your second post  ), but there are a few things that i think are worth commenting on.


allend said:


> Although she has managed to recover from serious losses, she has never to my knowledge produced much honey for sale. At the same time, many beekeepers with the same number of colonies were shipping a number of 45,000 lb truckloads annually


with all due respect allen, this seems a bit unfair. what is "the best of your knowledge" based on? how many years do actually know (or have been told) what the yield was? in the case of the "many beekeepers", were they running anywhere near as lean as the lusby operation (employees, moving bees, etc)? by making the statements you do, you give the impression that you actually know this stuff...and i don't doubt you know the data for some years (as dee is quite open about such things). i know you qualified your statements with "to the best of my knowledge"....but you are painting rather broad strokes regarding someone's business and life. seems rather an unfair (and likely inaccurate) thing to do from my perspective. you have enough respect that people take what you say seriously...and imho, you could exercise more care.



> ...Lusbees...and (I think), don't produce too much honey.


again, i know you qualified this with "i think", but methinks youthinks wrongly 

deknow


----------



## Barry

I believe over the years, the question has been asked of Dee, how much honey she is producing, and only vague answers have been given. Maybe this is something commercial guys just don't divulge, I don't know. Since Allen has seen her operation, I imagine he has a pretty good idea what her volume is being he has years of experience under his belt.


----------



## deknow

1. it is in no business owners interest to tell "the competition" or "the industry" exactly what their bottom line is...this is basic common sense. dee (and many if not most beekeepers) are generous with such information...but who here (or anywhere) shares their "business book keeping" with anyone but their best friends? one might consider that one that won't answer "bottom line" questions directly is also likely one that aren't "shading the truth". to be clear, i'm not calling _anyone_ a liar. should we start a "post your full tax returns here forum"?

2. i don't dispute allens years of experience...but no matter how much experience one has, one cannot know what they don't witness (or at least what they are told). allen is no exception.

deknow


----------



## odfrank

Years ago she stated she had produced 100 barrels. I assumed that meant that year.


----------



## Kieck

Let me start out by saying that I do not know Lusbys. I have not seen their operation (other than in a few videos online). And I do not know the details of their operation.

Having said that, allend wrote in his post, "I was, at one time, long ago, a bee inspector and it also happens that I have visited Ed & Dee several times and inspected, at their invitation, all the hives I cared to."

Speaking as a beekeeper who has looked at other beekeepers' hives from time to time, general impressions form pretty quickly of another beekeeper's operation. Some (myself included) are small time. Honey production is not the way of life, not the livelihood of these folks. And they manage bees that way. Detailed management, even tailoring methods to specific hives, seems to be fairly common. 

Then we get into some of the beekeepers who run fairly large operations, and make their livings keeping bees. These beekeepers tend to rely often in large part on honey production. Their management decisions are based on making their livings. Individual hives become less important, and production becomes more important.

And then we get to the really big businesses in beekeeping. The massive operations. I've seen and heard of instances where some of these big-time beekeepers forget about entire yards of bees (64 hives per yard). When you have hundreds or even more than 1000 such yards, losing track of one or two becomes easier than it seems on first impression. These beekeepers now rely on honey production as one method of making profit, but honey production has probably taken a back seat for most of them to pollination contracts.

I dunno. Like I already said, I've only seen the videos online of Lusbys' operation. But the hives that I've seen in the videos look "thin" compared to the hives that I'm accustomed to seeing. And next to the boomers around these parts, the Lusby hives in the videos look pretty paltry. Color me not impressed, I guess. Sure, the bees may be surviving, but I wouldn't want to have to try to make a living with those bees as they appear in the videos. Maybe they look better in person.


----------



## Allen Dick

I have spoken and spoken clearly. 

A word to the wise is sufficient.


----------



## slickbrightspear

please tell me then what would be a an average crop of honey from an average treated hive so I have something to compare to. no boomer hives or 2 queen hives just an average.


----------



## Kieck

I don't know what the "average crop of honey from an average treated hive" would be for your area. Keep in mind that your situation will differ from others' situations. Some locations produce more honey, some produce less. Years differ, too.

The best I can do for you is to refer you to this report:

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Hone/Hone-02-29-2008.pdf

Looking at the statistics for Kentucky in 2007, the state-wide reported average is 61 pounds per hive, and the average was 56 pounds per hive in 2006. That would include "treated" and "untreated" hives, hives that are managed for honey production and hives that are managed for pollination, everything. But it might offer a starting point.

If all of your hives are averaging considerably higher, then those numbers are pretty well out the window. So, let's start with your situation: what was your average yield? And did you treat some and not treat others to see what the differences might have been?

The research offers some general guidelines and starting points. From there, beekeepers have to make decisions based on their specific goals and circumstances.


----------



## slickbrightspear

I average around 50 lbs per hive and do not treat any of my hives.


----------



## Kieck

So, working from the state average, you might be short a few pounds per hive? Six or 11, depending on which year's data you use for comparison?

If honey is $1 per pound anticipated, and treatment is $5 per hive per year, and you would stand to gain 6 pounds per hive, the treatment would pay, but barely. At 11 pounds extra, that margin becomes greater. For a beekeeper running 1000 hives, that could translate into a $5000/year increase.

Is it worth it? That remains up to the beekeeper.


----------



## slickbrightspear

I understand the concept of what you are telling me but I do not think that in the long run it will give any extra money at 1.50 for honey and the price of buying and applying the treatments.


----------



## deknow

...not to mention that honey produced without treatments is worth more/lb on the market...perhaps not with the packers, but certainly with the consumer.

plus, 1000 hives require 1000 visits to administer each treatment, 1000 visits to remove some treatments (like strips)..some of these can be piggybacked on other visits, others not.

deknow



slickbrightspear said:


> I understand the concept of what you are telling me but I do not think that in the long run it will give any extra money at 1.50 for honey and the price of buying and applying the treatments.


----------



## Kieck

> I understand the concept of what you are telling me but I do not think that in the long run it will give any extra money at 1.50 for honey and the price of buying and applying the treatments. -slickbrightspear


That's your choice. And, given what I perceive to be your situation, that may be the best choice.



> ...not to mention that honey produced without treatments is worth more/lb on the market...perhaps not with the packers, but certainly with the consumer. -deknow


And, given your situation, your choice not to treat may be the best choice.

But that does not mean that it's the best choice for everyone. Like Ian pointed out, dead bees produce no honey. And for a large-scale honey producer needing to make a living, the decision may come down to treat and have bees that survive, or not treat and have too few bees to stay solvent financially.


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> But that does not mean that it's the best choice for everyone. Like Ian pointed out, dead bees produce no honey. And for a large-scale honey producer needing to make a living, the decision may come down to treat and have bees that survive, or not treat and have too few bees to stay solvent financially.


well, i wouldn't argue with the above, except to say that i see no way to "ween" off of chemical treatments by continuing to use them.

also, is it in societies interest that all businesses stay solvent? at what cost? and i do understand that our current system of migratory pollination likely requires treatments to continue...and i recognize that this is necessary to keep growing food the way we do. i'm just not convinced that it is in our interest to keep the status quo. i think big changes are eventually necessary, and i reject the idea that that every business should remain solvent.

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

> well, i wouldn't argue with the above, except to say that i see no way to "ween" off of chemical treatments by continuing to use them.


It is interesting you admit that. Maybe you have been too busy listening to the wrong people. Would you like to see what most of us can see quite clearly? Open your mind. We are certainly happy to share.

Lots of people do see that path unfolding ahead. They study the alternatives, experiment a little, monitor carefully, and use an IPM approach.

They obtain resistant stocks where indicated, avoid situations which can cause problems, and only use chemical treatments where actual measurements indicate a need. Then use the most benign treatment possible. Many now go _years _without chemical use, and as stocks and knowledge improve, that interlude is getting longer and longer. 

I speak from experience and personally, my chemical use is very limited and occasional. That was even the case in my most recent years as a commercial beekeeper, running thousands of hives on pollination. We used IPM and monitored problems, rather than treating routinely.

IPM has become the enlightened approach now that the initial shock of new pests has worn off, and smart beekeepers are learning to reduce their dependance on dangerous pesticides. 

Personally, I have never used coumophos and never will, and I know quite a few beekeepers who feel the same, but who do practice IPM and would not hesitate to employ an appropriate chemical if needed, choosing the most benign one that can do the job.

It is only a matter of time until we can manage current pests without chemicals.

Then there will be new pests.



> also, is it in societies interest that all businesses stay solvent? at what cost? and i do understand that our current system of migratory pollination likely requires treatments to continue...and i recognize that this is necessary to keep growing food the way we do. i'm just not convinced that it is in our interest to keep the status quo. i think big changes are eventually necessary, and i reject the idea that that every business should remain solvent.


I see your adherance to the live and let die philosophy extends to people and their livelihoods as well as to bees?

I realise, and am somewhat amused -- when I'm not worried -- that there are people out there who are very Darwinian in their thinking and they tend to be quite evangelistic. Most of us would not care to live in a truly Darwinian world. Most of us care for our own and to some extent others, and prefer to treat disease rather than let it do its work. We look for 'win/win' solutions rather than 'winner takes all'.

Interestingly, we are finding that Darwin only had part of the story and that there is in fact 'genetic learning' possible. Lamarckism is back. It is not always necessary to die to adapt!

Anyhow, this boils down to philosophy, and that is a whole other matter.


----------



## NeilV

*My 2 cents*

It's true that no business has a right to survive, but surely businesses have a right to use legal chemicals to keep going.

Maybe the answer to this problem is that commercial beekeepers in the honey/pollination business are not going to be the source of better genetics. But since the genetic pool is already dramatically affected by the relatively small number of breeder queens, that could and reasonably would be the source of new and better genetic material. Also, the queen breeders could be fed good genes by local breeding programs from survivor stock, which might add some general diversity to the gene pool.

Also, it is possible that if the queen breeders can come up with bees that are mite-resistant, they will sell. Wait a minute . . . that's already happening.

I really think that the no treatment option applies most to hobbiest/sideliners. If it can work at all, it will bleed over into the commercial operations, who will realize the obvious benefits of dealing with pests by good genes, to the extent possible.


----------



## adamf

*Right on!*



NeilV said:


> Maybe the answer to this problem is that commercial beekeepers in the honey/pollination business are not going to be the source of better genetics. Also, the queen breeders could be fed good genes by local breeding programs from survivor stock, which might add some general diversity to the gene pool.
> 
> I really think that the no treatment option applies most to hobbiest/sideliners. If it can work at all, it will bleed over into the commercial operations, who will realize the obvious benefits of dealing with pests by good genes, to the extent possible.


NeilV, you make great points. If *groups* collaborate in selecting good breeding candidates, their bees will be more desirable more quickly. Breeding is a numbers game. The more to pick (select from) the greater the chance of finding good stuff!

Our most valuable customers not only support us through purchasing queens, but offer to return good candidates for us to use in future generations (they get replacements of course).

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Allen Dick

Good discussion. 

Adam, long time, no see. Appreciated your comments, also your website.

"We are offering two production (naturally mated) queen types in 2009. Both have been selected for over-wintering ability, queen fecundity, comb building, hygienic behavior, VSH/SMR traits, honey production, success using IPM for controlling pathogens, and gentleness". 

I see you are breeding for multiple characteristics, and that is essential, since simple live and let die does not do that.

Selecting for multiple traits is also difficult, since each additional criterion necessarily narrows the number potential breeders in an operation, conceivably to zero in some cases. I see you are swapping stock with others, and that helps. There are some pretty good strains out there.

I also wonder about the order of the characteristics you present. Is the order presented the order of importance, or merely a listing? 

It is good to see how, over time, progress is being made towards commercially viable bees which are reliably able to tolerate varroa as well as the foulbroods, chalkbrood, etc. while being gentle enough to be safely kept in increasingly populated locations. 

Any comments about tracheal resistance?


----------



## Ian

>>Any comments about tracheal resistance?


I still watch for t mite population levels in my yards, they tend bounce from year to year. Are my bees resistant to t mites? Perhaps, but that doesnt mean the mites infestation within a particular year can be held down by the bees mechanism of tolerating them. Lots of factors at play when we continue to talk about resistance to a particular organism.


----------



## Ian

This live or let die method of thinking is fine and dandy. I agree with much of whats has been said, but that doesnt mean that this way of thinking is at all practical or feasable to business modle. Business doent allow you to simply fail one year and succeed the next. Business demands performance year after year. Our bottom line dictates what happens within our business management stagaties.
Incorperating this way of thinking is great, but relying on it will always lead to a business failure,

Unless you have a basement full of cash


----------



## Allen Dick

The reason I mention tracheal is that resistance to tracheal is hard to fix in a population and a bit difficult to test for. As soon as it is forgotten, it shows up as a problem again.

The following is from some time back, but last I spoke with Jose, I understood him to say that little had changed.

http://honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/tracheal.htm


----------



## JBJ

Ian I acknowledge your points and that is why I have repeatedly recommended not putting all your eggs in one basket. One can always run a selection yard to monitor various bees responses to various pathogens that one may be interested in selecting for tolerance to. To do otherwise would be betting the farm on to many unknown variables. 

Adam also reinforces the point about collaboration. If disease tolerance is going to spread collaboration will have to be king. Not only does it widen the selection pool, it also spreads the burden. If hobbyists are taken as an aggregate they could be viewed as a large and diverse stock screening opportunity in a multitude of locations. Since their livelihoods do not do not depend on bees certain liberties can be taken that may not be an option for those of us who depend on bees to feed the family. We have found that collaboration at the commercial, hobbyist, and university levels has paid large dividends and reduced our risk exposure.


----------



## Doorman

Live and let die is not the answer It is just another way of keeping bees. It just happens to work for me. I have 25 hives and if I lose 10 or 15, well, no biggie. I'll make more from whats left. The truth however is my losses are minimal. 2 this year. I tell my new beeks to follow the standard treatment regimen for at least 2 years and until they have enough hives and confidence to tolerate some losses. You really can't do this with 2 or 3 hives, however If I depended on bees for a living though I would probably dump what ever crap I had to in my hives to keep em going, so my hat is off to people like the lusbys and weavers who chose to bite the bullet and do this years ago. 
To compare this method to not vaccinating cattle is silly. we're talking about propagating genetically programmed behavior not physiological immunity. 
Personally I think that if we keep looking for another silver bullet to save us from the mites, we will end up putting nastier and nastier stuff in our hives and still never get ahead. The way things are now, all we're doing is selectively breeding welfare bees.

There was a time in this country when afb was going to destroy the bee industry, nowadays it's just a footnote around here. We have 300 members in our club most of whom have never actually seen it. Somehow our bees have adapted to it.

Similar situation with tracheal mites, Oh we've got em just like everyone else but nobody treats for them and they are a relatively minor problem. Somehow our bees are adapting to them.

Varroa mites. Somehow the russian bees have adapted to them.

The point is, the bees will have to adapt period. 
Don't get me wrong I'm not some sustainability/green nut. I don't care if anyone chooses to use the strips. I would just rather spend that time and money on more boxes and frames.


----------



## Allen Dick

Nice to get so many perspectives, and good too to see how many are able to get at least one foot off the chemical treadmill. A decade or so ago, that meant total losses in many, if not all cases. It seems clear that between deliberate breeding efforts, imports, and live and let die, that the bees in service are increasingly adapted to varroa.

The mention of AFB is interesting to me also, because four decades ago, susceptibile stock was the rule, and it was not uncommon to see over half an entire yard broken down when inspecting around the country. I haven't been inspecting for years, but my ears tell me that AFB is not nearly the problem it was. In my own operation, I noticed a bit of AFB _only _in some Australian packages (not to knock them) and _not _in my North American stock. I think we have Marla and Sue to thank, and before them Steve Tabor for insisting that resistance was possiible. Of course there are _many _others, and some are personal friends, so I apologise for not naming them too, but the list is long.

It is interesting, too, to see regional differences. I have long noticed that southern beekeepers think nothing of losses that northerners would find devastating and also that tracheal is less of a consideration.


----------



## NeilV

*Response to Adam*

AdamF,

Although I question whether my beekeeping skills are quite ready at this time, our bee club is putting on a queen rearing seminar with the goal of getting a group of us to develop a local bee. At least some of the potential participants, including me and the guy who was talking and gave me the idea for this post, try not to treat for mites. I used powdered sugar and Russian genes. 

What somebody needs to organize is a nationwide super-program involving sharing breeder queens among people like you and Michael Bush and the various others who are giving this a go. 

Neil


----------



## adamf

Allen,
Nice to hear from you! I'm glad you're providing thoughtful input to other
beekeepers once again.

*Allen writes:*
"I see you are breeding for multiple characteristics, and that is essential,
since simple live and let die does not do that."
---

Indeed. Live and let live is the gross selection goal--the other traits are
tracked and evaluated once the gross selection metric is reached. Example:
one line we have survives extremely well. They are "hands off" bees. They
also rob like crazy, are really hot and barely make surplus honey. Do
we use them in our program? No. At some point they might be useful, so we
keep them around.

*Allen writes:*
"Selecting for multiple traits is also difficult, since each additional
criterion necessarily narrows the number potential breeders in an
operation, conceivably to zero in some cases. I see you are swapping stock
with others, and that helps. There are some pretty good strains out there."
---

Keeping a breeding population going is difficult. With each generation
closer to the breeding goal, a breeder also risks inbreeding and lack of
vigor due to inbreeding (homozygosity) at some genetic junctions. Using the
knowledge that's available and collaborating with others is necessary to
keep a breeding program going. There are many excellent bee breeders.
Cooperating with others helps the whole, by providing "genetic refreshment"
through stock trading. There are also some breeding associations going that
hope to also provide the benefits of this cooperation, to breeding programs.

*Allen writes:*
"I also wonder about the order of the characteristics you present. Is the
order presented the order of importance, or merely a listing?"
---

A listing. We're hoping to end up with hardy bees that do well with minimum
input.

*Allen writes:*
"It is good to see how, over time, progress is being made towards
commercially viable bees which are reliably able to tolerate varroa as well
as the foulbroods, chalkbrood, etc. while being gentle enough to be safely
kept in increasingly populated locations."
---

Allen you hit it: progress takes time and as the years go by honey bees
bred by bee breeders working on hardiness, will perform well. These bees
will influence the feral population, to gradually shift the complete honey
bee population to greater hardiness overall.

*Allen writes:*
"Any comments about tracheal resistance?"
---

We tested for TM for awhile until we were finding little, if any TM damage.
We plan to perform a blanket stock TM test early 2009 to see if we need to
select any differently based on what we find.

FYI, Allen's web site is:
http://honeybeeworld.com/


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf

*Reply to Neil*



NeilV said:


> AdamF
> Although I question whether my beekeeping skills are quite ready at this
> time, our bee club is putting on a queen rearing seminar with the goal of
> getting a group of us to develop a local bee. At least some of the
> potential participants, including me and the guy who was talking and gave
> me the idea for this post, try not to treat for mites. I used powdered
> sugar and Russian genes.
> 
> What somebody needs to organize is a nationwide super-program involving
> sharing breeder queens among people like you and Michael Bush and the
> various others who are giving this a go.


Hello Neil,

What you're doing at your local level is excellent. I know you'll find the
queens you and your partners produce locally, will rival any queens
available commercially if not surpassing them! That you're selecting and
breeding for hardy queens will make the results even better.

There are several organizations that use a cooperative model to reach a bee
breeding goal.

Ohio Queen Project:
http://www.ohiostatebeekeepers.org/Ohio Queen Project/ohioqueenproject.html


West Virginia Queen Producers Association:
http://mountainstatequeens.blogspot.com/


SW Survivor Queenbee Project:
http://www.ziaqueenbees.com/survivor.htm


The principles within these organizations are similar--that they reflect
regional goals is important. We could have a "super" project, but the
diversity needed for bee breeding success will come from small specialized
groups working within regions, IMHO. Of course regions could and should try
to share their work with other regions.

Keep up your good work! 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## franktrujillo

hello, this is my first year with bees wihth all the research i have done so i removed half of the commercial foundation and let them build there own size in half of the brood boxes i have noticed so far there is 5 different sizes of bees?still live so far seen young bees already


----------



## deknow

allend said:


> It is interesting you admit that. Maybe you have been too busy listening to the wrong people. Would you like to see what most of us can see quite clearly? Open your mind. We are certainly happy to share.


i "listen" to quite a few people...and am flattered when they listen back.



> Lots of people do see that path unfolding ahead. They study the alternatives, experiment a little, monitor carefully, and use an IPM approach.
> 
> They obtain resistant stocks where indicated, avoid situations which can cause problems, and only use chemical treatments where actual measurements indicate a need. Then use the most benign treatment possible. Many now go _years _without chemical use, and as stocks and knowledge improve, that interlude is getting longer and longer.


the study from louisiana on feral bees and their survival rate with varroa showed (i think) that without resistant stocks, "chemical treatments where measurements indicate a need" or even special management techniques do just as you describe above....survive for years without chemical use.



> I speak from experience and personally, my chemical use is very limited and occasional. That was even the case in my most recent years as a commercial beekeeper, running thousands of hives on pollination. We used IPM and monitored problems, rather than treating routinely.


that is comendable...but "IPM" is a buzzword (much like "organic") that leads the reader/consumer to believe something is purer than it necessarily is. by any definition i've seen wrt beekeeping, "ipm" doesn't mean any of the common chemicals aren't used..even coumaphos. yes, it's better to use any treatments only when needed than on a schedule...but a claim of "ipm" in general tells little of what the bees who produced this particular jar of honey were exposed to. on a side note, a farmer that we work with was taken off of the official state "ipm" program because he refused to use as much of a particular pesticide as the state ipm coordinator wanted him to use.

personally, i'd rather have the farmer/beekeeper tell me what they actually used (or didn't use) and under what circumstances. i have no reason to doubt that you used as little treatments as you felt possible for your circumstances...but claiming "ipm" doesn't tell me you didn't use coumaphos, or if you killed off your bees every fall (i'm not accusing you of either of these things...just making a point).



> IPM has become the enlightened approach now that the initial shock of new pests has worn off, and smart beekeepers are learning to reduce their dependance on dangerous pesticides.


and here lies the problem (from my perspective). i think that the "soft treatments"...the "less dangerous pesticides" are more harmful to the bees than many (if not all) of the older treatments. at the same time, certainly, i'd rather have traces of thyme oil or formic acid in my food than fluvalinate...but the microbial culture in the hive is integral to the proper functioning of the hive (including disease resistance and honey bee nutrition), and these "soft treatments" (formic acid and thymol specifically) are devistating to microbes...probably moreso than fluvalinate and coumaphos...perhaps even moreso than broad spectrum antibiotics such as terramycin.

humans have proven the ability to breed plants and animals for desirable traits...usually it's one simple thing at a time (size/shape of fruit, cold tolerence, resistant to a specific disease, milk production, egg production, etc)...are there any examples of this kind of program to breed for "unmangaed survivability"? there is only one real pressure that selects for that...and it's nature herself. the closer to a natural system we use for selection pressure, the more likely the bees are to be able to survive with mininal interference from the beekeeper.

my reading of hygienic behavior (and please correct me if i'm wrong), is that disease resistance is attained only with very high levels of hygienic behavior...above a threshold of 95% or so. the mechanism is that the bees remove diseased brood before the pathogens reproduce to the point of being highly infectous. below this threshold, the bees encounter enough of the pathogen to spread it around the colony. i was also told by someone recently that bees could be bred to be so hygienic as to remove all of the brood.

now, is this a mechanism that feral bees employ? doesn't seem to be...ahb isn't terribly hygienic...are any feral populations known to be as hygienic as what is being bred? does behavior that is too hygienic, over time, reduce some of the pathogen pressure (and remove some microbes from the culture in the hive) and have a net negative effect on the bees?

hand washing is a good way for humans to prevent spreading pathogens. if we were to select food workers from among job applicants, we would likely want to pick those that washed their hands regularly. if we decided, however, to pick only those that washed their hands the most, we would end up with ocd afflicted workers who spent more time washing their hands than working, and would probably develop fungal infections from keeping down the bacteria on their skin.



> It is only a matter of time until we can manage current pests without chemicals.


if you don't want to use treatments, at some point (sooner or later) you have to stop treating. yesterday, today, tomorow.....you will lose bees when you stop treating. the earlier you take your losses, the sooner you have your operation built back up, and all contaminated equipment culled from the operation.
but i don't think that "breeding programs" as they are commonly practiced are going to get us there. start with a stable population of bees that can take care of themselves. propagate from the best honey producers...and don't start again with treatments to prop up these producers...cull them ruthlessly (as nature would). this is how i think we get there...not breeding for this or that trait that we think will make them stronger.
the "johnny appleseed model" as described by michael pollan is a good example of this. ...i've posted on this before:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=365717



> Then there will be new pests.


and if we start treating for that in order not to lose bees, we are right back where we started from.



> I see your adherance to the live and let die philosophy extends to people and their livelihoods as well as to bees?


unsustainable business models should not be propped up artificially. it's why my great grandfather's horse drawn fruit cart morphed into my grandfathers hotdog stand, and eventually his grocery store. i expect if my grandfather had insisted on running a horse drawn fruit cart like his father, he would have gone bankrupt when people started driving, and going to a central location to get fruit rather than having it delivered became the norm.



> I realise, and am somewhat amused -- when I'm not worried -- that there are people out there who are very Darwinian in their thinking and they tend to be quite evangelistic. Most of us would not care to live in a truly Darwinian world. Most of us care for our own and to some extent others, and prefer to treat disease rather than let it do its work. We look for 'win/win' solutions rather than 'winner takes all'.


every organism (including you and your own) are the product of survivor stock...are the result of a very darwinian progression of reproduction of those with survival traits...not as measured by biologists, but as culled by nature. this seems somewhat obvious to me.



> Interestingly, we are finding that Darwin only had part of the story and that there is in fact 'genetic learning' possible. Lamarckism is back. It is not always necessary to die to adapt!


...but if the microbes are an important part of the bees immune defense and nutrition (which they are), these treatments to keep the bees alive are really setting them back....perhaps not short term, but certainly long term.

i don't know if you've seen this by malcolm sanford or not, but it is interesting, to say the least.
http://apisenterprises.com/papers_pdf/The Root Causes of CCD.pdf

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

I don't think you understood a word I said.


----------



## deknow

what i _think_ you said, in essence, is that by treading carefully, by using ipm, that we will eventually get to a point when chemical treatments are not needed.

i simply don't see how that can happen....and i don't know of any large treatment free beekeeper who has weened off of treatments slowly.

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

Yup. You don't seem to understand the other people either, no matter how clearly or often they explain. You cited Malcolm's article, but clearly do not understand it either. It seems you just take what you want out of what you read. IMO, anyhow.


----------



## deknow

care to offer an interpretation of malcom's article?

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

No. He is one of the best writers and clearest, unbiased thinkers I know. There should be no need. He writes well enough, and I try not to 'interpret' things.


----------



## deknow

then let's quote him!

from:
http://apisenterprises.com/papers_pdf/The Root Causes of CCD.pdf

Page 18
Changes in Beekeeping
Most beekeeping technologies developed in the
19th Century, including:
Movable-Frame Hive
Smoker, hive tool, suit, veil
Extractor
Foundation
Feeding sugar


Page 19
Changes in Beekeeping
In the 20thCentury, few new technologies only
an “improvement” on efficiency
Instrumental Insemination
Transportation – trucks, interstate highways
Feeding; high fructose corn syrup, 1977
Feeding antibiotics for foulbrood, sulfa drugs
1940s replaced by Terramycin® 1960s
Management shifts – honey production to
commercial pollination

Page 20
Challenges in Beekeeping Since 1984
Tracheal mites 1984 – watershed year
Varroa mites 1987
How to control a mite on an insect?
The pesticide – honey bee connection increases
The further? domestication of the honey bee
Small Hive Beetle 1996
More exotics on the horizon?

Page 21
In the Name of Efficiency
Collected colonies into “apiaries”
Equalized colonies
Replaced queens
Fed sugar and corn syrup
Spread honey bees around the globe
Poisoned colonies “collateral damage” in
modern agriculture
Transported colonies

Page 22
In the Name of Efficiency
Infested colonies with innate diseases (AFB)
Forced bees to build nests on uniform cell sizes
Split and united colonies
Manipulated (examined) colonies
Fed broad-spectrum antibiotics
Purposefully applied pesticides (mite control)
Exposed to new pesticide class (neonicotinoids)

Page 23
Unintended Consequences
Infested colonies with exotic organisms, Acrapis,
Varroa, chalkbrood, Nosema ceranae, small hive
beetle (Aethina tumida), viruses?
Reduced the feral population, narrowing the
genetic base, the basis for honey bee health
Pollination comes to rely more and more on a
single species – the honey bee
A reduction in native ecotypes - homogenization

Page 24
Unintended Consequences
Chemical contamination of the brood nest and
world beeswax supply
Reduced effectiveness of the honey bee
“immune system”
Interactions among diseases (viruses), pesticides
and environment (climate change)
Others?

Page 25
Educating Beekeepers
The “old paradigm” is to look at human
technologies that have improved “efficiency”
and concentrate on them, not the bees.
Bee biology has not been on the agenda of
many beekeepers, especially large-scale ones that
only “move boxes.”
The needs of the honey bee itself have been
relegated to the sidelines: The root cause of
CCD!

Page 26
Jürgen Tautz,
The Buzz About Bees
-
Biology of a Superorganism
“Our exploitation of natural systems without
understanding them and their vulnerabilities in
detail has disturbed fine balances, established
over thousands of years.” Fortunately, new
ones will undoubtedly replace them, but
unfortunately they may not be to our
‘advantage.’ ”

Page 27
Educating Beekeepers
The “new paradigm” is to come to grips with a
new population of beekeepers that must take
beekeeping into the future
Besides “commercial” and “hobby,” we now
must add “organic” and “sustainable” groups
The question for the 21st Century: can the
trainers change so their students will give honey
bees a better chance to survive?

Page 28
From Langstroth’s
The Hive and the
Honey Bee
Oettl’s Golden Rule: KEEP YOUR STOCKS
STRONG. “If you cannot succeed in doing
this, the more money you invest in bees, the
heavier will be your losses; while, if your stocks
are strong, you will show that you are a bee-
master, as well as a bee-keeper, and may safely
calculate on generous returns from your
industrious subjects.”

Page 29
Conclusion: Sustainability in
Beekeeping
How to reverse what humans have done to
honey bees in the name of economic efficiency,
by de-emphasizing the natural environment and
the social nature of these insects
A “systems” approach in the broadest sense
“Interdisciplinary” research and extension: bee
health— $4.1 million grant; 19 institutions
Transition to sustainability is a “process”
All participants needed, including the public

Page 30
A Few Ideas to Start
Treat colonies as if Varroa is an integral part of
them; the fourth individual in the colony
Study how standard manipulations really affect
honey bee colonies
Determine how environmental quality affects
honey bees: The theme of Apimondia 2009 in
Montpellier, France. (Climate change!)
Get the public on board, a “teachable moment”


----------



## Allen Dick

So I presume you are able to interpret what you quoted to only say what you want to see and ignore the rest? I think that everyone can see what you are missing in the material you quoted.

Please do not flood the forum with argument or quote voluminous material that is available from a simple link and which I am sure everyone who wants to can and has read. 

Also, can we get back on track?


----------



## deknow

allend said:


> So I presume you are able to interpret what you quoted to only say what you want to see and ignore the rest? I think that everyone can see what you are missing in the material you quoted.


then it's really helpful that you won't point it out. ...that you keep saying that i'm not understanding and/or misinterpreting what i am reading, but don't want to comment on what specifically.

there is much in that presentation from malcolm...and i can't say i agree with all of it. ...but what i quoted is relevant to this discussion, to say the least. you are free to comment on it if you like, or you can leave it to the reader to interpret. i pasted it there because of your claims that i didn't understand it...let the reader decide, or we can discuss it.



> Please do not flood the forum with argument or quote voluminous material that is available from a simple link and which I am sure everyone who wants to can and has read.


i assume that if what i am doing is problematic, that i will hear from barry, or the forum moderator.



> Also, can we get back on track?


the "live and let die" method? what else have i been talking about?

to highlight from malcolm's presentation:


> Bee biology has not been on the agenda of
> many beekeepers, especially large-scale ones that
> only “move boxes.”
> The needs of the honey bee itself have been
> relegated to the sidelines: The root cause of
> CCD!


deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

I can give explanation after explanation, but I cannot give you understanding. I can't de-program you. Sorry. 

I think everyone else gets it, at least that is what I was seeing in this interesting thread before it got hijacked.

Anyone else care to argue with this guy? I won't.

As for live an let die, I've tried it several times in several ways.

Anyone?


----------



## sc-bee

>allend--You mention nutrition. That is one of my pet subjects. I have been advocating supplementing natural protein sources for a long time now and found huge improvements in my own operation using simple formulas. Less wintering loss, less disease, no more puny deformed little bees in spring, and generally a whole lot less work.

Could you elaborate on this. We had many beekeepers in this area that had huge losses a couple years ago. I believe this loss was largely due to nutrition because of a late April freeze in an early bloom year. The pollen source was just not there and I believe nutrition was a major cause of the late year losses.

I am speaking of mostly hobby keepers a couple of sidelines I know. One sideliner lost from 320 hives to about 100. He contacted the local University here they took samples and sent them to Beltsville. Basically to check for Nosema. Samples were below the threshold (may not be the correct term) for Nosema.

I know very little about feeding and have read post after post on the subject. Could we have your advice.

And if possible the sharing of a simple feed recipe if you share it.

Not trying to hi-jack this thread, if you would rather just send me a PM on the subject if you have time or a new post.

Thanks for your input!!!


----------



## Allen Dick

*You mention nutrition. That is one of my pet subjects...*

Well, there is a thread running that we can take this to. http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=386994&highlight=patties#post386994

See you there.


----------



## Ian

We need time,

until then, we need alternate solutions to help releive the pressures in our hives,

you cant just expect to be able to wipe out over 100 years of the beekeeping industry to make a point. Beekeeping has to evolve, to remain sustainable, 
as anyother business modle, we need time to incorperate it into our operations.

You make a bad compairison, ITs not a matter of propping up unsustainable businesses, its a matter of ensuring these business can and will survive well into the future. 
I tell you, if you want to talk about bad business management, dont try to manage varroa populations. Then you will need a direct cash infussion to keep your business viable,


----------



## Allen Dick

Ian, as usual, you said it.:thumbsup:


----------



## tecumseh

allend writes:
The reason I mention tracheal is that resistance to tracheal is hard to fix in a population and a bit difficult to test for. As soon as it is forgotten, it shows up as a problem again.

tecumseh:
I recently read some of brother adam's comments on resistance to trachael mites. his remarks were quite in line with the 'live and let die' analogy. that is... when the plague hits the character of the survivors (if there are any?) becomes quite apparent.

I do find some of your remarks relative to darwin quite refreshing. having some training in economics it never flew over my head that the mind set of darwin and adam smith evolved at the same time via the very same small slice of geography (england). it also became quite clear, very early on, that the two men's ideas were spun from the same basic thead. it always effect me as strange that modern day evangelicals reject the notions of one, but sucked up 'hook, line and sinker' the notions of the other.


----------



## JBJ

"you cant just expect to be able to wipe out over 100 years of the beekeeping industry to make a point. " Ian

I do not think this this the point of the Bond test. It is merely a stock selection tool and not a means to manage an entire commercial operation. If you grow your own queens or are a breeder it is a great way to identify bees with disease/pathogen tolerance with economically valuable traits. It is not necessary to wipe an entire operation to do this. Simply run a selection yard with rigorous selection pressure with known productive stock. Some percentage of these bees may stand out as survivors and bee great candidates for breeder stock and produce queens for the rest of the operation(s).

I sincerely believe we can develop bees that make $$ and kick booty on mites while doing it with less chemical intervention.


----------



## Allen Dick

I think you and Ian agree. 

My understanding is that he was responding to those who seem to think that live and let die is something that everyone should practise all the time on all their hives and don't seem to realise that whether it is a wise plan or not in any particular case depends widely with circumstances.


----------



## adamf

*Malthus is necessary*



tecumseh said:


> I do find some of your remarks relative to darwin quite refreshing. having some training in economics it never flew over my head that the mind set of darwin and adam smith evolved at the same time via the very same small slice of geography (england). it also became quite clear, very early on, that the two men's ideas were spun from the same basic thead.


But what about Malthus? He's the lynch-pin!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## Ian

>>I think you and Ian agree. 

ya we are on the same page,

What I was mainly responding to was this kind of opinion,

>>also, is it in societies interest that all businesses stay solvent? at what cost? and i do understand that our current system of migratory pollination likely requires treatments to continue...and i recognize that this is necessary to keep growing food the way we do. i'm just not convinced that it is in our interest to keep the status quo. i think big changes are eventually necessary, and i reject the idea that that every business should remain solvent

Although I agree with that basic statement on so many levels, I have a hard time relating it to the agriculture business modles. the agricultural economy is bound by so many assumptions, that I dont believe it is possible to function the industry without government assistance. Its call the cheap food polocy. The whole world is benifeting from it. step back from it now will erase a hundred years of progress, and many would starve. Our economy is built around it.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> Although I agree with that basic statement on so many levels, I have a hard time relating it to the agriculture business modles. the agricultural economy is bound by so many assumptions, that I dont believe it is possible to function the industry without government assistance. Its call the cheap food polocy. The whole world is benifeting from it. step back from it now will erase a hundred years of progress, and many would starve. Our economy is built around it.


ian, i'm not sure what your point is. the statement was made in relation to to the use of treatments in honeybees, not in relation to governmental assistence for agriculture. to be clear, i don't think it's in societies interest to always keep "the status quo". sometimes things must change in reaction to reality. the reality of how we grow, import, and distribute food in this country is far from perfect. when there is a contamination issue (peanuts, tomatos, green onions, etc), it takes a very long time to track down the source, and the effects are often nationwide. this is the result of the same system(s) that requires migratory pollination, which has several downsides (cost of transportation, need to use treatments, etc).

growing food "locally" is not a panacia, but contamination issues are localized (and more easily tracked down), and if fuel costs rise sharply, transportation will be less and less attractive. local, "non-monocrop farming" will still require insect pollinators, but can be setup to actually support a poplulation of insect pollinators (honeybees or others), removing (or at least diminishing) the need for the migratory model we currently rely on. it seems to me that the longer we prop up the current system, the more catastrophic things will be when things get to the point of needing to change.

wrt "live or let die" in general, it seems to me that there are 2 ways to breed bees. one is to breed them like we breed dogs....pick a few individual traits that we want for our puproses, and at the same time, make them reliant on human care for their well being (weiner dogs of the serengeti aside). the other is to breed them like we manage wild canine populations....let them exist in something close to a natural environment, and let nature select for those traits which actually equate to survival. populations of deer, bears, wolves, coyotes, beaver, etc have all come back strong in such situations (even in less natural environments like the suburbs). the question is, what kind of bees do we want...and how do we select for them.

agriculture is, of course, important. natural systems have a tendancy to 'work'. for instance, do you feel the need to micromanage your compost pile by sterlizing it and inocculating it with the specific microbes you want? do you feel the need to micromanage insect populations in a forest for it to "function proplerly"? farming is, of course, not a natural system...but farms with diverse crops, areas of weeds/trees, and limited use of herbicides/pesticides actually can (and do) support populations of insect pollinators. monocrop farming of "roundup ready" crops cannot support populations of insect pollinators, and require the migratory model that is the status quo. i just don't think this is the best system, or in our (as a nation, as humans, as part of nature on this planet) best interest in the long run.

deknow

deknow


----------



## USCBeeMan

There are several beekeepers in our club that have gone to the "live or die" method. One lost over half of his hive a couple of years ago. Both claim they are better off for it. One has been in the business for 50 years.

At our last meeting this old timer said he had already lost 7 hives and another person spoke up and said they had lost 1 hive.

What did they have in common. All hives died with plenty of honey above them!

Now I read an article about this problem. It stated the cause for a hive dying with plenty of honey above was tracheal mites starving them out.

He came over to visit me last week and I mentioned this possible cause to him. He brushed it off saying that he didn't have tracheal mites anymore. He has his tested by some important beekeeper in Tulluhoma, TN and they come back clean. He also buys queens from this guy which are supposed bred to not have (or remove) tracheal mites.

My beekeeper friend/mentor said they died because these hives were out in the open more than some of the others.

Seems to me that you would want to take a batch of those bees for testing to see if they indeed had mites. Course, the head in sand method works too!

I respect this man and mean no harm in what I am saying but how can you say 100% that you are mite free?


----------



## slickbrightspear

I know that my hives are not mite free I occasionally will see a mite on them but they seem to stay low enough that the bees survive and make honey for me.


----------



## tecumseh

adamf cuts right to the chase scene with:
But what about Malthus? He's the lynch-pin!

tecumseh:
first...thanks for tossing out the name adamf. 

malthus would be absolutely pivotal in regards to the live and let die mentality and I would suspect at just about any level (people, animals, insects.. micro, macro) you might wish to discuss.

I had kinda' forgotten about old malthus. even when I was in school (long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.... where did you think the et originated from, huh?) the thinking of malthus was considered somewhat obsolete. much later I was informed (by folks that teach such stuff) that malthus was now an almost non existant name in the teaching of economic theory. I have long suspected that perhaps the relationship malthus pointed towards has been temporarily set aside and at sometime in the not so distant future some cleaver egg head would reinvent the wheel that malthus first discovered. 

like the odfranks old bee magazines sometimes suggest... what ever is old, is new again.


----------



## tecumseh

usc writes:
I respect this man and mean no harm in what I am saying but how can you say 100% that you are mite free?

tecumseh:
obviously delusional or perhaps the person making such a claim doesn't understand basic bioliogy, inheritance or a bell curve... of course your 'head in the sand' (you will not see it if you don't look) is a good explanation also.

many times if you desired to have a test (of almost any kind) turn up one way or the other, the only thing you might need to do to insure this outcome is to properly select the sample to be examined.


----------



## Kieck

I would check those hives for trachaeal mites, but I wouldn't necessarily pin the blame on t-mites without a positive identification.

If you read some of the old threads here on BeeSource about "what killed this hive," or similar topics, you'll find that most every beekeeper has a "pet theory" about what is most likely to kill a hive. Actually sorting through the dead-outs to try to find some evidence is far more revealing than taking one or two symptoms and trying to match those to a cause.

For example, dying with honey above them could be caused by t-mites. It could also be caused by a small cluster not being able to move up to stores above them, and the small cluster could be the result of _Varroa_ mites or other diseases. It could be caused by simply catching the bees off stores when the weather warmed up and then got cold again abruptly. It could be caused by a hive beginning brood rearing, and staying with the brood rather than moving up to reach the stores in cold weather. It could be caused by any number of other factors.

Even after sifting through those dead-outs, reaching a hard and fast conclusion about the cause of the loss may be difficult. Sometimes it's fairly obvious, and you feel confident pinning blame on one or two factors. Sometimes it's not so obvious, and you may not really be able to identify what really happened.


----------



## Allen Dick

> Sometimes it's not so obvious, and you may not really be able to identify what really happened.


That is the simple truth. Often proximate reasons for death can be identified, but the actual root causes, like malnutrition, poisoning, excess manipulations at inappropriate times, bad genetics, etc. are not visible in a post mortem.


----------



## JBJ

> 
> Francisco Rey and I are writing a paper for the Apimondia meeting in France about the economics of selecting for disease resistance and we need answers to the below questions as soon as possible . We would like to get input from you and the other members of your " Live and Let Die Thread" because we need answers from a beekeeper's point of view. Would you please post these questions on your forum and have the members email me directly ( they can of course post their questions in your forum). We will be using some of the things brought up in your forum in our talk. So you can have an answer from the horse's mouth.
> In addition I started the "Rucher D'Oc World Varroa Challenge" several years ago. When beekeepers visit my breeding station in France I pay them 1 cent ( in euros ) for every varroa dead or alive that they see in my hives.If any of the members of your group are going to the Apimondia meeting in France They should feel free to stop by in Toulouse for a "pit Stop". They can camp at the farm and count varroa ...or just chat. There are a lot of nice things to see in our area. Contact me at the following address:
>
> John Kefuss
> 49 Rue Jonas
> 31200 Toulouse France
> 05 61 57 87 15
> [email protected]
>
> Questions
> 1. What are the different reasons why beekeepers don't wish to stop chemical treatments against varroa mites?
>
> 2. Under what conditions would you stop treatments against varroa mites in all your hives?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help ( and also of those of your friends). Right now I am in Chile rearing queens but will be back in France in March.
>
> Yours truly,
> John Kefuss
> CC Ian Steppler ( if I can find his email)


----------



## Allen Dick

> What are the different reasons why beekeepers don't wish to stop chemical treatments against varroa mites?


That is a good question. Speaking only of those who purchase stock and run bees on a fairly large scale,my take on it is that people do not have the same faith in genetics that they do in chemicals, even chemicals of know unreliability, and so do not seek them out.

This is partly due to a lack of confidence in the ability of breeders to deliver consistent resistance in stock over time, and an accompanying reluctance to monitor mites on a continuing basis.

Also, the emphasis in externsion tends to be on emergency interventions and people forget that the ideal is to avoid situations where such interventions are required to prevent huge losses.


----------



## Joel

John, I'd love to come to Apimondia, especially in France! Hope you have great time and certainly thanks for your efforts. Here's my opinions:

Ans. #1 IMO Varroa are a primary vector in disease spread and hive demoralization. They actually weaken the immune systems of the bees who they are infecting. I've read about this and I've seen this in our yards since 1996. I have not found commercially viable "mite proof bees" and to not treat is to doom hives. Having said that there is an article in the ABJ about our operation and we do run live and let die and then breed from the survivors to the degree our operation can withstand the losses. We are seeing better stock but the cost is extremely high and I'm not of a belief it is possible to breed the genetically viable bee in a generation of effort. If we had the perfect genetics, which we never will, we would still have to bring in outside stock to keep our genetics from themselves over time and potentially introduce other genetic weaknesses not already in our stock.

Ans #2 Having a mite resistant bee is only half the battle. Were we to reach that threshold on a commercially viable level (Hygenic behavior maybe) the mites will still be a disease vector. Assuming we then breed bees which are resistant to the common diseases of today as well as mite resistant (highly unlikely) undoubtably nature will send us something new in the form of mutation or interduction from the outside. The ideal of breeding bees with resistance to all this in real time seems unrealistic if not impossible.

I think we are all wishing for better, non-treatment methods. Many, especially those who make a living with bees, have little choice but to use the tools at our disposal.


----------



## Joel

Ian said:


> We need time,
> 
> until then, we need alternate solutions to help releive the pressures in our hives,
> 
> you cant just expect to be able to wipe out over 100 years of the beekeeping industry to make a point. Beekeeping has to evolve, to remain sustainable,
> as anyother business modle, we need time to incorperate it into our operations.
> 
> You make a bad compairison, ITs not a matter of propping up unsustainable businesses, its a matter of ensuring these business can and will survive well into the future.
> I tell you, if you want to talk about bad business management, dont try to manage varroa populations. Then you will need a direct cash infussion to keep your business viable,


Well said Ian. This message keeps getting repeated and it seems to land on deaf ears. I for one wish the people with the magic bees that need no treatments would allow themselves the huge financial benefit they are withholding themselves by putting their stock out for some real field testing and showing us something other than the constant talk and and advice on what we should do. I'll make the call to Dyce and take up a collection to do the testing. Every commercial beek I know would pay big bucks for this elusive stock we keep hearing about but no one ever seems to want to let go of. For the betterment of the industry, for the great personal financial gains, put up or, well, just put up!


----------



## slickbrightspear

beesides the introduction of varroa what changed that we have to use so many chemicals in the hive that were not used before?


----------



## JBJ

"For the betterment of the industry, for the great personal financial gains, put up or, well, just put up!" Joel

Well we are doing our best here. I think most of these programs are a work in progress and not static. Progress has been made and there is always room for improvement. 

Who knows what the next viral mutation will brings us. The perfect bee for one set of conditions may be totally vulnerable to some future set of conditions. Everything has to adapt to survive, including beekeepers. The industries predominant reliance on chems and imported susceptible bee lines(aussie packages) may slow the adaptation down but we will eventually get there. Soon we will be able to ID specific genetic markers for desirable traits and we will really be able to elevate honeybee genetics to a new level.


----------



## Joel

slickbrightspear said:


> beesides the introduction of varroa what changed that we have to use so many chemicals in the hive that were not used before?


Nothing. There's always been meds around for prevention of AFB and Nosema. There was menthol for Trachael mites but I don't remember much else prior to Varroa. I'm not sure I think we are using allot of chemicals today other than those+varroa. 

John, I am familiar with your work and have visited your website in the past. I respect your efforts. I am not directing my comments at folks who are working hard at developing a better strain. I recognize you as one of the hard working responsible breeders with a true interest in improving beekeeping for the industry. I understand this will always be a work in progress. 

My frustration is with beekeepers who claim to already have bees who are genetically fit to survive the current atmosphere. The understanding we are given is they are bred from ferals and survivor stock or ferals as survivor stock. Ferals being wild bees not derived from swarms orginating as commercially available stock. Obviously few of us live in areas of the country isolated enough to have these pure strains of wild bees in any quantity much less isolated enough we can breed them without outside influence. I'm assuming much could be learned at Cornell and other colleges who have a dedicated program to study apiculture from this specific stock. I would also like to see the techniques used with this stock made a part of the study since I have to believe it is more than just genetics. 

Many of us (me included) need a better understanding of the real impact and possiblities of genetics. Some of us need a better understanding of the realities of commercial agriculture/apiculture. I am offering to approach Nick Calderone to do a study on bees currently available which are claimed to be thriving without any treatments in an atmosphere where the majority of the industry, from hobbyist to commercial, is experiancing record losses. Lets test these bees, and the management techniques, and find out what makes them different from the rest of the bees in the country. Why aren't they getting mites and disease? Then lets share the results for the betterment of the industry. 

For years I've been hearing what we commericial beeks are doing wrong while we are out providing bees which pollinate the food on our plates, providing the honey in our cupboards, our food and and our medicines. I'm offering the opportunity to show us a better way through scientific study.


----------



## JBJ

Sounds rational to me. Have you applied for a grant yet? I believe Zia Queen Bees received a grant for their Survivor Cross Stock Project. 

True breeding mite tolerant stock is with plenty of the economically valuable traits we have come to know and love is a noble and I feel very attainable goal that much progress has been made on. I also feel that this will happen much faster with interdisciplinary and beekeeper collaboration.


----------



## arthur

I'm just a beginning hobbyist on my 3rd season with my only hive.

Never treated it for anything. Bought the package from B. Weaver in Navasota, TX, on their website, they say they also don't treat for mites, haven't for many years.

I thought mite-resistant bees were pretty common at this point.


----------



## Ian

>beesides the introduction of varroa what changed that we have to use so many chemicals in the hive that were not used before? 


Varroa ,


----------



## Ian

>>This message keeps getting repeated and it seems to land on deaf ears. 

The thing is if there is a program out there, that will give us the kind of results that some beekeepers talk of, then don't we all think that program would or could be adopted by the rest of us and work off the same results?

The truth of the matter is breeding programs take generations, and generations, years over years of selection. The best selection pressure out there is simply this "live and let die" model. But that live and let die model would simply wipe commercial beekeeping off the face of this content. Integrating pest management now, to allow our industry to adapt to the changing environment is crucial to ensure years of beekeeping knowledge is kept until that breeding program is successful. I truly believe these kind of programs should be more widely supported. Not by the government, or the investment industry, but by the beekeepers. 
Lets face it, we need this kind of investment, so why not get it done ourselves.


----------



## ekrouse

*Never treated, never will*

Had 100% survival this last year and didn't even do the powdered sugar thing last year (didn't have time). That's the only treatment I have ever used. All my bees are survivors from swarm stock obtained a few years ago. Just plain 'ole Mutt bees (basically Italians). I used to have Carniolan which did very well around here in Central New York given our overcast days and long winters. I loved the very white wax, but they died out a few years ago when I didn't prep the hives for winter (basically left the SBB open and it was a cold windy winter). I was left with a single hive from a swarm. I made 6 splits out of that only hive that survived (3:1 splits that I again split 2:1). Since then I've added some feral stock from swarms and cut outs. Came through the winter great.

-Eric


----------



## arthur

Here's the part that is ethically questionable:

taking a swarm and then requeening it from a commercial breeder who uses pesticides and chemicals.

That kind of thing makes no sense for the future of bees and beekeeping.

Or even worse, finding a thriving feral hive/cutout and requeening it.


----------



## Show-me

I'm using the live and let die method. I had a swarm move in some old equipment in 2006. I did a walk away split in 2007. In 2008 I did a horrible job of splitting my two colonies and ended up with 7 double deeps and 3 double deep 5 frame nucs going into winter. Lost two swarms that spring and had a late summer early fall swarm from a boomer hive.

I did get 2 deep supers of surplus honey from two of those splits.

As of right now all have brood and honey stores. I did feed pollen supplement from Mann Lake in the fall and spring and did some minimal feeding to a couple hives last fall. I am using some of my surplus honey to augment some colonies that seem light based on my spotty experience.

I plan to at the very least double my numbers this spring.

I am using absolutely NO CHEMICALS, oils, widgets, spells, etc.

Here is my concern, the technique I am using does not truly give me "survivor stock" as I am managing to out breed the mites. Out breeding the mites in my mind can be a bad thing once you stop trying to out breed them and go into full honey production.

Next year will tell the tale as I am not going to split every colonies this year but make nucs out of more select colonies that show some fast growth. My problem there is these "boomer's" are noticeably more aggressive to work and during dearth look out. At this point I am willing to work a more aggressive hive in order to avoid the use of any chemicals.

The colonies that I do not split will have time for the mites to build up and this fall to next spring will be a real test as to the survivability of these colonies.

Ain't no money in this but it is very interesting.


----------



## Ian

>>taking a swarm and then requeening it from a commercial breeder who uses pesticides and chemicals.


A Lot of those commercial breeders have a breeding program that would make many beekeepers envious, hence the reason why many of these breeders have high performing stock, and hence the reason they continue to stay in business.

I tried to raise my own queens, but failed due to little time allowed to practice that art.
I know of many beekeepers who raise thier own queens following many of the same principles voiced in this topic with good sucess.
I also know of many who bring in stock from halfway around the world, including myself.
I also know many beekeepers who had fallen on a heavey loss event last season (50-80% losses) despite all their breeding efferts and/or despite the type of bee brought into thier operation 
I also know of one of those particular beekeeper who couldnt stay solvent.

lets just hope I can keep my footing in these next comming years,

but just wait, if I dont intergrate a pest management system into my operation, and take a heavey loss, at least I can take that survivour hive and sell it for a few bucks with the lable "survivour hive" to buy me fuel for my car so I can go look for a off farm job ,


----------



## Ian

>>Here is my concern, the technique I am using does not truly give me "survivor stock" as I am managing to out breed the mites. Out breeding the mites in my mind can be a bad thing once you stop trying to out breed them and go into full honey production.


This is one of the best statements I have yet to read with in this topic.

That seems to be one of the best strategies to ward off the destruction of the v mite. And the strategy completely falls apart when the focus is shifted towards heavy honey production.
I have been integrating this type of management strategy into my operation for a couple of years now successfully. Basically I call it making up nucs.
The nucs always out perform the mother hives come the following season, especially compared without any type of mite control practice.
I hand it to young queens, and like you say, out pacing the mites growth.

Are we going to solve this mite problem by enhancing our hives genetics, or rather by changing our management of beekeeping practice? 
I turely believe our breeding efforts are years away from any sustainable productive performance. In the mean time we can fight these mites from another direction,


----------



## Show-me

Ian,

Thanks, as I said the real test will be when I stop splitting every single colony and they have to prove themselves over time with natural mite load. Health, nutrition, and hygienic traits will all be key, IMO.

IMO, the term "survivor stock" is turning into more of a marketing phrase than a description of actual traits for a number of breeders.

The question that I would pose to the industry as a whole is, how do we define "survivor stock"?

My raw answer would be that a identifiable queen, marked and cataloged, and the colony that has lived (survived) a number of years with out any treatment or specific treatments. Mite load would not be as important as the fact that mites are present or have be presented at some time early in the life of the colony.

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Show-me

My second thought would be that "survivor stock" could not be verified from the wild or from swarms. That said, what if the feral stock has survived by swarming often thus out breeding the mites.


----------



## DebCP

*Research on Varroa Mites*

Hello,

I attended the University of Florida's Bee College a few weeks ago. The main guest speaker was Keith Delaplane, PhD and the main topic was Varroa. The main point he wanted to make was the use of IPM (integrated pest management) as their research has shown that although the chemicals used to treat varroa are effective they also have undesirable effects on the health of the hive and actual honey production can suffer with treatment.

Here is a link to the information he presented:

http://http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/2007beecraftpaper.pdf

Just some food for thought...and I certainly can't speak from experience since I'm new to this. However, decreasing chemical use and using practices that will limit the Varroa does seem to make sense.

DebCP


----------



## Ian

>>Just some food for thought...and I certainly can't speak from experience since I'm new to this. However, decreasing chemical use and using practices that will limit the Varroa does seem to make sense.


Cheers to that.

But potential decrease in honey production due to chemical use is alot more production than from a hive weakend or dead from varroa mites,


----------



## adamf

*correct url*



DebCP said:


> Here is a link to the information he presented:
> 
> http://http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/2007beecraftpaper.pdf


Try:
www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/2007beecraftpaper.pdf



Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## DebCP

*Correct URL*

Thanks for correcting my URL-still trying to figure out how to use all the buttons on top of the posting area.

DebCP


----------

