# Tracheal Mites Must Be Extinct......



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I had hives killed by tracheal mites in the winter of 2007-8. The pattern I saw was mass crawler events in the coldest dampest weather -- hundreds of bees dying just off the landing board. Infection verified by microscope dissection. I would scoop up bowls of weakened bees and warm them up, but the hives were doomed even with grease and menthol patties (the current and reportedly effective folk remedy). 

The thymol treatements for Varroa is going to clean the Tracheal too. I don't believe Oxalic or Formic are therapeutic. Edit: See Palmer comment later in this thread that states Formic is effective on tracheal.

I expect the chronic fall diseases of the bees, especially those affecting the hives where their keepers do not medicate, kill the hives in the fall long before the tracheal mite peaks to lethal levels.

Resistance has been broadly bred into commercial lines since the 1990's. The death-in-the-winter pattern means that selection continues to pertain (no breeders produced from the susceptible colonies). The wild-collected swarms in my region are not very susceptible, though the 2007 mortality were off Santa Barbara wilderness swarm that had been split into several boxes.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

You hear so little about tracheal mites because varroa mites are a far bigger problem.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

I rarely see anything I could call tracheal mite damage. Often I can find K winged bees in a colony, but nothing comes of it. I do know that Jadczak in Maine finds acarine to be a problem for some apiaries. He still cuts bees and looks, and finds infested colonies. Overall, it's a non issue, at least here where I keep bees.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

JWChesnut said:


> I don't believe Oxalic or Formic are therapeutic.


Formic is.


----------



## rookie2531 (Jul 28, 2014)

I don't know, but I hope this is the only and last time I do talk about them. But I have not treated for them, if they make it in the spring, I'll probably do some prevention feeding.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I had samples analysed this fall and the results came back with undetectable levels of tracheal mites.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> Resistance has been broadly bred into commercial lines since the 1990's. The death-in-the-winter pattern means that selection continues to pertain (no breeders produced from the susceptible colonies).


Simply by using resistant colonies? Too bad varroa doesn't react to that method very well.I know there is the Buckfast line produced by brother Adam, but they were essentially hybrids if I'm not mistaken, whose traits would "water down" after several generations? Could most bees just have larger tracheae these days?:scratch:



Michael Palmer said:


> I rarely see anything I could call tracheal mite damage. Often I can find K winged bees in a colony, but nothing comes of it. I do know that Jadczak in Maine finds acarine to be a problem for some apiaries. He still cuts bees and looks, and finds infested colonies. Overall, it's a non issue, at least here where I keep bees.


So, there is a locality in that situation it sounds like. What lines of bees (if that has anything to do with it) seem to be most susceptible in those situations? I just think it is fascinating that in the 80's, every beekeeper I know lost the majority of their operations to tracheal mites. It was a doom and gloom situation. Now, it's like poof......they're basically gone or just do not cause troubles anymore. Baffling....


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

shinbone said:


> You hear so little about tracheal mites because varroa mites are a far bigger problem.


And easier to detect.

You don't hear much about AFB these days either. Maybe tracheal mites have gone the way of AFB, being that varroa/virus kills the colonies before AFB or tracheal mites become apparent.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

TalonRedding said:


> So, there is a locality in that situation it sounds like.


Hard to say as 80,000 colonies go to Maine for blueberries.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> ...being that varroa/virus kills the colonies before AFB or tracheal mites become apparent.


That makes sense to me....Especially considering the virulent tendencies of varroa.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Talon, what's your t mite count ?


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

Ian said:


> Talon, what's your t mite count ?



I haven't tested for t mites....yet. I'm still learning the basics and have a ways to go before I'm comfortable enough to expand and start a breeding program which is one goal I have for the future. Give me another few years though for that. Once I get to that knowledge/comfort level, I know that proper testing will be essential. Of course, it also wouldn't hurt to start testing now to monitor progress to that point (control/test).
You're probably wondering how I know that my colonies don't have t mites and the answer to that is, I do not know. I just use standard/folk remedies and prevention when I deem necessary. However, there are a few, and I mean few, beekeepers around me that do test for t mites and they don't have any issues whatsoever for the most part.That's why I started this thread.....I'm just curious. T mites just arent brought up often in conversation.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

TalonRedding said:


> That makes sense to me....Especially considering the virulent tendencies of varroa.


I wonder if one has two kinds of ticks where they live if one ever finds them both on the same dog or deer? Maybe varroa and tracheal are territorial.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I wonder what whomever is in charge at Beltsville would say in reply to your question? They'd have some data on how many cases they find.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

My theory how T Mites came and (almost) went is this.

First, nobody knows where they came from. I think they were infesting some bees somewhere on the planet and these particular bees had an immunity to them. Bees in other places that had not been exposed did not have immunity.

With the shipping of bees of all origins all over the planet, it was almost inevitable that this parasite would be introduced to the rest of the bee population. Initially there were high losses particularly in some breeds such as the then British AMM. But in other countries there had already been centuries of hybridisation of every bee man could import, so a degree of immunity was present in some bees.

The weak were weeded out and we now have the survivors. No doubt aided by varroa mite treatments.

Just a theory, might be true, might not be true.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Tracheal mite, or acarine as it is known in my neck of the woods, used to be a big problem but is a minor issue here now.
I remember my father and other local beekeepers having a serious problem with acarine in the 1970s.
It is rare to see losses from anything other than from varroa/virus, weather related issues or PPB these days.
They just found a couple of cases of EFB in N. Ireland and the last one recorded was 13 years ago. Even AFB cases are quite rare.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Simply by using resistant colonies? 

Everyone stopped treating for Tracheal mites because the new obsession was Varroa mites. The problem went away.

>Too bad varroa doesn't react to that method very well.

About half the people are still treating for Varroa mites.

>I know there is the Buckfast line produced by brother Adam, but they were essentially hybrids if I'm not mistaken, whose traits would "water down" after several generations?

They were resistant... but resistance isn't that hard to breed for.

> Could most bees just have larger tracheae these days?

Well, we enlarged the bees by 150% in volume... yes, they could have larger tracheae which could explain how one of the other other Acarapis (externus, dorsalis or vagans) climbed inside the bee and became woodi. But the openings (spiracles) are actually able to close (like a glottis or a mouth) and are much smaller than the trachea. Acarapis woodi have to find young bees to infect (the crisco patties would disguise them so they couldn't find them) so I think they must need soft chitin in the spiracles to get in. Maybe they chew it out?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> Well, we enlarged the bees by 150% in volume...


I didn't. Did you? Did someone else? Really? After 46 k posts still the same old tales...


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >Too bad varroa doesn't react to that method very well.
> 
> About half the people are still treating for Varroa mites.


Michael, where are you getting your numbers that only 1/2 the beekeepers treat for mites?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I didn't. Did you? Did someone else? 

I did when I didn't know it, yes.

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...and-variability-of-the-honeybee/introduction/
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#differencebetween

Yes, Grout, Baudoux, Pinchot, Gontarski and others are still telling those same old tales in their historical works...

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/historical-data-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

_Taking averages from the above table, we obtain a mean worker cell size of 5.27 mm which is almost identical to the pre-1900 average of 5.25 mm (see above). Even if Murrell's range of 4.6 to 5.6 mm is included, the mean for post-1900 comb cell size is 5.22 mm. [...]
*We can therefore conclude that worker cell size in naturally constructed comb has not changed appreciably (<0.5%) throughout recorded beekeeping history, not even since the introduction of foundation in the late 19th century.*_
from: http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/natural_cell_size_heaf.pdf

You can also read there: _*The author thanks Michael Bush*, Francis Saucy and Larry Garrett for drawing his attention to the data of François Huber, Abbé Collin and Pierre André Latreill respectively._

:scratch: 

Beside that, you do know: http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/do_small_cells_help_bees_cope_with_varroa.pdf 
=> Is there anything wrong with this compilation?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

There are thousands of old references to cell size and most of them are measuring simply across cells. The answer they get varies, but is typically comes to 5.0mm to 5.1mm. Baudoux's range of cells he was measuring and enlarging ran from 4.7mm to 5.6mm. Yes you can find an occasional one that is larger. The discussions about enlarging the bees took place in a public forum in bee magazines and those are available for anyone who cares to take the time to read them. Many are posted here on beesource. Many are available from Cornell's "Hive and the Honey Bee Collection". Many can still be purchased online from people reselling the originals. I have many of those originals in my library and have seen many other originals in Dee Lusby's library (which makes mine pale by comparison). If you wish to ignore history, that is your prerogative.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Even a very quick look reveals big problems.
Instead of quoting root (who reported both 5 cells within an inch and that there was a movement underway to enlarge the bee by enlarging foundation), the author cites from a much later edition of the book...data that is in direct contradiction of what root himself reported....and attributes the citation to root.

Much of the other data used is a mishmash of cells (an average of an entire comb is not likely all worker brood cells....an un described comb built in a single day may well be honey comb and not brood comb).

There is certainly debate and discovery to be had over the effects of foundation cell size....but the historical record is clear.

Deknow


BernhardHeuvel said:


> _Taking averages from the above table, we obtain a mean worker cell size of 5.27 mm which is almost identical to the pre-1900 average of 5.25 mm (see above). Even if Murrell's range of 4.6 to 5.6 mm is included, the mean for post-1900 comb cell size is 5.22 mm. [...]
> *We can therefore conclude that worker cell size in naturally constructed comb has not changed appreciably (<0.5%) throughout recorded beekeeping history, not even since the introduction of foundation in the late 19th century.*_
> from: http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/natural_cell_size_heaf.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> There are thousands of old references to cell size ...If you wish to ignore history, that is your prerogative.


Thousands?! I have a nice overview over old bee literature and "thousands" seems to be an exaggeration. Why?

I am not ignoring history. And I don't bend history to my likings neither...

I would like to hear the first hundred of your references. I will see, if I can get hold of those books and make a table with the right conversions from old to new measures. Surely that will help to correct some myths.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The belief that we have enlarged bees and in so doing caused every evil that ever befell us, is an absolutely basic tenet of belief for small cell beekeeping theory. 

It is so basic, and critical to the cause, that small cell advocates will be unable to change this belief, regardless of any evidence presented. 

The idea we have enlarged bees is so put about, and supported by cherry picked data and vociferous proponents, that most new beekeepers buy into it.

In fact, back in the early days of comb foundation, attempts were made both to make bees bigger, and to make bees smaller. So if a person cherry picks their data, they can supply "evidence" to support either argument they want.

My finding is that bees left to their own devices build cells around 5.2 to 5.3, same as they did 100 years ago. Course, we don't have Africanised genetics here or certain other lineages, our bees have more in common with some of the bees of the US 100 years ago.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The other thing that should be mentioned is the fundamental fallacy of reasoning in small cell theory.

It's a cause and effect argument. IE, bees were "made bigger" a century ago. Since that time there has been a great increase in bee diseases and problems. So it's simple. All problems are because bees were "made bigger".

Of course this is one of the most over simplistic arguments I have ever heard because it ignores some very obvious facts. 

The time frame of the invention of comb foundation also coincides with many other technical advances including mass transport of bees all over the planet, and widespread use of the moveable frame hive. These two things are the main vectors that have spread parasites and disease from small areas of the globe to most of the hives on the planet. Add to that the other modern problems of pesticides, crop monoculture and environmental degradation and it is quite obvious all this together is causing huge problems for bees. 

But has nothing to do with cell size.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

Has anyone using small cell comb had their bees tested for tracheal mites?


----------



## swarm_trapper (Jun 19, 2003)

We still incorporate a shot of menthol in our bees twice a year, I couldn't tell you if i have T-Mites but why take a chance when the menthol mix seems to make the bees look nicer. (could be in my head, but i would probably notice since there isn't much up there ;-)


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

Swarm trapper,

Are you running your bees on small cell?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Acarapis woodi have to find young bees to infect (the crisco patties would disguise them so they couldn't find them) so I think they must need soft chitin in the spiracles to get in. Maybe they chew it out?


Young bees have softer hair to make the T mites way through. That's what I heard postulated back in the 1980s.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

swarm_trapper said:


> We still incorporate a shot of menthol in our bees twice a year, I couldn't tell you if i have T-Mites but why take a chance when the menthol mix seems to make the bees look nicer. (could be in my head, but i would probably notice since there isn't much up there ;-)


I have a truck load of Rogain I'd like to sell you. Even if you have a head full of hair it'll keep you from going bald. "why take a chance".

Why waste your money on a treatment that doesn't work, especially on a problem you don't have?


----------



## swarm_trapper (Jun 19, 2003)

In one or two more years I might take you up on the Rogain Mark lol.
I used to use menthol a few years back then quit because "No one has T mites". But the bees just never looked as full and healthy in the winter time so I went back on it. I feel they now look better to me, which is what matters even if it costs me more, its all tax deductible lol. I probably couldnt prove it but its so cheap why not. 

Tallon redding I used to use small cell on a couple hundred hives when they died from mites i quit and never looked back.
regards Nick


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Nick, what are your tracheal mite counts?


----------



## cowdoc (May 15, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I wonder what whomever is in charge at Beltsville would say in reply to your question? They'd have some data on how many cases they find.


We made a trip to Beltsville last year when we were down that way to talk at a meeting. There was an intern that was doing all of their sampling for tracheal mites. I felt really bad for him as he had not had a single positive sample all summer. The diagnostic service seemed pretty well managed, so I think he was pretty well supervised, and I don't think he was just missing them. 

Chris Cripps
[email protected]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I would like to hear the first hundred of your references. I will see

Between bees.library.cornell.edu, and books on books.google.com, Gutenberg.org, archive.org you can find thousands of old beekeeping books and magazines. Virtually every beekeeping magazine from the 1800s until 1923 are readily available. In most of those books are references to cell size and in a significant number of the magazines are discussions of the good or bad idea of enlarging the bees. I have listed several of the pertinent writers on the subject at the time for you. I have no intention of doing thousands of hours of work just to satisfy you. I've already done thousands of hours of work and experimentation to satisfy myself. You have already come to your own conclusions. I don't see how I can help.

>The belief that we have enlarged bees and in so doing caused every evil that ever befell us, is an absolutely basic tenet of belief for small cell beekeeping theory. 

Odd. You think it's so basic and yet I would say I only know three or four people who hold that "basic tenet"... I certainly don't believe that. I'm sure deknow does not either.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> I don't see how I can help.


Thanks for telling me how to find books. I already have a lot of of those books and even have read them. So I don't have problems finding books. You state, that there are "thousands of books" showing evidence for smaller cells in the past. It would help me, if you name the first hundred books of that "thousands" books. You name me the books, I will search through them for comb measurements. So I do the work, while you only have to point me to those books, naming the title and author.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

When I first started to correspond with Dee, I had very much the same thoughts that Bernhard is expressing...it seemed like every malady under the sun was being blamed on enlarged cells.

When I really thought about it, it occurred to me that in human health, I can't name a disease or condition that isn't made worse by being overweight....that if an overweight human went to a doctor for any condition, losing weight would be at the top of the list of things that will make heal8ng/recovery easier.


....and we have the luxury of not having to actually take flight with our extra weight.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Never mind


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

deknow said:


> ...


Does cell size really influence the size/weight of the bees? 

I do have 4.9 mm cell hives for years, yet the bees are the same size as in any other hive. No matter if I use dark bees, carnolians or buckfast. Same size of bees. The only thing that seems to influence size is temperature and pollen supply. That's it. So even if the old beekeepers would have reduced the cell size - would it really matter? 

Claims should be marked as claims, wishful thinking as wishful thinking. And facts as facts. Facts need evidence that you can retrace and reconstruct. Otherwise it is anecdotal.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Does cell size really influence the size/weight of the bees? 

Recent by McMullan and Brown(2005):
http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...=/articles/apido/abs/2006/06/m6049/m6049.html

"Abstract - Until the late 1800s honeybees in Britain and Ireland were raised in brood cells of circa 5.0 mm width. By the 1920s this had increased to circa 5.5 mm. We undertook this study to find out if present-day honeybees could revert to the cell-size of the 1800s and to evaluate resulting changes in honeybee morphometry. Seven measurements were made; head width, radial cell length, trachea diameter, cubital index, discoidal shift, bee mass and abdominal markings. The study showed that the colonies of Apis mellifera mellifera bees had no apparent difficulty in drawing out the wax and raising brood in the reduced brood cells. Bees reared in these cells were significantly smaller..."

1931 By Grout:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...pon-the-size-and-variability-of-the-honeybee/

Chart of Grouts measurements:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ability-of-the-honeybee/experimental/table-1/
Graph of increase:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ability-of-the-honeybee/experimental/graph-1/


1933 by Baudoux (much of his work was much earlier and a synopsis of it is given in most of the ABC XYZ of Bee Culture editions from the 20's until the 50's including exact measurements)
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-1/


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

And repeating it over and over again...:s Boring.

McMullan and Brown (2006a & b) who are co-authors in the Coffey et al. (2010) paper. => The authors concluded that reduced worker brood-cell size is unlikely to have any value as a control strategy in A. m. mellifera under European conditions. See: http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/do_small_cells_help_bees_cope_with_varroa.pdf (Page 4)


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Victor left and somebody else quickly filled his shoes.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Does cell size really influence the size/weight of the bees? 
>And repeating it over and over again... Boring.

You asked if "cell size really influences the size/weight of the bees" and I give you three of the many studies that have been done in the past that prove exactly that and you are bored. If you are aware of the studies that proof they are smaller on smaller cells, then why do you deny that there is any proof and say it is all anecdotal? 

>The authors concluded that reduced worker brood-cell size is unlikely to have any value as a control strategy in A. m. mellifera under European conditions.

That is not what you asked. You asked:

>Does cell size really influence the size/weight of the bees? 

and then:

>Claims should be marked as claims, wishful thinking as wishful thinking. And facts as facts. Facts need evidence that you can retrace and reconstruct. Otherwise it is anecdotal.

And I offer three peer reviewed studies. Sorry to bore you.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Dear Michael,

it is very kind of you that you offer me three studies (peer reviewed) to look into. It bores me, because those studies were reviewed by Dr. Heaf, and I pointed you to his compilation. Asking you, if you can say something against the conclusion drawn in his compilation. You answer by pointing me to studies discussed in that very compilation. :scratch:

You may have a point, concerning smaller bees from smaller cells, but I really doubt the results from those papers (peer reviewed, you know...). I have small cell hives myself and know my bees very well. Nevertheless, smaller bees or not, all the other papers (peer reviewed...) lead to the overall conclusion, that small cells do not help coping with varroa. All other papers say, there are no (significantly) smaller bees in history. 

So again, can say you something against the conclusions drawn by Dr. Heaf in his compilation?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

cowdoc said:


> We made a trip to Beltsville last year when we were down that way to talk at a meeting. There was an intern that was doing all of their sampling for tracheal mites. I felt really bad for him as he had not had a single positive sample all summer. The diagnostic service seemed pretty well managed, so I think he was pretty well supervised, and I don't think he was just missing them.
> 
> Chris Cripps
> [email protected]


I dissected bees for Nick Calderone, back when he was still in MD, for a month. It would be pretty hard to miss them. Especially if the tech is looking at a lot of samples. The procedure is pretty simple if you have the right equipment. Which isn't hard to put together. A straight razor, a dissecting scope, and some KOH. A hot plate to warm the pro-thorasic discs over night to clear the muscle mass and your good to go. Nothing left but the exoskeleton disc, the trachea, and whatever is inside them.


----------



## swarm_trapper (Jun 19, 2003)

Ian said:


> Nick, what are your tracheal mite counts?


Ian i couldn't tell you if i even have any.
The cost is so small each year and i see benefits from using menthol with other essential oils, that even if i didn't have T-mites I would still use it. Where is the best place to send samples in to get them tested for T-mites?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

swarm_trapper said:


> Where is the best place to send samples in to get them tested for T-mites?


try your local state extensions lab? Must be a place around there somewhere. Is Dr. Jamie Ellis not down at the University of Florida there somewhere? http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/honeybee/facilities.shtml Do they have something going on for analysing beekeeper samples?

It would be interesting to see what the menthol is doing to promote a better looking hive if it is not controlling t mites, if the hives are not infested with t mites. Perhaps its all in your head? Testing would help you answer that question.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

swarm_trapper said:


> Where is the best place to send samples in to get them tested for T-mites?


The Beltsville Bee Lab.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

I'll ask one more time in case it was overlooked earlier. *Has anyone who runs small cell tested their bees for tracheal mites? If so, what were the results?*
I'm indifferent in my opinion on small cell theories. Im neither for nor against. I have a high respect for Mr. bush as well as many others on this thread because you all have probably forgotten more about beekeeping than ill ever know. In light of that fact,I'm just curious if anyone has actually done a t-mite count on small cell bees. i think that's a question that needs to be answered here.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I do not run small cell but my Tracheal mite counts were undetectable in this years fall sample.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

I irregulary check for tracheal mites on all hives but couldn't find some neither in small nor in normal sized cells.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I irregulary check for tracheal mites on all hives but couldn't find some neither in small nor in normal sized cells.


Would you attribute this to the small cell size? Do you treat? Are there other reasons for the absence of t mites in your colonies?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Can't attribute anything to small cells (except high costs in time and money...), so - no. I do have treated hives and untreated yards. In the treatment yards the absence might be due to the treatments. But I never came across tracheal mites, anywhere in my apiaries. In high infestation you should see a lot of crawling bees in front of the hives. Everytime I come upon a crawling bee, I dissect her. (There are quite some causes for crawlers.) Tracheal mites are a "factor disease", means lack of pollen, weak hives, bad weather and too little brood favours the tracheal mite. You should be right if you do keep strong hives only, care for lots of pollen and for lots of fresh brood. Especially in the autumn. Avoid the agglomeration of too many hives per apiary. 

We do use a lot of formic/oxalic acid and thymol over here, which all seem to kill tracheal mites, so tracheal mites are not a topic among beekeepers here in Germany.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I'll ask one more time in case it was overlooked earlier. Has anyone who runs small cell tested their bees for tracheal mites? If so, what were the results?

Since everyone I know who is running small cell does not treat, and since not treating has proven to be a very effective way of ending up with bees resistant to tracheal mites, I don't think it would prove anything.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I wonder how exactly these bees resist the t mites.? Do they secrete special pharmones to disrupt the mites mating habits ? Do they groom more than non resistant bees? Have they developed trachea to counteract the mites? 

Or are we seeing the result of external factors? 

I think we don't have any of the answers needed to determine resistance. More of an assumption.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Ian, do you know why I never have bugs in my grain? Because I never look for them. 😳


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I wonder how exactly these bees resist the t mites.?

There has been speculation for some time on the subject. Last I researched it there were a few theories but the prevailing one was grooming. Since the crisco patties seemed to cover the smell of young bees, another theory is that the young bees don't have a distinguishing smell that the mites can tell. There may be several more.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> Since everyone I know who is running small cell does not treat, and since not treating has proven to be a very effective way of ending up with bees resistant to tracheal mites, I don't think it would prove anything.


I don't run small cell, I don't treat for Tracheal mites, and quickly developed bees that are able to tolerate that mite quite well.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I don't run small cell, I don't treat for Tracheal mites, and quickly developed bees that are able to tolerate that mite quite well.

Exactly.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> Exactly.



Just saying...small cell had nothing to do with it.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

So in others' personal experiences:
1: some large operations with the larger cells do not have issues with t-mite even without treatment.
2. Some large operations with the larger cells have tested and found undetectable t-mite counts with treatment and have no t-mite issues, although some claim menthol makes the bees look better.
3. Some operations with small cell who tested for t-mites and treat do not have t-mite issues.
4. Some operations with small cell who tested for t-mites and do not treat do not have t-mite issues.
5. Some operations with small cell who do not treat or test for t-mite do not have t-mite issues.

There seems to be some circumstantial evidence in this conversation that may suggest that we now have stronger bees nationwide, at least concerning the resistance or possible resistance of tracheal mites. The management strategies above are all different from one another but the only thing they have in common is that there are no issues with tracheal mites. Thoughts? Opinions? 
This has turned out to be a very interesting thread, and I appreciate all of the input from you folks.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Just saying...small cell had nothing to do with it.

Exactly. So even if small cell had any positive influence, how could you distinguish it from the same result anyway? So in the case of resolving the tracheal mite issue, it's irrelevant.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Concerning the history of smaller cells, blog post on "Denial of history" by Erik Osterlund:
http://www.elgon.es/diary/?p=582


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

>Just saying...small cell had nothing to do with it.<



Michael Bush said:


> Exactly. So even if small cell had any positive influence, how could you distinguish it from the same result anyway? So in the case of resolving the tracheal mite issue, it's irrelevant.


Just, I've been told elsewhere, and on Beesource, that tracheal mites were caused by us using comb foundation to force the bees to raise their young in cells larger than 4.9.

The story went that when we "made bees bigger", a mite that had not done so before, was suddenly able to fit inside the bees trachea, and turned into tracheal mites. 

I've been presented with this as if it is a fact, on several occasions.

So pleased this old chestnut has been cleared up and it _seems _nobody believes it now.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Scientists all seem to be in agreement that Acarapis woodi evolved somewhere between about 1891 and 1901 when either Acarapis dorsalis, Acarpis externus or Acrapis vagans made an evolutionary leap and moved into the trachea. The idea that perhaps large foundation contributed is not any more far fetched. They could have done this as late as 1921 when Ilse of Wight disease first appeared. All right around the time they enlarged the foundation.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> Scientists all seem to be in agreement that Acarapis woodi evolved somewhere between about 1891 and 1901 when either Acarapis dorsalis, Acarpis externus or Acrapis vagans made an evolutionary leap and moved into the trachea.


Absolutely not true. The magisterial work "Parasitic Mites of the honey bees" by D. Sammataro, Uri Gerson and Glen Needham categorically rejects the "recent evolution" hypothesis.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ons_and_impact/links/02e7e5297fb1e5c115000000



Eickwort (66) speculated that Acarapis might have evolved from saprophagous or predatory mites and their appearance in hives may have been due to the nesting behavior of Apinae, which provided habitats
for these mites. The evolutionary history of Acarapis suggests that they may have
been pre-adapted for this way of life. All members of the tarsonemid subfamily
Acarapinae occur and feed on insects; the related Coreitarsonemini are parasitic
in the thoractic odoriferous glands of coreid bugs (122a).

Morse & Eickwort (139) hypothesized that the invasion of tracheae by A.
woodi was a recent evolutionary event, believed to have begun in England around
the year 1900. HBTM evolved from one of the closely related external Acarapis
species, probably A. dorsalis. Their argument was based on the (apparent) formerly
restricted distribution of HBTM and on the incipient resistance to this pest
in North America. Initially, the mite was believed to occur only in England,
Switzerland, and Russia, whereas A. dorsalis and A. externis are worldwide in
distribution. If the pest had been present in England in former times, why was it
not noted? And if it was more widely distributed, what prevented it from damaging
honey bees in other regions also? Finally, the observation that honey bee
populations in North America show a wide range of susceptibilities, as well as
resistance, to A. woodi could indicate quite recent exposure to the pest (139).

*Acceptance of this theory presents many difficulties, such as a rather truncated
evolutionary time scale and the differences between this species and A. dorsalis,
its postulated progenitor. Table 1 lists some of these differences (based on 59, 65,
169). Such an array of changes could hardly have evolved in the brief span of a
century. The discovery of HBTM in many regions of mainland Europe, where
migratory beekeeping and trade in bees were limited, soon after its initial description
(10) also argues against A. woodi’s recent evolution.distribution. 

*
If the pest had been present in England in former times, why was it
not noted? And if it was more widely distributed, what prevented it from damaging
honey bees in other regions also? Finally, the observation that honey bee
populations in North America show a wide range of susceptibilities, as well as
resistance, to A. woodi could indicate quite recent exposure to the pest (139).
Acceptance of this theory presents many difficulties, such as a rather truncated
evolutionary time scale and the differences between this species and A. dorsalis,
its postulated progenitor. Table 1 lists some of these differences (based on 59, 65,
169). Such an array of changes could hardly have evolved in the brief span of a
century. The discovery of HBTM in many regions of mainland Europe, where
migratory beekeeping and trade in bees were limited, soon after its initial description
(10) also argues against A. woodi’s recent evolution.


Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000. 45:519–548
Copyright q 2000 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved.
0066-4170/00/0107-0519/$14.00 519
PARASITIC MITES OF HONEY BEES: Life
History, Implications, and Impact
Diana Sammataro1, Uri Gerson2, and Glen Needham3


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

A paper on infection of Apis cerana by Acarapis woodi in Japan has been published recently.
Apis cerana is a naive host of the mite, and colony death rate is high (and in the absence of other Apis mellifera diseases which have also invaded Japan).

The ability of Acarapis to kill the "poster-child" of small cell, Apis cerana (Japanese races), is pretty strong evidence that small cell is no pancea to Acarapis, but resistance breeding is.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00248-011-9947-z#page-1


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> Scientists all seem to be in agreement that Acarapis woodi evolved somewhere between about 1891 and 1901 when either Acarapis dorsalis, Acarpis externus or Acrapis vagans made an evolutionary leap and moved into the trachea. The idea that perhaps large foundation contributed is not any more far fetched. They could have done this as late as 1921 when Ilse of Wight disease first appeared. *All right around the time they enlarged the foundation*.


Isn't this an example of what I've just been saying? That some people blame every problem we ever had on the size of comb foundation?

As I just said, "right around the time they enlarged the foundation", was also "right around the time" that all sorts of other things were happening such as the mass transport of bees and their local pests from every corner of the globe, widespread use of the moveable comb hive, industrialisation of beekeeping, pesticides, crop monoculture, etc.

To say that everything that ever went wrong must be because of comb foundation because of the timing of it, ignores 90% of the facts.

Sounds good though a great sounding idea and people are easily convinced. Does not make it true though.

Apart from the scientific papers, here's another point to ponder. If tracheal mites were caused by "large cell", one would expect to see more of this disease in large cell bees than in small cell bees.

But we don't. Why not?

Cos it's not caused by "enlarged bees". That's why.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Oldtimer said:


> To say that everything that ever went wrong must be because of comb foundation because of the timing of it, ignores 90% of the facts..


that goes for lots of what is happening in the industry right now also. Up here, heavy losses are blamed on a certain pesticide, yet the introduction of a new strain of disease and a mired of viral infections are being completely ignored.

it did not take small cell to seemingly eliminate t mites from the picture


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Absolutely not true. The magisterial work "Parasitic Mites of the honey bees" by D. Sammataro, Uri Gerson and Glen Needham categorically rejects the "recent evolution" hypothesis.

Actually it is true. You recite one publication that questions the theory.

Any research on the topic at all reveals many mentions of the likelihood of an evolutionary leap. I'm not saying it was or was not, merely that the theory did not originate with the "small cell" philosophy. Here's an easy to find reference:

ABC & XYZ of Bee Culture 41st Edition - 1st Printing (copyright 2006)
ISBN: 978-0-936028-22-4 page 542 1st full paragraph:

"Taxonomic position - A. woodi belongs to the sub-class Acari, which
contains mites and ticks, and belongs to the family tarsonemidae. 
Tracheal mites are the only internal parasites of honey-bees. These
internal mites and the two external species (see Other parasitic mites)
are difficult to distinguish morphologically. The species are usually
identified by the location of the mites. Tracheal mites appear to have
evolved from one of the external Acarapis species probably between 1890
and 1900."

>Isn't this an example of what I've just been saying? That some people blame every problem we ever had on the size of comb foundation?

I say that it is a reasonable hypothesis. You say we blame everything on cell size... there is a difference...


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> >Absolutely not true. The magisterial work "Parasitic Mites of the honey bees" by D. Sammataro, Uri Gerson and Glen Needham categorically rejects the "recent evolution" hypothesis.
> 
> Actually it is true. You recite one publication that questions the theory.


You stated "scientists all seem in agreement" -- not true. The "factoid" of the hypothesized recent evolution has very few sources. De Jong has a paper from the early '80s where he made the suggestion as a pure conjecture. 

The conjecture has been picked up and amplified by secondary sources. This echo chamber effect is a noted characteristic of "popular science" where biased commentators cherry pick pure speculation and recharacterize it as fact.

DNA/RNA studies of the Acarapis genus have established affinity with A. dorsalis, and have established a substantial evolutionary distance in maternal mDNA (a good proxy for time).


In the meantime, it would behoove you to obtain and read the cited paper.

Experimental & Applied Acarology
August 2006, Volume 39, Issue 3-4, pp 273-280
Date: 03 Aug 2006
Brood-cell size does not influence the susceptibility of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to infestation by tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi)

John B. McMullan,
Mark J. F. Brown


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>In the meantime, it would behoove you to obtain and read the cited paper.
>Experimental & Applied Acarology August 2006, Volume 39, Issue 3-4, pp 273-280 Date: 03 Aug 2006 Brood-cell size does not influence the susceptibility of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to infestation by tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi)

Actually I read it when it came out. I also read this one which came to a similar conclusion much earlier:
http://www.beesource.com/resources/...heal-mites-in-north-dakota-a-five-year-study/

But that is not the point. The point is whether or not something triggered the jump from living on the bees externally to living in the trachea and whether or not larger cells making larger bees is a reasonable theory for what that trigger might have been. I think we've already agreed that small cell is not necessary to resolve Tracheal mite issues. Even if it was helpful, it would be impossible to distinguish the effect of, small cell and not treating, from the effect of not treating in general.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> Actually it is true....
> 
> I'm not saying it was or was not


Isn't that an oxymoron?

Bottom line, the recent evolutionary leap is conjecture. It has become a popular theory because it suits perfectly the dogma held by some that every evil that has ever happened to bees is caused by comb foundation bigger than 4.9.

Yes it crops up in discussions but should not be presented as fact. I always rebel when I see theories presented as facts. Or facts bent, to suit theory.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>Actually it is true.... 
>>I'm not saying it was or was not
>Isn't that an oxymoron?

Out of context. Two different antecedents. One is the statement that the theory is generally accepted. The other is the theory itself. I have no idea if the theory is true nor do I even have an opinion on it other than both theories (evolutionary jump and enlarged spiracles being the trigger for an evolutionary jump) are not unreasonable. Of course both variants are only someone's guess to explain why the problem had not manifest itself before if what we thought we knew of bees was true. Why are bees suddenly dying from a mite that looks just like Acarapis externus, Acarapis dorsalis and Acarapis vagans when they had never been a problem before? Something changed. One possibility is that those other mites, which are indistinguishable from each other other than where they live, changed their behavior or their genetics or both.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> I have no idea if the theory is true nor do I even have an opinion on it other than both theories (evolutionary jump and enlarged spiracles being the trigger for an evolutionary jump) are not unreasonable.
> 
> Of course both variants are only someone's guess.


Fair summary but got to admit being surprised after reading you on the subject for several years to discover you do not have an opinion on it.

But pleased to find you don't, as there is no proof they suddenly evolved recently.

Just, it nicely fits some comb foundation dogma and has therefore been promoted by some of that persuasion.


----------



## DirtyLittleSecret (Sep 10, 2014)

"like"



Michael Bush said:


> >I would like to hear the first hundred of your references. I will see
> 
> Between bees.library.cornell.edu, and books on books.google.com, Gutenberg.org, archive.org you can find thousands of old beekeeping books and magazines. Virtually every beekeeping magazine from the 1800s until 1923 are readily available. In most of those books are references to cell size and in a significant number of the magazines are discussions of the good or bad idea of enlarging the bees. I have listed several of the pertinent writers on the subject at the time for you. I have no intention of doing thousands of hours of work just to satisfy you. I've already done thousands of hours of work and experimentation to satisfy myself. You have already come to your own conclusions. I don't see how I can help.
> 
> ...


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

Bravissimo, JW! No one says it better. :applause:

Not only does he read the scientific papers, he understands them and gives reasonable criticism.

MB - Thank you for the links!


----------

