# Unclear ( to me ) cause of death



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

One photo shows good looking cappings. The others are suspect. Looks like no food in those frames either.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Good photos, they help alot. Sorry about your hive!

I'm going to wait for more experienced people to comment, but I have a few questions. Any idea what the mite load was like? Did you do counts this past season? The reason I ask is that the brood in the top photo looks a lot like what I saw in some of my hives with PMS (parasitic mite syndrome) due to heavy mite loads- the torn and perforated cappings, dead pupae, etc. The bees head first in the cells is classic starvation. If they clustered in the top box with honey downstairs, that could explain it. I can't say for sure what killed them, though starvation was clearly part of the problem.

George-


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

I have no idea about # of mites. I was not to worried about it since I had gotten the package that spring (May), but I probably should have paid more attention (another thing to take note on for next year) The pictures area ll from the top DHB so if you do need other picts I can still get them. Thanks


----------



## fat drone (Dec 15, 2004)

Looks like foul brood.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Usually mites won't take down a hive the first year unless they were heavily infested to begin with. Stranger things have happened I suppose.

The bottom 3 photos show not particularly good looking brood. The capping are sunken and there are perforations and an odd appearance. I don't know what to think. I assume this brood was abandoned when the bees clustered. The brood in the second picture looks almost normal..

Speaking of strange, it is strange that you had drones in your hive in any numbers, and that much brood at this time of year. Do you know when the hive died? When was the last time you knew they were OK?

Again, I'm waiting for more experienced people to comment but I can't resist a good forensic mystery..

George-


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

Foul Brood.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

The hive died in the past 2 weeks because I fed the sugar to them beginning of Dec.


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

The hive died because it had Foul Brood.


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

Tim
In what picture are you seeing AFB?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The top picture looks like a classic picture of American Foulbrood. That's not definitive proof. But you've got sunken and pierced cappings and even a dead larva with it's tongue out.

If it's recently died, I'd try to find some gooy mess to do the rope test (stick a match or stick in and see if it "ropes" or "strings" for a couple of inches). If not, I'd look for scale and more dead larvae with their tongues out.

You can send some to Beltsville lab or buy a test kit from any of the main bee suppliers (Dadant, Mann Lake, Brushy Mt., Kelley's etc.

Or do a search on "holts milk test"


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Okay- The results are bad(for me) It appears I have FB  So now i have the questions: can I still extract the honey?, I burn the hive right , if burn it I will lose all of my comb/foundation right? Is their an alternative way to treat? Some bees fell out while I was working on it so do I have to pick them all up too? Thanks


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

"a dead larva with it's tongue out"
You must have better eyes than me as I can't tell with the cells being so dark. 

http://www.spc.int/rahs/Manual/images/american_foulbrood.htm 

I'd say that varroa mites took their toll, then starvation even with some cannibalization, results = dead hive. 

Was that new foundation or used comb?
We need a few close up pictures of the cells.
Any with black scale?

[ December 11, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: The Honey House ]


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

Sorry Dave, but if you look at those pictures and think that's cannibalism or mite damage I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. You might want to consider the fact that you are confusing someone who came here for help, though.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

It is not foulbrood. There is nothing from the photos that would indicate this. Fouldbrood normally does not kill off a hive in weeks or even months. I see lots of fully formed bees and pupae. FB does not allow lavae to reach this maturity in most cases bad enough to kill a hive. Although there is something called "pupal tongue" I see no indication of this. I see no classic "greasy" look, or clear indented cells. AFB on a scale needed to kill a hive would be at a level that it would almost certainly be seen in photos such as yours.

The only area I question and maybe its a camera angle thing, is the bottom two row of cells in picture #1. If thats pupal tongues sticking up, it would be a telltale sign. I question what I am seeing as it would be rather odd to have perfect rows of cells like this and not see more clear indications of AFB on the rest of the comb.

I do see indications of mite load with PMS. The bees are in the classic starvation position. It appears that some of the cells are opened as if they were trying to clean them out. The bees are almost fully formed and would indicate something other than AFB. In a dying hive, EFB, Sacbrood and PMS, all rolled into one makes things look like anything.

I would do a holts milk test as a first step. It is about 95% for a field test. If it comes up positive, you can send off samples to have it confirmed. Its December, no need to hurry on anything.

Even though a hive has honey does not mean they will not starve. The cluster being too small and further problems with desease will keep a hive from functioning normally.

I vote no AFB. (At least to the point that burning should be held off till further tests are done.)


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

> Sorry Dave, but if you look at those pictures and think that's cannibalism or mite damage I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.


Probably because on second thought you know I may be right!








There is nothing in any of his pictures that definatively points to AFB. 

And in order to help him, please note that I asked a couple of question, instead of telling him "Foul Brood" and "The hive died because it had Foul Brood. "

Lots of help there!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Hey George, you said you would hold off till others commented. You waited a grand total of two posts, (one being the original poster), and 33 minutes. Is that how long you needed in the bathroom?


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

The Honey House- I Uploaded the picture with the bee tongue so it is a little clearer/bigger. It is on the middle on the right side. It's at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/index.html
Was that new foundation or used comb? 
Used comb that I had bought from another local beekeeper in my area. It is old and black- my thoughts were to replace with new frames a few at a time.
I'll try to get more picts tomarrow afternoon- it's dark out now.
Thanks


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Thats not "pupal tongue" associated with AFB. Thats just a dead bee making fun at you.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Hey George, you said you would hold off till others commented. You waited a grand total of two posts

I asked questions and made observations, I didn't render any opinions other than to suggest starvation ocurred which I think is a no-brainer.

I await further developments (and opinions) with bated breath.

George-


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Another guess would be trachael mites. The colony didnt have enough bees to keep the brood warm and when it turned cold they couldn't cluster. TM will do that. You have enough cells to do a rope test and settle it. No rope, no AFB. The AFB scale is impossible to remove without destroying comb. Like others I'm just speculating. It doesn't cost anything but the postage to send a frame off tpo the bee lab.

Dickm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>At least to the point that burning should be held off till further tests are done. 

Always. Until you know definitively I would not jump to that conclusions. I would just test to find out.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

It seems to me that unless one can see scale, pupal tongue or vegetative ropey AFB it is next to impossible to tell beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a case of AFB. I, as an Apiary Inspector, would want to see these frames in person before sticking my neck out and saying what this is. Secure the equipment and send a sample of comb to the Beltsville Bee Lab.

USDA/ARS/BEE research Laboratory
Building 476, BARC-East
10300 Baltimore Avenue
Beltsville, MD 20705-2350
Attn: Barton Smith

The comb should be wrapped in paper, not plastic or aluminum foil as they will sweat.

You might want to contact your State Apiary Inspection Program and see if an Inspector is available to look into your problem. Then again, if they are in any way similar to New York they probably aren't employeed at this time of year. Best of luck.
Mark


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

From your original post,
Picture #1 I saw
-torn open cappings
-uncapped pupae
-bees with heads in cells
Picture #2 I saw
-bees all the way in the cells

Question: Were they alive?

Picture #3 I saw
-Not classic AFB pupal tongue
-cappings looked more crystalline then oily looking
Picture #4 I saw 
-patchy brood pattern
(poorly mated queen?)
Picture #5
-nothing new


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I don't know what Minnesota allows, but I would NOT feed honey from this hive to bees. This whole idea of feeding honey to bees is so contrary to anything that I was taught or have heard from successful beekeepers. I know that I am new here and that some of you know of me from OrganicBeekeepers and maybe Bee-L, but this BS (that's bee stuff)(can we say frass on this site?) is nuts. You want to feed potentially hazarous honey to your bees, go ahead, but when they come down with AFB call Dee at ORGBKPRS and buy some nucs.

Let's see if this doesn't get something going.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

bschmidtbauer, the pictures show an advanced case of AFB. The white stuff in the bottom row (last pic you posted) is scale and you can also see the classic coffee color of some of the brood. All the other problems (dysentery, starving, no-clustering) are direct consequences of the AFB. I think you should get the Mn inspector to verify this and find out what the Mn requirements are for dealing with AFB. At a minimum I would burn the combs including the honey and all bees plus scrape and scorch the insides of all woodenware.

Btw, the AFB likely came with the comb given to you. Good luck and don't give up!


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

bschmidtbauer,

Just one more question, when you opened the hive did it have an unpleasant odor?


----------



## MikeGillmore (Nov 15, 2005)

When was the last time you got down into the boxes for an inspection.... not feeding, but pulling frames and checking them out ?
At that point, what did the colony population look like ? Were there plenty of bees in all 3 boxes, brood, stores ?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I, as an Apiary Inspector, would want to see these frames in person before sticking my neck out

I certainly respect that Mark, but I, as a relatively new and generally opinionated beekeeper, have no reputation to be worried about so I'm going to take a shot at it









I'd have thought this situation would be more cut and dried than it's turning out to be. I should have known better







Now that there's a general (lack of) concensus on what happened here, I'll post my opinions. While I certainly lack the experience of many others here who have voiced their opinions, in my relatively short beekeeping career I have seen the insides of a fair number of hives- more than the average hobbyist with 2-3 hives in their first year. I'm also a good observer and I love a good forensic analysis.

In particular, I've encountered severe mite infestation in some of my hives and those of some friends, and I've lost some hives to mites. I see many of those symptoms here.

I've never seen AFB (that I know of). I have been shown EFB. As Bjornbee said, "In a dying hive, EFB, Sacbrood and PMS, all rolled into one makes things look like anything." I would have to agree. One piece of evidence that I think is significant is how rapidly this hive declined, which is classic PMS as is the uncapped nearly mature pupae and dead brood in various stages of development. This is not symptomatic of AFB from what I've read. By all accounts I've heard, PMS with associated deformed wing virus, kashmir bee virus, acute paralysis virus, and EFB-like brood symptoms are often mistaken for AFB, but without the smell. I can't tell from the pictures if there are bees with deformed wings or not as most of them are head-first in cells. There are a couple that might have shriveled wings but it's hard to tell. In any case, in my hives with PMS, the majority of the bees looked perfectly normal. Only a small percentage showed signs of shriveled wings.

The reason I asked about feeding is because of what appears to be small white sugar crystals on some of the combs. I have seen this in my hives too. It doesn't point to a cause of death, it's just more evidence.

That the bees finally succumbed to starvation is obvious and I can speculate the population dwindled rapidly and that as the temperature dropped and the cluster contracted, the remaining bees were forced to abandon brood (the bottom pictures). Eventually they ran out of readily accessible food. It looks like there may have been sugar syrup available, for a while. Like MikeGillmore, I too would like to know more about the condition and size of this colony at the last inspection and I'd like to actually see those frames and peer into those cells but that isn't going to happen.

So. They ultimately starved but that's not what killed them. I believe that complications due to heave mite infestation killed this hive. This was my initial opinion. I also agree with the general concensus: Get it tested. Find out for sure.

bschmidtbauer, keep us posted. Thanks.

George-


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

George, as an apiary inspector and commercial bee operator, I have no problems sticking my neck out. Guess I have to work on that opinionated beekeeper part, worried about reputations and all....


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I haven't had the experience that others have, so what I say shouldn't weigh as heavily in forming your opinions. Starvation seems obvious, whether or not the bees in the cells are dead. The fact that so many of them are headfirst into the cells screams, "Starvation!" Foul Brood might also be a problem because of some of the symptoms. Like others, I would recommend a test by either the state or the national bee lab before you destroy your hive.

I was wondering, too, if your weather has been a lot warmer there than here in SD, or if you previously knew the hive had problems. You said you opened your hive on December 11. I always avoid opening hives in cold weather, especially around 32F or below, unless I know the hive is dead. If I get that one wrong and a few bees are still surviving in a hive, it's a sure bet they will be dead soon after opening the hive in such cold weather. You said you wrapped your hives, but if you open them regularly in cold weather, the advantages of wrapping are completely lost when you take the top off the hive. Also, you said you are wintering three hive bodies deep, but the hive started from a package this last spring. Had the bees completely filled all three deeps? The packages I've started in the past rarely fill much more than two deeps in their first year, and, for me at least, the advantages of wintering with three deeps compared to two deeps seem to be lost if all three deeps are not completely full. Others might have different opinions on these topics.

[ December 12, 2005, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Jon Kieckhefer ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Greetings . . .
Its my guess







that the hive starved to death. It starved because there were too few bees to "thermoregulate" when it got cold. There were to few bees because of a heavy mite load that occured in late summer/early fall. If mite build-up had been detected early enough, treatment could have been applied. The ONLY way to know for sure, if mites were the cause, would have been to MONITOR (count mites). All we can do now is count dead bees and speculate.

It would be interesting to know if any (how many) mites are on hives' bottom board NOW.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Those of you who are claiming the hive was killed by mites point out that the photos show little or no definitive evidence of foul brood. I can see the point (I believe that's why so many are suggesting that the hive should be tested before it's destroyed). I wonder, though, what evidence you see the photos to suggest that mites are to blame? None of the bees in the pictures, and I realize there aren't many shown completely, seem to have mites attached to them. If the hive was started from a package, was it started in new equipment or in a previously-used hive? If it was in a new hive, where would the old comb that others have suggested as a source for the AFB spores come from? And, like others have pointed out, would mites really have built up to such devastating levels in only a few months?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Those of you who are claiming the hive was killed by mites point out that the photos show little or no definitive evidence of foul brood.

I'm not one of them and sunken dark cappings would make me want to investigate further. I certainly would not try to make a definitive diagnosis by just a picture.

>I wonder, though, what evidence you see the photos to suggest that mites are to blame?

Maybe I'm not the one to answer this, but I would definitely investigate the possibility that it's mites also. Especially Varroa. Look for bees with deformed wings and look for tens of thousands of dead varroa on the bottom board.

I think the main reason to suspect Varroa is it's probably the most likely thing to kill a hive, in general other than the typical problems of starvation etc.

>If the hive was started from a package, was it started in new equipment or in a previously-used hive?

Previously used equipment might be an issue with AFB. It is not an issue with mites. When the bees die the mites die.

>If it was in a new hive, where would the old comb that others have suggested as a source for the AFB spores come from?

The bees will rob out dying hives in other places and steal propolis from empty (but used) boxes. There are always sources for AFB spores.

>And, like others have pointed out, would mites really have built up to such devastating levels in only a few months?

Certainly. They sometimes do. And again they may be hauling them back from other hives that are crashing and being robbed out, not to mention drifting drones etc.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm not denying that a disease or mites may be responsible for killing this colony. In fact, I think a disease may be at least partly to blame.

I do wonder, though, how many bees were in the hive going into the winter? Was the cluster large enough to survive? How much honey/pollen was stored in the hive? And, like others have asked, when was the last time previous to this visit that the hive was checked?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> I think a disease may be at least partly to blame.


Me, too. I just now looked at the photos, and it looks to me as though there is both foulbrood AND pms. They aren't necessarily mutally exclusive are they?



> would mites really have built up to such devastating levels in only a few months?


Sometimes. I lost my tbh this past season, started from a spring pacakge, due to varroa mites.

[ December 12, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Thank You for all of the responses:
The Honey House: When I opened the hive I didn't directly notice any odd smell.
Mike:last Time I opened the box for a full time inspection would be about 2.5-3 months ago for a inspection of a warm day.To me it appeared all normal and fully functonal (but I as a beginner often overlook somethings). All year this hive has been less productive than my other 2 hoves. 
George; Yes, i fed them sugar because they were at the inner cover so I was worried about starvation, and there is sugar on some of the comb(s) and in some cell(s).
Jon Kieckhefer; Ay, I must agree I did open the hive on that day (Dec. 11) because I usually hear something- and it was very quite. Also I was worried about them and curious to see if they were taking any sugar. I lifted it one crack to see, and there were tons of bees dead lying around the circumference of the inner cover that weren't there before. About the 3 deeps- I started them in the spring and they built up 1 DHB of new comb (actually - 1 frame that had comb on that I placed with them when I installed the package) and they I put 2 DHB of built comb that I had boughten from another local beekeeper. and they had thoses pretty much full by the fall. so if they didn't build the comb in last 2 boxes during the flow shouldn't that be normal? So it would be possible to have SFB spores on the comb that I had boughten from another beekeeper (urgh... the one time i'm trusting!)
Thank you all I will be sending the bees ito the lab for testing to make sure. I'll keep you posted - Anynody want to make bets on what killed them?


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

bschmidtbauer, we should have mentioned this earlier and hopefully you already knew this, but don't use your hive tool to work other hives without first cleaning it very thouroughly.

I'll bet a cup-a-joe it's AFB.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Good point db_land made there. Just to be on the safe side, sterilize your hive tool in your smoker and be sure to take extra precautions so you don't spread anything to any other hive. (Hopefully you don't have anything to worry about, but some of the photos look suspicious.)

Best of luck!


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

1) Sudden crash
2) Bald cappings
3) Wax and sugar litter.
4) Small number of bees that are dead around what appears to be good brood.
5) Signs of starvation with top box full of honey.
6) Bees "mingling around the hive all over"
7) "fecal stains on the comb/top bars" 
8) "a lot of brood around"
9) no odor when opened

I'm sticking with PMS.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

In picture two, is that chalk brood I see? If I had to guess without seeing the colony in person I'd say that first of all you had a poor queen, perhaps a mite overload,PMS, and then the crystaline look to the surface of the comb may have been from a leaky feeder that drenched the comb with sugar syrup. Finally, neighbor bees robbed what was available to them. The remaining original bees couldn't keep the colony going, therefore the bees with their heads in the cells are cannibalising the remaining brood.

That should about cover everything except that which I have misinterpreted, misunderstood or just can't tell from this distance>

Do I get a prize? Do you know what killed this hive?


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Once again thanks for the replies, a few more pictures:
http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/id8.html
If they had varroa wouldn't you see them? also just out of curiousity why are some cells on the honey frame really yellow and others just normal?
Sorry... for the bets part if you win you just get satasfaction of being more intelligent than a rookie beekeeper! I'll keep you posted- now off to get menthyl alcohol to send bees to the lab.


----------



## MikeGillmore (Nov 15, 2005)

I'm VERY suspicious of used equipment. But if it were AFB there should have been the notorious foul odor associated with it. I will guess it was a "mite" related fall. The population probably crashed quickly and with 3 deeps the remaining bees were spread out too thin to cover the brood and reach the available stores when the cold set in. Just my opinion.

bschmidtbauer,
Sanitize ALL of your equipment while you are waiting for the results.... just in case.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Those of you who are claiming the hive was killed by mites point out that the photos show little or no definitive evidence of foul brood.


PMS is parasitic mite syndrome i.e., it's not a disease in an of itself, it's a syndrome which means it's characterized by a variety of symptoms of different diseases and virii resulting from heavy mite infestation. Other problems include a generally demoralized and diminished population, dead and/or weakened brood, canibalism (the uncapping and eating or removal of dead parasitized brood), tired and weakened bees, shortened lifespans, etc. No given set of symptoms clearly defines PMS but taken together they can add up to it. Usually those symptoms clear up if you get rid of the mites. Mites are vectors for some problems and in other cases, they just weaken the bees so they become susceptable to problems they'd normally be able to fight off. It's speculated that bees get DVW, which is supposedly endemic, from bacterial infections associated with the mite's feeding site on developing brood.

PMS is the Beef Stew of bee problems- a little bit of everything.

I wouldn't say the photos show no evidence of foul brood. I would say they show a variety of problems which I've come to associate with PMS. Some of those symptoms can look a lot like american foul brood, european foul brood, sacbrood, and parafoul brood, etc.

Of course, I've never seen AFB, but I have seen PMS and other brood diseases. This could just be a classic demonstration of the principle "If all you have is a hammer, all your problems will be nails."









And Yes. An examination of the bottom board should show mites. Thousands of mites or, as Michael suggests, 10's of thousands of mites.

George-


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Just out of curiosity, I have Fleetcraft Air Brake Anti-Freeze and Rust Inhibitor that contains methanol can I use that to send the bees in?


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

For a dollar you can get the right stuff at the local pharmacy. Do the lab a favor and go down and get some.


----------



## Morris (Oct 12, 2004)

bschmidtbauer, Did you do a test for roppyness? Easy and distinctive for AFB.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If they had varroa wouldn't you see them?

If you've never seen one then you're sure to have and and your surely not seeing them. You have to know what you're looking for and you have to get good at finding them. If you don't do powdered sugar rolls or drop tests or open capped drone pupae, then you probably have no idea what you have. You could have tens of thousands of mites and never know it.

>also just out of curiousity why are some cells on the honey frame really yellow and others just normal?

The color of pollen they are bringing in gets tracked onto the wax sometimes turning it yellow. It's nothing to worry about.

Off hand, from the picture, I'm not seeing dead mites. But then the mites are small. Is this where the bees fell?


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Michael- These bees were on the inner cover.
Morris- yes I did test with the "ropiness test" although the test came back negative. I'm still going to send them in though because I'm not quite expirerenced in that area of beekeeping.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

How about a virus or just plain starved?
Where did you get the sugar from?
You might want to get that teste3d too.
I'm gonna vote for a virus, now that I've seen the pictures of the dead bees.
Mark


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I'd like to see the debris on the bottom board.







That's where the mites will be. There will be mites. The question is: "how many"?


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

I was wondering if you can do a powdered sugar roll test with dead bees???

Depending on how cold it is there and how many bees you were going into the winter with, my thought is that maybe it was getting cold out and they could not cluster around the open brood and torn them apart. Maybe not enough food and they starved. I read somewhere that if they do not have enough pollen or nectar, they will rewsort to canabalism. 

Did the hive smell when you opened it?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

After taking another look, it sure appears to me as though there are some bees in both the first and second photo having the classic deformed wings associated with a heavy mite infestation. Id bet if some of those head first dead bees were pulled out of the cells, deformed wings would be seen on many of those.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>it sure appears to me as though there are some bees in both the first and second photo having the classic deformed wings

I thought I saw that too.

>I'd like to see the debris on the bottom board.

Me too. bschmidtbauer, perhaps you could humor us and get a picture of what's on the bottom board. Spread it out. Do you know what mites look like?

I'd also like to thank you for your willingness to share this situation with us. I for one appreciate the opportunity. It is a learning experience for everyone.

FYI, a member of our local beekeeper's association had a couple of hives crashing this fall. They contacted Tony Jadczak, the Maine State Apiarist for his opinion. Here's a link to their write-up and a few pictures, and Tony's comments on PMS:

http://www.klcbee.com/klcb/varroa.shtml 

George-

[ December 12, 2005, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: George Fergusson ]


----------



## notaclue (Jun 30, 2005)

Send in a daggone sample and get it over with. That's the only way to know for sure!!!

IMHO that is...


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Get it over with??? At least wait till the first signs of spring. And keep the pictures coming. What else are we going to to through winter. I'll probably switch to "AFB" just to keep the conversation going.

The above comment in no way should be "read" as a reason for any comment or consideration for "tailgater". Did you notice how civil the commets are? No one called out someone else's "mamma". No one blamed this on 9/11 or President Bush. Global warming and Wal-mart have not even been mentioned as reasons for the bees death. Unless that sugar someone suggested to have looked at, was bought at wal-mart...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I was wondering if you can do a powdered sugar roll test with dead bees???

The mites are already off the bees and dead. The powdered sugar won't get them off. When the bees die, the mites detach and fall off and die.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Like others, I commend you, bschmidtbauer, for sending the photos. What else would we do over the winters? I've met other beekeepers who never want to admit to having problems, but most of them didn't keep bees very long.

I don't want to minimize the importance of Varroa. They certainly could have been part of the problem. If you had a problem of the magnitude others are suggesting (up to "tens of thousands"), you should have seen mites attached to the bees, usually on the bees' thoraci (plural of "thorax). I've seen hives -- some of them were mine, too -- with huge mite loads, and in every case, mites on the bees were obvious without doing roll or drop tests. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't do the other tests -- the tests will help you identify problems long before the mites become so obvious on the bees -- but in all the hives that I've seen with enough mites to make me worry about their survival just because of Varroa, the mites are clearly evident on the workers. 

I suspect most of my attitude on mites comes from my background in research; if I don't have evidence of a problem, I hesitate to blame that source. I want evidence, not just a good probability.

Which brings me to the next example cited by some of you: the "classic deformed wings." I confess, I could easily be missing them. Still, I don't see any bees with deformed wings in the photos. I see some with wings at odd angles, but that happens when bees (or other insects) die. In fact, to me these bees all appear to have very nicely intact wings. I think, for the benefit of those out there who are still learning, someone should highlight or circle some examples of deformed wings in one or both of the photos cited and post it on this thread.

In this case, I would be more suspicious of tracheal mites than Varroa.

By the way, because insects dry out and become brittle after they die, I feel pretty confident that any bees pulled back out of the cells would also show "deformed" wings (probably tattered, or even amputated). The cause, though, would probably be from pulling them out, rather than from Varroa mites.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>You could have tens of thousands of mites . . .

IMO, If mites are the cause, the mites caused the problem months ago. At the time they "caused" the problem, there may have been lots (maybe thousands) of mites in the hive at THAT time. Once the damage occured, the bees began to dwindle, so did the mites, brood rearing dimished, so did the mites. After most of the bees were gone and little or no brood present, the mites may NOW be FEW.

"Tens of thousands of mites" are what I would expect to see just afer a "crash". This hive did NOT crash. It dwindled to a point where it could no longer care for its self (thus brood in bad condition) and finally STARVED.

I would be careful NOT to say "virus" or "PMS" caused the death of this hive. At this point, these "conditions" are unknown. I'll bet Varroa mites caused the hive to die.

If we just had some "numbers" to look at


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

>I would be careful NOT to say "virus" or "PMS" caused the death of this hive. At this point, these "conditions" are unknown. I'll bet Varroa mites caused the hive to die.

DaveW,
Are you saying that mites can kill a colony from sheer number without the effects of virus and desease playing a part?


----------



## Gregg (Dec 22, 2003)

Having just caught up with this thread, and being a former bee inspector for 6 years in ND, I have to chime in.

In the original group of pictures, the top photo of brood IMO does not at all resemble brood with AFB (I have positively identified hundreds of cases of AFB in my former life as an inspector, although I admit that was awhile ago, 1988 - 1993). This photo looks to me like bees cannibalizing the brood in an attempt to avoid starvation. The bottom 3 photos of brood are much more suspicious looking, however I would hesistate to say it is definitely AFB (without seeing them in person). As previously mentioned several times, a sample will tell us for sure. 

I also hesitate to point to AFB because in my experience AFB will not kill a colony in a matter of a few weeks. And in a case where AFB is severe enough to kill a colony it will be very obvious the colony had AFB.

On the other hand, viruses associated with Varroa can kill a colony very quickly (or weaken it so much they can not maintain themselves, or starve). I had 350 healthy looking hives (which had been treated for Varroa) on October 31, 2004. 3 weeks later in California 60+% of them were dead.

[ December 13, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Gregg ]


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I had 350 healthy looking hives (which had been treated for Varroa) on October 31, 2004. 3 weeks later in California 60+% of them were dead.


holly crap!!
How do they look now?


----------



## Gregg (Dec 22, 2003)

After a lot of work (& money spent), I sent 444 to CA in October in good shape. Fed the heck out of them in November. Going back in January, keeping my fingers crossed...


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I concur with Gregg from my former life as a commercial beekeeper (oh, I still am one) and having helped identify and clean up a huge foulbrood outbreak here in the Finger lakes in the early part of the century. (We burned about 100 hives in Chemung County in 02-03, wiped out our local bee club unfortunately)

The 1st. photo looks like classic starvation with bee heads in cells, no honey in the surrounding area accept the traces of crystalized honey, and brood that obviously was not developed being pulled from the cells to be cannibilized by the starving cluster. The 3rd. photo looks like an AFB concern frame if you pulled from a hive in the active season. Spotty brood, perforated cappings etc. This also though is seen in many starvation cases where brood is still present. 

I would check the brood for ropiness and do a milk spore test even though starvation seems obvious. If it's negative for AFB a strong hive will clean those frames up likety split and you'll be fine. If it does come up positve burn the frames and combs only and move on to better days.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

BjornBee . . .

>>I would be careful NOT to say "virus" or "PMS" caused the death of this hive. At this point, these "conditions" are unknown. I'll bet Varroa mites caused the hive to die.

>DaveW, Are you saying that mites can kill a colony from sheer number without the effects of virus and desease playing a part? 

Well . . . yes, no, kinda.
For the newbees, lets get the idea "mites killed the hive" first. Then, when we all agree







, we can decide "how they killed" the hive.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Fellow beekeepers: Thank you for all of the responses. i have taken pictures of the bottom board and will try to get them posted tonight if not tomarrow sorry to keep you waiting. Why does this have to come up in the busiest week of the year?







Oh well, once again thank you due to lack of time i have not read the more recent responses, but i assure you I'm grateful for them and i will read them. The bees will be in the mail tomarrow! ( Yes their all packaged and at the door) Thanks again


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

What exactly are you sending?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> DaveW, Are you saying that mites can kill a colony from sheer number without the effects of virus and desease playing a part?


I agree with Davew's clear, succinct, and unequivocable answer "Well... yes, no, kinda." to which I'll add a definite "but not likely."

But it can happen.

If a mite population peaks later in the fall than usual, perhaps with an influx of mites from robbing (which can be substantial), the colony can head into winter with weakened, shorter-lived bees, and a lot of mites. This situation might well be enough to cause the hive to simply dwindle and die off over the course of the winter without ever developing any of the typical "complications" associated with PMS.

Call it a "failure to thrive" situation during winter due to mite parasitization resulting in colony death. I suspect this may happen more often than we think. Such a colony would probably appear to have died of starvation.

George-


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

George
Your "failure to thrive" situation reminds me of the years that Apistan failed in my yards.
Small tiny broodless clusters of bees (Italian, not noted for small winter clusters) just an inch away from a super of honey. Sometimes I would find a box with two small but distinct clusters with apparently health but starved bees.

[ December 13, 2005, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: The Honey House ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I would send some of the comb with the sunken and pierced cappines AND some of the bees with shriveled wings if you're sending anything to Beltsville.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

BjornBee: I'm sending a 3x5" piece of comb (the one with the bee tongue out (picture 1 on http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/id9.html )
also a 1/2 pint jar of bees from inner cover, bottom board, and just "around" in 70% ethyl.
Michael Bush; do you think that will be enough for them to see?
Okay the BB picts are at: 
http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/id10.html
they are not full quality but getting up there, if you do need better quality just respond ( this goes for any of the pictures) but do to a dial-up I don't have 20 min. per picture to spare!
Thanks


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

bschmidtbauer, "we" should have told you to lose the bees and just photograph the duff from the bottom board, spread out some, on a white background, good lighting, yada yada. Your pictures are just fine.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Your "failure to thrive" situation reminds me of the years that Apistan failed in my yards.


Well, it would be one of those situations where you look in the hive and wonder "what happened to all the bees that were in there last fall?"

I've spoken to a number of people about their winter losses and many of them have cited starvation as the cause. Their bees went into winter with good clusters and stores and "some mites", and came out dead. Careful examination would probably but not necessarily reveal symptoms of PMS.

George-

[ December 13, 2005, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: George Fergusson ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>do you think that will be enough for them to see?

Probably. I assume some of the pierced cappings and such are in the section of comb.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Took this last night-tell me if you need other pictures. Thanks
http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/id10.html


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Opps...
http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/id8.html
Thanks


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

OK, I'm seeing a few things I might call mites -- the objects in the photos aren't really clear enough for me to say with much certainty that they are mites. Overall, though, I don't see nearly as much evidence of mites as I would expect if mites alone were responsible for killing the hive. The hives that I've seen that died out largely due to Varroa had bottom boards covered with mites. Any one else want to weigh in on this?

Others in this discussion have mentioned that beekeepers, beginners in particular, should just be told that mites kill hives. I know it's a technicality, but I think that even people without much experience deserve an explanation. They should be on the look-out for Varroa, but if the damage is actually occuring through a virus (research seems to be sketchy on this point right now), then the mites are simply the vectors of the pathogen. Think of mosquitoes and yellow fever; sure the mosquitoes spread yellow fever, and yellow fever certainly kills many humans, but the mosquitoes aren't directly killing the people.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If it was caused by Varroa I would expect to see tens of thousands of dead mites on the bottom. I don't. This is a very clean bottom board for a dead hive. Did you dump off all the bees between when the hive died and the picture was taken?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Overall, though, I don't see nearly as much evidence of mites as I would expect if mites alone were responsible for killing the hive. The hives that I've seen that died out largely due to Varroa had bottom boards covered with mites. Any one else want to weigh in on this?


Always happy to throw my weight around, not that I have a lot to spare







I see lots of evidence of mites having killed the hive, but that's just my opinion. I haven't seen any mites yet, but I haven't seen any pictures of the bottom board either. Mite infestations don't kill hives, complications arising from mite infestations kills hives. Those complications are *usually* PMS which includes a veritable smorgasborg of symptoms, some or all of which are usually present. There are numerous ways that mites can bring about colony collapse. As long as everyone understands that, saying "mite's got `em" is OK.

That there are mites to be found on the bottom I don't doubt. The question is how many mites, and is it enough to have brought about the demise of this hive? It's unlikely that that question can be finally answered, if only because we won't all agree







I would however expect to see A LOT of mites. If A LOT aren't found, then another reason needs to be found and I'll be the first to admit my opinion is wrong.



> Others in this discussion have mentioned that beekeepers, beginners in particular, should just be told that mites kill hives.


I haven't said that. It's an over-simplification of a complex relationship. I think Davew said that and I disagree with him, FWIW. It no doubt arises from a desire to not confuse beginning beekeepers with the details. I am a beginning beekeeper and I'm already confused! Withholding information isn't going to help that condition









George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Did you look at the most recent photos, George? I see things (out of focus) on some of the bees that could be mites, and I see a few blobs (again, out of focus) on the cleared bottom board that could be Varroa, but I would expect to see a carpet of Varroa on the bottom board or between the bees lying on the bottom board if the mite infestation were high enough to kill off the hive.

If the mites spread a virus, that's another story.

I still suspect something else is responsible for killing off the hive. It could be something as simple as starvation or a weak hive. Hopefully the lab results will give us a better indication.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>Withholding information isn't going to help . . .
I agree.

The VERY FIRST information that MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, is how to monitor for Varroa mites. Without this basic understanding (and DOING), everything else is just "information".

Jon Kieckhefer . . .
Have you started monitoring your other hives?









[ December 14, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

This IS a good exercise and it's tantalizing. The later pictures seem to show healthy bees. Just for the book you're writing, there's more possibilities. Could these bees have been robbed out. I know that you said there was honey on the hive but if robbing was going on in the last warm days, and it would, It could have been shut down by the onset of cold weather in your clime.
The other thing that occurrs is the idea of pesticides. Sometimes it's carried by the pollen and doesn't show up till the pollen is used in the fall/winter. Any large cropland nearby? Just in case of AFB I assume this hive is in a garbage bag in case of some warm weather. I suppose that's, like, July in Minnesota. 

Better luck next year,

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Monitoring *other* hives? What *other* hives?

I don't want to admit it, DaveW, but my need to count mites goes beyond what almost anyone else on BeeSource does. At least once every three weeks, I do an ether or powdered-sugar roll on each hive, I check sticky boards for Varroa mites, and a check drone brood. (I realize, too, that I can't compare the count from an ether roll to the count from a powdered-sugar roll, or compare counts from any other types of tests.)

I also do my own dissections of tracheae for tracheal mites. I have the high-powered microscopes necessary for these examinations, and I've dissected many types of insects. Dissecting honey bees is simple compared to dissecting beetles the size of Varroa mites. I check 10 workers from each of my hives twice a year for tracheal mites.

I don't treat unless I have a problem. Yes, I know what both types of mites look like. I've destroyed a package of bees I received after I discovered high loads of tracheal mites. I've lost hives to Varroa-related problems.

Right now, I have no tracheal mites. I have a couple hives with low numbers of Varroa (3 to 5 mites per week on a sticky board), and the rest of mine have no Varroa. I keep them in isolated areas to avoid contracting mites. And, so far, I've had no other diseases. State bee inspectors here check periodically for problems, too, and I've never had a disease-related problems come up.

FWIW, my problems with Varroa all occured in Kansas; no problems so far in SD.

[ December 14, 2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Jon Kieckhefer ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> Did you look at the most recent photos, George?


I did. I too saw what might have been mites, a few maybe, but I couldn't be sure. The out of focus bottom board looked way too clean to be one of my bottom boards, or the bottom board of a recently dead hive. The other picture of spread-out bees looked like the luan on the inner cover. We're looking for LOTS of mites.

I hope I'm right only for bschmidtbauer's sake because a mite-killed hive would be easier for him to deal as opposed to having to contend with AFB. For me, this is just yet-another learning experience and I'll learn from it whether I'm right or wrong. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again.



> If the mites spread a virus, that's another story.


I don't believe mites actively carry DWV or Kashmir bee virus, or any of the other virii associated with PMS. Current thinking from what I've read is that mites can directly vector some diseases as well as foster infections through feeding on bees which can result in the bees becoming more susceptable to viral infection. The virii associated with most bee diseases are pretty much endemic. Weakened bees are more likely to get sick from them.

George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I don't believe mites actively carry DWV or Kashmir bee virus...

That's my understanding, too, but I'm not up on all of the most recent developments in Varroa research.

>>I hope I'm right only for bschmidtbauer's sake because a mite-killed hive would be easier for him to deal as opposed to having to contend with AFB. 

Personally, I don't subscribe to the theory that it's just between the two diseases that have gotten the msot attention on this thread. I can see some of the signs that others have pointed to as possible indications of AFB. I understand why others have suggested Varroa. Initially, I stated that the evidence I see in the photos points to starvation, *possibly* caused by other problems. I still hold to that opinion. Why couldn't the hive have simply starved? Maybe some mite load, Varroa or tracheal, or some disease weakened the hive, but couldn't the real problem still lie in a lack of stores for overwintering? Wouldn't starvation be an easier problem for bschmitbauer to deal with than either AFB or Varroa?

I agree, this is a real learning experience. My main concern with some of the opinions about dead bees is the implication of diseases or parasites without strong evidence. 

So far, I think almost every possible disease or parasite of bees has been named on this thread as a potential cause for this hive dying. Someone has to be right; all of the options are taken (hehehe).


----------



## Morris (Oct 12, 2004)

How long does it take to get results from the lab? How much do they charge for this service?


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

The photo I took was stuff spread out on a white sheet of paper so you could potentioally see them. My bottom board is like black sith stuff so I thought it would be easier to see. Thanks


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>My bottom board is like black sith stuff . . .

Varroa mites can appear "black", especially if there was THOUSANDS in a pile.

Most of the debris I see kinda looks like tan colored "coffee grounds" (cappings of wax from feeding). Dark brown or black "coffee grounds" may be something else. Varroa mites are very small.

The mites in question will not be attached to dead bees, but will be mixed into, on top of, and under normal hive debris.

New photo?


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

That could be a problem (getting pictures of the Bottom Board in its natural state). I dumped the bottom board stuff into t container because I thought that the mites would be small (duh) and that I couldn't pick them up and they would slide under a piece of paper. Right now their in the freezer. Also the wood on the bottom board is very dark not just the debris on it. Here is a new pict. This one will take a while to load.








http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/id9.html
Thanks


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Is the new photo a picture of the stuff that you dumped into a container and froze? In the picture, a few of the dots look like they might be mites. They're out of focus, and I wouldn't want to bet on it, but they could be Varroa. Even if I count everything that could be a mite in the photo, I still don't see as many as I would expect from a hive that died as a direct result of Varroa mites.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

>Is the new photo a picture of the stuff that you dumped into a container and froze? 
Yes and No It's not frozen in that picture, just spred out on the piece of paper, but they are part of the frozen ones. I guess we will have to wait for the results. Do you know how long the wait will be? Thanks


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Sorry, I'm not sure how long the wait will be. The wait depends on how busy the lab is when they get your sample, and don't forget some delay for shipping.

Assuming that the rest of the stuff from the bottom board looks like the stuff in the photo, I don't think Varroa was the problem in this hive. I suppose other beekeepers will jump on me for saying that, but I still don't see many if any mites or example of damage to the bees from Varroa in any of the photos. I still say that if Varroa killed this hive, you'd see a lot more evidence of the mites.

Keep us posted about the results! Thanks again for providing the opportunity for the rest of us to look at and learn from your hive!


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

>Keep us posted about the results! Thanks again for providing the opportunity for the rest of us to look at and learn from your hive!
I will keep you posted! and Thank YOU!


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hey bschmidtbauer, do you (or a neighbor) have other hives in the vicinity of the deadout? If so, how are these hives doing? Dickm mentioned pesticide as a possible cause: if other hives within about 1/2 mile are doing ok then pesticide poisoning could be ruled out. I've seen several real cases of AFB - mostly in training classes/lectures provided by the NC state beeks assoc, but I had a case in one hive a few years ago. The odor associated with AFB depends on how progressed the disease is and the ambient temperature (it's caused by decomposing brood). Unlike others I see no evidence of varroa or tracheal mites. AFB (or pesticide) killed the fall brood; the summer worker bees died naturally - the population dwindled; the 1st really cold temp kept the small cluster from moving to stores so the remaining bees starved. There might have been some robbing - I hope not if this turns out to be AFB or pesticide related.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

db_land: I have 2 other hives on my property that are doing fine as far as I know of. A man about a mile has bees also, and his produced fine. ( I say produced becuase he kills his hives off every winter and buys nucs in the spring.) Actually I will probably do that next year because most beekeepers in my are do that (at least three that I know of). If anything was sprayed I would guess it came from his way.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Was the hive still doing well going into the winter? Crops don't grow in the winter in Minnesota, so none of the farmers are likely to spray pesticides this late in the season (after harvest). Homeowners might still use insecticides, but I doubt enough bees would come in contact with a limited application like that to kill the hive.

[ December 15, 2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Jon Kieckhefer ]


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Well, I thought so... enough not for me to not do any fall feedings or anything. Although all year this hive has been behind my other two I still thought the honey stores would suffice for the winter. Thanks


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Right. Pesticide poisoning happens quickly -- one day the bees are fine, the next they're dying. Your bees won't die from pesticide weeks after the chemical has been applied.


----------



## MikeGillmore (Nov 15, 2005)

DT,
I buy my supplies locally here in Ohio from Queen Right Colonies. They have been dipping woodenware for several years now, not just for new woodenware protection, but also as a treatment for AFB spores on boxes. This process has been monitored by county and state inspectors and so far has been 100% effective in killing all AFB spores on contaminated boxes - ( another source of revenue to offset your investment ). The price for treatment is much less than the cost of burning your old boxes and buying new ones, and safer then just torching them. I'm not sure where you are located but if you are not in Ohio, where you would be a potential competitive threat, I'm sure they would be more than happy to fill you in on how they got started and what it takes to start up and maintain this kind of operation. They are real nice folks. If you are interested contact.....

Queen Right Colonies
Densil StClair
43655 State RT 162
Spencer, OH 44275
440-647-2602


----------



## MikeGillmore (Nov 15, 2005)

Sorry .... wrong post


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>Your bees won't die from pesticide weeks after the chemical has been applied.<<< 

They could if it were in the pollen. I don't really think it likely but has happened.

I think Db_land has the right scenario. Looking for mites in the pix is a red herring and presence or abscence proves nothing. Whatever "killed the hive" did so back in the early fall. The special "winter" bees were not produced in numbers and when the summer bees died off, there simply wasn't enough left to carry the colony. Any or all of the things mentioned could have caused it. Parasitic mite Syndrome .>PMS< is most likely.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>They could if it were in the pollen. I don't really think it likely but has happened.

How would the bees bring the pollen back in quantities great enough to kill hive without killing the workers carrying the pollen? I suppose it could happen, but I'd want to see tests run then to confirm the presence of pesticides in the pollen. The residual effects (persistence of the pesticide) would have to be pretty long-lasting, too.

>>I think Db_land has the right scenario. Looking for mites in the pix is a red herring and presence or abscence proves nothing. 

True enough. If the pictures showed tens of thousands of Varroa, though, I imagine most all of us would be claiming it as "proof" that mites killed the hive. Absence of mites doesn't prove that mites didn't kill the hive -- that would be trying to prove a negative -- but think of your options if mites did kill a hive without leaving any evidence. Where did they go? Are they in surviving hives close by? Did they die and simply vanish? And, why is PMS the most likely cause without evidence to support it?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>How would the bees bring the pollen back in quantities great enough to kill hive without killing the workers carrying the pollen<<<

OK Now you're going to make me look it up. There's a way of packaging some pesticide in tiny capsules to aid in persistance. To the bees these "capsules" look like pollen and they bring it in and store it. Grossly unfair, no?

>>And, why is PMS the most likely cause without evidence to support it?<<

I didn't say there was evidence of it, just that it was most likely. It can thoroughly mimic AFB. It will kill brood in many stages. It will shorten bee lives, impairing build up for winter. It will vector any disease you choose. It can erupt suddenly in late summer. Of all the things that kill bees, mites are right on top of the list, especially for us hobbyists.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I agree that mites are at or at least very near the top of the list of things that kill bees, especially for hobbyists. I still think you should have evidence to support the charge before assuming that it has to be mites. Cancer is now the leading cause of death among Americans; if an American dies, do you immediately blame cancer?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>if an American dies, do you immediately blame cancer?<<<

It depends on the quality of the evidence at the scene of the crash.  

>>> still think you should have evidence to support the charge <<<

Why? Does anyone? I'm saying what I think. Didn't realize I was charging! I'd have fed the horse a little more grain.









I googled pesticide+pollen

One discussion of the pollen thing
http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/ipm/insects/pollinat/honeybee/pestic.htm

Cite from another:
. However, if brood and nurse bees continue dying, the pesticide is present in the hive, probably in the pollen supplies. The colony will continue to die as long as the poison remains in the hive. In these cases the combs must be cleaned or removed. Soak the combs in water for 24 hours. Then wash the pollen from the cells and allow the combs to dry.
from: http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/Pollination/Protecting_from_Pesticides.htm

Dickm


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I don't remember where I read it, but I do recall reading that sometimes pesticide residue can be brought back to the hive in or on pollen where it is stored in the cells and it doesn't start killing bees till the nurse bees eat it and feed it to brood. Adult workers just haul pollen, they don't eat it though there is a fair amount of mastication going on, mixing the pollen with nectar, and packing it into cells. They don't ingest it though so perhaps they don't get a fatal dose. I don't know what particular pesticide might have this mode of action, I would assume a systemic one.

I also don't recall from my reading that the pesticide was designed to specifically poison the pollen as pollen collecting insects are not generally the target of pesticides. Plant eating insects are targets of pesticides and the fact that the pollen was tainted was "incidental".

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I agree with Dickm (PMS). I haven't seen what I consider a satisfactory picture of the bottom board yet, and I sure haven't seen any mites on other pictures. However, at this point I'm perfectly happy to wait for the results of the tests of the bees and brood. As I've already said, if the results come back AFB or something besides complications due to mites, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong unless of course somebody beats me to it!


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Round-up wouldn't hurt them would it? If so then we could have a lead...Thanks


----------



## The Honey House (May 10, 2000)

Round-up wouldn't hurt them would it? 

Googled Round Up Honeybees resulted in 
"Many field studies during the nearly 30 years of Roundup use have shown no harm to beneficial insects. Studies mandated by U.S. EPA and the World Health Organization show that Roundup is not harmful to honeybees. "

So I'd say probable not.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

bschmidtbauer indicated that his other hives on the same property are doing well -> so this is probably not a case of pesticide poisoning (unless someone sprayed this particular hive and not the others).


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

OK, I did some extra reading, and will admit that pesticide poisoning could occur after a period of time IF the bees pick up microencapsulated pesticides. The cases to support the idea are few and far between. In other words, that's a rare situation. But it could happen. 

From experience (I have my commercial applicator's license for herbicides and pesticides), I can say that microencapsulated pesticides are far less common than sprays or powders or other forms of application, especially in the Great Plains states. I think then that the possibility of this hive dying from pesticide poisoning is still very, very remote. Why would so many people go from saying, "(paraphrasing here) Varroa is the most likely cause of death because most hives that die are killed by mites," to allowing the remote chance that these bees picked up microencapsulated pesticides?

By the way, Round-Up is unlikely to ever cause acute toxicity in bees. The long-term, chronic effects of some of these herbicides might be dangerous, but Round-Up acts by interfering with the growth patterns of plant cells. Animal cells grow differently, so Round-Up wouldn't pose any real threat.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Hi Jon,
I've had the displeasure of looking into more deadouts than I wanted to. There is usually very little "evidence." 

Why would so many people go from saying, "(paraphrasing here) Varroa is the most likely cause of death because most hives that die are killed by mites," to allowing the remote chance that these bees picked up microencapsulated pesticides.

You know about "Occams razor," I'm sure,. The simplest answer is most likely to be correct. The mites carry many diseases without showing ill effects. Somehow the mites energize these bugs and the hive collapses. Did the mites kill or the diseases? It's either that or they died of natural causes as: too small a cluster etc.

Just because I'm a beekeeper I feel impelled to give several opinions anyway.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Dickm,

Occam's Razor, or parsimony, or whatever you wish to call the principle, is what I've been trying to use to determine cause of death with this particular hive. Using Occam's Razor, you select the simplest answer that fits the situation, not the most likely. So far, I haven't seen evidence of mites in the photos, at least not in the numbers that would kill out a hive. That's why I keep saying that the hive likely starved. The photos show classic signs of starvation. 

I like your last comment. I, too, feel compelled to give my opinions when I see something like this!


----------



## Amanda2fan (Aug 14, 2005)

> ( I say produced becuase he kills his hives off every winter and buys nucs in the spring.)


Sorry for the newbee question ya'll, but is this common practice among a lot of beekeepers? Call me sappy, but I couldn't let a hive die, or kill it off after they worked so hard to build up a good hive. Why is this done? Convenience?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>...is this common practice among a lot of beekeepers?

I don't think it is. From the keepers I've talked to, most commercial beekeepers are migratory so they don't kill off hives, they move them. At one time, though, commercial operations in the north subscribed to this practice (killing hives in the winter). The idea, I believe, comes from economics of the profit from the extra honey crop versus the cost of establishing new colonies. If the price of the extra honey that could be extracted (say, 100 pounds extra per hive in the north) is greater than the price of a new package of bees, it makes sense ( or "cents") to kill off the bees and take everything rather than overwintering them. I think the practice has largely fallen out of favor because of several reasons, including second-year hives can produce considerably more honey than first year hives and rising costs of package bees and nucs.

Other people could comment on their practices, especially if some of you do kill hives rather than wintering them. Based on the number of threads on this site dealing with wintering bees, I'm guessing most beekeepers now try to get them through the winters.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Sorry for the newbee question ya'll, but is this common practice among a lot of beekeepers?

This question was posed here and while a few people (very few) said they actually knew someone who killed the hives off each fall, no one here owned up to doing it. Of course, they may have refrained because they were afraid of the reaction.







Most of us love our bees.

If anyone near me wishes to do so, I'll come shake your hives out for you and take your bees off your hands.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Jon.
From the original post.

>>>The second DHB still has honey (capped/uncapped<<<

I assume DHB means deep hive body, or second deep. They could still have cold starved I suppose but that's less parsimonious.









Dickm


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>That's why I keep saying that the hive likely starved. The photos show classic signs of starvation.

I don't think anyone ever questioned that starvation occured. I mentioned it early on. Was that the primary reason they died off, or the result of other problems? Was starvation at cause, or an effect? I dunno. I do know the hive had 3 deeps, the middle deep had honey and the bees were in the top deep.

I'll have a chance to go through my own first deadout of the winter next weekend...

George-


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I do not kill off any hives, but I have a few deadouts. MB suggested that if anyone kills off their bees, he would come by and shake them out. Not sure what he wants with a bunch of dead bees, but the offer is tempting.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Not sure what he wants with a bunch of dead bees, but the offer is tempting.

Hmmm. Maybe I should be more specific. I wanted them before they were dead.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Also, if the rumors of $120 packages are true, I seriously doubt anyone can afford this approach anymore.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Good point, Dickm and George, about the second deep with honey in it. That doesn't fit with parsimony very well, but it limits the Varroa possibility at the same time. I'll see if I can explain my reasoning, then you can let me know if it makes sense.

Bees almost certainly starved in this hive. The "heads in the cells" is classic starvation. I conceded that something else may have contributed to their overwintering problems, but thought (and still think) Varroa plays less of a role than starvation.

Even though the bees had honey (we don't know how much) in the second deep, they died. Maybe then they didn't starve, according to some beekeepers. Maybe mites, Varroa in particular, killed them. But how? 

If mite levels were low enough to cause problems, such as not enough food for the winter or a smaller winter cluster, but not directly kill the bees, how can you differentiate that from simply dying during the winter? We don't know mite counts, so they could have contributed to the death, but they still might not have been the primary cause of death. 

If mite levels were high enough, on the other hand, to directly kill the hive (leaving behind the surplus of honey, since the bees never had a chance to eat it), where are the mites now? So far, none of the photos have shown enough mites or evidence of enough damage by Varroa to cause PMS, so it's unlikely that mites directly killed the hive.

And we're back to the start: the bees starved. Unless we get some evidence that really links mite damage with the death of this hive, I'll still avoid blaming them entirely for this hive dying. Otherwise, why not blame cold weather, or a too small winter cluster, or poor genetics, or a queenless condition, or tracheal mites, or a virus, or AFB, or EFB, or any other possibility, at the same time?


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Jon Kieckhefer . . .

>If mite levels . . . (caused) a smaller winter cluster . . .

Thats how mites caused the hive to STARVE.

How many mites WERE in hive? How many does it take to cause problems?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>How many does it take to cause problems?

That's what I'd like to know. Not just supposition, but real data. For example, "a colony of 40,000 bees with an infestation of 10,000 mites is 50% less likely to survive than a colony of 40,000 bees with an infestation of 5,000 mites, all else being equal." (These aren't real numbers at all; I just made them up off the top of my head.) The problem is getting everything else equal. What if you fed the bees more than usual? Could you compensate for the small stores or small cluster, which in turn was caused by a Varroa mite load?

By the way, a smaller winter cluster with equal stores shouldn't be any more likely to starve than a larger winter cluster. The small cluster may not be able to generate enough heat to survive, but starvation occurs when they run out of food.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>but starvation occurs when they run out of food.>>>>

Things aren't that simple. To get to the food bees must move. To move they must generate heat. If the cluster doesn't generate enough heat to move ... they starve. We see more losses in the winter because an unhealthy hive can survive in warm weather without too many symptoms.

I had a healthy little nuc that had a cluster that was probably the size of a small grapefruit. Maybe a little smaller. It was my extra queen that I was keeping around and I didn't think it would make it but I had hopes. I fed them. They were fine until the cold hit. It was in the 20s overnight a few times. They had a full *nuc* deep of honey just above them and apparently starved. Heads in the cells, etc. There were a few cells of dead brood but no disease. The bees died in cluster. 

What killed them? They died back in Aug when there were not sufficient bees to make it through the winter. Not stores. Bees.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>They died back in Aug when there were not sufficient bees to make it through the winter.

Right! They starved because they ran out of food. Even if they have food six inches away, if they can't get to it, they starve.

Based on some of the assumptions I've read on this thread, your nuc died because of mites. Since mites kill most of the hives that die out, at least for hobbyists, mites must have killed your nuc if I believe what I've been reading here. (I'm being facetious; just trying to make my point.)


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>How many does it take to cause problems?

Sigh. A lot less than most people would like to think. A lot less than I had originally thought too. There is another factor, length of infestation, that contributes to the overall weakening and general demoralization of a hive that has to be taken into account.

According to one researcher, the theoretical limit to the size of a mite population is 81,000 mites. It is assumed the honeybee colony would have collapsed long before the mites reached anything like 81,000 mites.

I've played extensively with VarroaPop, the varroa population model program written at the Carl Hayden Research Center in Arizona. A quirk with the software (there are a few actually, but it's pretty good) is that it doesn't clearly factor in the overall length of infestation and the resulting colony damage and demoralization from that which I mentioned above- you can model populations with in excess of 120,000 mites and only 6000 bees, still muddling along. I think it's pretty obvious that that particular colony is dead.. and dead long before the mites reached those numbers. I don't really consider this a program bug









Based on what I've seen in the numbers from VarroaPop, an extended infestation of as little as 3000 to 6000 mites can effectively do in honeybee colony- if it ain't dead, it will be soon. Define "dead"









I just discovered a deadout in my yard. On 7/13 the 24 hour drop was 90. on 7/19 it was 56. On 9/12 after a series of OA treatments, it was 90, corresponding to a mite population of around 3600 mites. On 10/3 it was >150 which I believe corresponded to somewhere between 4500 and 6000 mites. In early November I dribbled with OA. The colony didn't look very strong at that time, I didn't hold out much hope for it. Good thing because that hive is now dead. I haven't done a forensic analysis yet, but I will. I already know what killed them- mites killed them. I just want to see what the overt symptoms are.

I read a statement from someone on BEE-L that a 14% mite infestation level would kill a hive over winter. Given a colony with 30,000 bees, a 14% infestation level corresponds to 4200 mites. Yes, I believe that would kill a hive over winter.

So. A variety of sources indicate that as few as 3000 to 6000 mites can kill off a hive. It really depends on a variety of factors including time of year. A really strong and populace hive recently infested could sustain a much higher level of infestation, for a longer period of time before crashing since mite populations can grow exponentially in a very short period of time. In mid-summer in such a colony I think you could see mite populations reaching 15,000 to 20,000 or more. With a load like that going into fall, the prospects for that hive even with treatment are going to be dim.

I'd like to correct one piece of information I gave earlier in this thread- about mites not actively transmitting typical PMS virii like Deformed Wing Virus, Kashmir Bee Virus, etc. There is evidence to suggest that mites can be direct vectors for the transmission of these and other diseases as well as causing bacterial infections due to active feeding on pupae and adult bees.

George-


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hi George, I looked at "VarroaPop" - IMO it's pretty much useless - an Excel spreadsheet is better. Also, I believe a hive with a 20000 mite load in early August (in most locations) can be saved: 1) remove queen and all brood; 2) treat 3 times, once every 8 days, with OA vapor. Assumming 90% kill rate of the phoretic mites, the hive will be down to about 20 mites in about 3 weeks. 3) introduce a fresh new queen to create the overwintering bees and feed light syrup (and pollen if needed) to stimulate brood production. The original queen and brood (properly treated of course)could be used to start a new hive or recombined with the old hive or destroyed. A lot of work that's for sure! Is it worth the effort? "It depends".


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I looked at "VarroaPop" - IMO it's pretty much useless

You are entitled to your opinion. I've done more than look at it, I've spent a number of hours learning how to use it and interpret the results.

>Also, I believe a hive with a 20000 mite load in early August (in most locations) can be saved

Great! Have you ever done it? How successful were you?

I essentially tried what you suggest with 4-5 of my worst-infested hives and I don't think they had anything like a 20,000 mite load. I didn't remove the brood, there wasn't that much anyways. I combined some, requeened 4 of them, treated with OA vapor 3 times throughout August, fed the daylights out of all the hives from September through October, and dribbled OA again in November. We'll see how many of them make it.

BTW, a 90% kill rate would leave you with 2000 mites, not 20. By mid-October, given continued brood rearing with stimulative feeding you'd likely have 5000 mites in your hive. With no drones being raised you'd have multiple mites entering worker brood cells. I would think you'd be seeing evidence of PMS if you hadn't already had some brood disease back in August.

George-


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

George

I thought about this
I believe db was thinking the first tretment would go from 20,000 to 2000
second from 2000 to 200
third from 200 to 20
of course this ignores the fact most of the mite are protected from the OA in the cells
it's a complicated problem for sure
I do like the idea of removing the queen so you can treat aggresivley without worrying about harming her

Dave


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I thought about this

So have I







By removing all the brood, the mites are all phoretic, but 90% is still 90%... using that logic, with just one more 90% effective treatment he'd would have removed all but 2 of his mites and with ONE more, there wouldn't be any left









I'd prefer to think he just dropped a couple of zeros









George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I read a statement from someone on BEE-L that a 14% mite infestation level would kill a hive over winter. Given a colony with 30,000 bees, a 14% infestation level corresponds to 4200 mites. 

I would love to see the data used to reach these numbers, as well as the statistical analyses used to reach these conclusions. Did the person you came up with these numbers use a computer model, or actual field data? If field numbers were collected, how many hives were used in the experiment? How many other conditions were included? How many years did the experiment run? How accurate were the counts?

Here's my problem assuming that a 14% (At what time, anyway? Mite numbers vary considerably during the course of the season.) rate of infestation would cause so many problems by itself: if each mite killed its host, the hive would lose 14% of its bees. In my opinion, Varroa are pretty efficient parasites, and good parasites don't kill their hosts. They feed on them, and maybe weaken them, but don't kill them. So I think that the assumption that every mite kills its individual host bee leads to overestimating the death of bees by mites. Even if 14% do die, my colony populations vary by 14% or more during the course of a season regularly. They come out of the winters with far fewer bees than they enter the winters, maybe half of the original number (50% loss) or less. If a 14% loss from mites could kill a hive, why wouldn't a 50% loss from winter?

Now, if those mites were spreading a disease, and each mite could infect multiple bees, I could easily understand how a relatively low mite load could kill a colony.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>To get to the food bees must move. To move they must generate heat. If the cluster doesn't generate enough heat to move ... they starve.

Very well said.

Now take this "fact", and ask ourselves, "What caused "fewer bees"?

In dickm's nuc, bee population was restrained by space. In bschmidtbauer's hive it was mites. 

In Back in summer/early fall, if (just a FEW) varroa enter enough brood cells and caused enough brood to die (often described as chalkbrood), bee population begins to dwindle. It dwindles faster than normal (no young bees to replace the old), hive goes into winter w/ a small cluster and "To get to the food bees must move. To move they must generate heat. If the cluster doesn't generate enough heat to move ... they starve".

[ December 21, 2005, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## John Gesner (Dec 17, 2005)

Well, this certainly was an interesting read. The pics look very much like hives I lost last year and probably the three I've already lost this year. With my hives, PMS contributed to the decline of the hives earlier in the fall. They're dead now because they starved. Feeding, IMHO, wouldn't have saved them. Numbers in the hives were already down and brood numbers are so low over the winter that the populations in the hives wouldn't increase. Without sufficient numbers, Italians (and these bees look like Italians) won't survive the cold we get in Ohio, let alone Minnesota.

I wouldn't be surprised if AFB spores are found in the samples you sent to the lab, but AFB didn't kill your hive. Starvation and cold did.

Oh yes, here's another thought. The bees laying in the sugar on the inner cover? If the bees don't have sufficient moisture to re-liquify granulated sugar, they can't consume it. Like dying of thirst on a boat in the ocean, these bees starved laying in a bed of food. Pretty dismal thought, really.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>In dickm's nuc, bee population was restrained by space. In bschmidtbauer's hive it was mites. 

Wow! I'm impressed. I've tried to leave all of my comments in terms of "seems," "appears," "may be," "might," etc. I've mentioned before, I see classic signs of starvation. Any underlying causes? Maybe, but I can't be sure. The hive very well could have be affected by mites. I wonder, though, if Varroa doesn't take the blame for a lot of other problems. For example, you have a weak hive with a few mites and a weak hive with absolutely no mites. Did the mites kill the former hive? Did they kill the latter hive? What's the difference in this example?

How do you KNOW it was mites in bschmidtbauer's hive?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Jon,
I'm beginning to see the problem. You want a definite answer and evidence to boot. You can't have that. It's going to stay a problem because the answer lies more in art than science. There was precious little evidence in my nuc. BTW they weren't cramped for space. They were in between 2 frames. Jim Fischer had a great rule of thumb awhile back. Still in cluster but dead and with heads in cells=starvation. Honey on but several small clumps scattered about=trachael mites. The third was a clump of dead bees on the bottom board and I forget the reasoning. Jim? I think it was pesticides.
On mite loads: 
Great work done by Jennifer Berry in Georgia [current EAS president]. She said that between 30 and 79 mites a day on a sticky board is the threshold at which an untreated hive will die. Hives vary in size, no? I may be a little off on the numbers because it was a while ago. She did a serious study because the commercial guys want to know.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Dickm,

I'll confess, I would like a definite answer based on evidence. The problem I see with the advice that everyone else is giving is that the answers are definite, but the evidence for those conclusions is lacking.

Based on Jim's rule of thumb, these mites starved. Like I keep mentioning, I see evidence that they starved. I can agree with starvation. Is there something else? I think there could be, but I don't want to speculate much without evidence.

Any idea whether Jennifer Berry published her work in a refereed, scientific journal? I've been trying to find scientific articles, reviewed by other scientists before publication, on thresholds and haven't come up with much. I'd like to read her findings.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/Newsletter/feb2003.htm

This will get you started. It was her boss Keith I guess. There's more somewhere because I stick with the #s she told me. Look further. I googled Jennifer+Berry+mitedrop. I just discovered the + sign and am having a lot of fun with it!

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks for the link, Dickm! I appreciate the information.

I would like to point out, though, that this is a newsletter, not a journal in which manuscripts are reviewed by scientific peers before publication. I'm not saying that the information is wrong or bad. I would like to point out a couple fast observations on it, though:

1) the newsletter states clearly that the thresholds were developed for that region (Georgia area). They may not apply to other regions. Other research would have to be completed to compare regions.

2) these are *economic* thresholds. Although they never say it in this newsletter, these numbers -- being economic thresholds -- don't imply that the numbers of mites listed (59 to 187 mites as an overnight drop on a sticky sheet) will kill a hive. Using the definition of an economic threshold, this means that the gain in profit from a hive with at least that many hives is greater than the cost of treating. For example, if a beekeeper could expect to produce an additional $21 worth of honey from this hive by reducing the mite load, and the cost of treating is $20, the infestation is beyond the economic threshold. At the same time, if the gain in honey production would amount to only $19 by eliminating mites and the treatment still cost $20, the infestation of mites is below the economic threshold. 

Maybe what I should be asking, does anyone know of information on the level of infestion that causes mortality in 50% of the hives exposed to that level?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Great work done by Jennifer Berry...
> She said that between 30 and 79 mites a day 
> on a sticky board is the threshold at which an 
> untreated hive will die. 

> Hives vary in size, no?

That's the inherent problem with ANY attempt to
use a single measurement as a basis for diagnosis.

Here's the problem - beekeepers have begged
extension people over and over _"JUST GIVE ME A
NUMBER"_. Keith gave in to these pleas, and
as Jennifer works for Keith, she can't exactly
contradict him, now can she?

30 to 79 mites a day... what was the mite count
at some prior time? Is the number trending up
slowly, trending up rapidly, trending down, or
stable?

I realize that no one in the "bee business" wants
to admit that math and statistics are just as
important to beekeeping as they are to all other
segments of agriculture, moreso when it comes to
issues like IPM, but what matters with varroa
is the SLOPE of the population curve.

Jennifer's a nice person, but give her a break.
Don't hold her responsible for a decision made
by Keith to take the easy way out, and toss out
a "random number" rather than take the harder
road of continuing to try to teach beekeepers IPM
"best practices". Please recall that, not too
long ago, Jennifer's day job was as a stand-up
comic, and she may not feel free to voice her
own views when they might contradict Keith's.

> Any idea whether Jennifer Berry published her 
> work in a refereed, scientific journal?

Keith put an article in ABJ, but to my knowledge,
the "threshold" concept has yet to be subjected
to peer review. I have several settings on my
Cuisinart for such papers, most often starting
with "Chop" for 30 seconds, then moving the knob
to "Puree", and then "Liquefy".









The only "pest threshold" that makes any sense
is a pest/host ratio or a pest/predator ratio.
"Thresholds" are inherently *ratios*, and
*rates of change* not simple absolute 
*integers*.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Absolutely, positively, dead-on, Jim! You gave a wonderful explanation of thresholds and the problems we have with talking about mite infestation levels.

By the way, I intended no criticism of Jennifer, or of anyone else conducting research. I'm not even dismissing non-peer-reviewed research just because it hasn't been reviewed. Scientific review provides a method of scrutinizing work before publication to identify problems in the results or methods. It seems to be the best method in place at this time to evaluate research before people generally accept the results.

Truth be told, I don't think we have a very good idea yet of exactly how much effect mites have on hives, either directly or through vectoring other diseases. Sure, we all know Varroa isn't in our interests, but how bad do the infestations have to be before we have grave problems. And, like Jim says, if you have many mites in a hive but the numbers are decreasing, do the mites still pose a danger to the survival of the hive?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The only "pest threshold" that makes any sense
is a pest/host ratio or a pest/predator ratio.
"Thresholds" are inherently ratios, and
rates of change not simple absolute 
integers.

Very well said.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

The economic "Threshold" was that with a certain # the hive will crash without treatment. It had nothing to do directly with yeilds. I thing everyone should monitor mite levels for a year. It's a real learning process. I now get very nervous with 15 or 20 a day. However, it all depends on the time of year. Rob Harrison has said many times that if you wait until fall to treat...it's too late. Of course the ratio is whats' important. They were trying to give us a number we could obtain and use. Jennifer was a stand-up comic? Jim, I don't trust you!

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Ahhhh... So it's not an "economic threshold," but rather an LD50 or something along those lines. That really makes me wonder, then, what the *economic* thresholds might be?

The brief report I read from the link simply discussed the effects of the type of bottom board on the mite drops. They stated that they were testing hygenic behavior as well, but never listed any results from that. Near the end of the brief, they noted, "None of the colony strength parameters measured in April 2002 -- quantity of bees, brood, honey and pollen -- was shown to be significant...." To me, that means that the variations within the groups (isolated apiary or non-isolated, hygenic or non-hygenic queen and screen or conventional bottom board) were as great as the variations among the groups. In other words, the type of bottom board affected the mite drop, but the differences in mite drops had no clear impact on the strength of the bee colonies.


In know the region is different, too, but I wonder whether bschmidtbauer's hive came anywhere near the thresholds (59 to 187 mites dropping daily onto a sticky sheet) suggested by researchers at Clemson? I still think some of those mites should have appeared in the photos if there were that many in the hive.

[ December 21, 2005, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Jon Kieckhefer ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

If you monitor often and for regular intervals, you can see a definite "trend" in the numbers.
That trend "peaks" at about 1000% increase in 59 days.

Why doesnt "59 to 187" mites kill a hive in Evansville, IN (within 3 years)?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Dave W,

You get DAILY drops of 59 to 187 mites or more, yet the hive survives? According to the study from Clemson, you must have a weird hive.  

Why doesn't such a heavy mite load kill that hive in Indiana? Maybe northern bees are hardier than southern bees? Maybe something else is going on, like the mites are transmitting viruses? You asked a good question!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jennifer was a stand-up comic? 
> Jim, I don't trust you!

Don't trust, verify.
Ask her yourself.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Jon Kieckhefer . . .

Please see:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000568#000000


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I would love to see the data used to reach these numbers, as well as the statistical analyses used to reach these conclusions.

I'm sure you would. I wouldn't mind seeing them myself. However, there probably aren't any numbers in this particular example, there probably wasn't an extensive well controlled and reproducable scientific experiment. Maybe there was. I dunno. It doesn't make the numbers wrong, just indefensible. You don't have to believe them.

In the final analysis, if your hive is dead, what good are data and statistics to the contrary?

>So I think that the assumption that every mite kills its individual host bee leads to overestimating the death of bees by mites.

I'm not sure where you got this. I never said every mite kills it's host bee. I said that an infestation level of 14% would kill the whole **** hive







And for the record, I didn't say that, I was merely repeating what someone else said. I happen to agree however. 14% fits rather well with my own observations.

>In my opinion, Varroa are pretty efficient parasites, and good parasites don't kill their hosts.

Varroa are new (in the overall scheme of things) parasites of Apis Mellfera. Their original host was Apis Cerana with whom they did have a more traditional host/parasite relationship. However, they jumped, and mutated in the process. Varroa Destructor are VERY efficient at breeding but they haven't got the whole "symbiosis" thing figured out yet. Varroa kill their hosts all the time. You knew this, right?

>Now, if those mites were spreading a disease, and each mite could infect multiple bees, I could easily understand how a relatively low mite load could kill a colony.

You may be on to something there









George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Dave W,

I read your post not too long after you posted it; I couldn't quite tell how to interpret your numbers. I assume they go something like this:

Date -- average number of mites (total mites/number of samples).

Is that correct? 

No matter how you look at it, your hive is an example of what I keep saying: are Varroa mites really to blame for the loss of so many hives. Obviously your hive is above or within the range of the threshold proposed from Clemson, yet your bees survive. Why? (Rhetorical, not directed at you.) I am interested to read that you haven't observed signs of DWV in your bees. Does that hold true for the bees on the frames when you open the hive, too? 

Maybe your mites aren't carrying the pathogens that kill so many hives infested with Varroa.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I'm not sure where you got this. I never said every mite kills it's host bee. I said that an infestation level of 14% would kill the whole **** hive And for the record, I didn't say that, I was merely repeating what someone else said. I happen to agree however. 14% fits rather well with my own observations.

What I said, George, was that the IF every mite killed its individual host. . . . 

I stick to my assertion.

By the way, how do you calculate 14% infestation? Do you have good estimates both of the numbers of bees in each hive and of the numbers of mites in each hive? I'm not trying to be mean here, I just want to know how you calculate infestation. 

And, actually, I DIDN'T know that Varroa kill their Apis mellifera hosts all the time. I've seen a lot of old bees (tattered wings) wandering around with a Varroa mite stuck to their thoraci. I've seen bees with the deformed wings people list as a "classic" symptom of Varroa. Obviously, those bees hadn't been killed yet by Varroa when I saw them.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>You get DAILY drops of 59 to 187 mites or more, yet the hive survives? According to the study from Clemson, you must have a weird hive. 

According to my population model, Dave's hive died last spring. How's it doing now Dave?

>The economic "Threshold" was that with a certain # the hive will crash without treatment.

That was my understanding of economic threshold Dick. Treat it or lose it.

>Ahhhh... So it's not an "economic threshold," but rather an LD50 or something along those lines. That really makes me wonder, then, what the *economic* thresholds might be?

Dunno what an LD50 is. Are you including the cost of a replacement package of bees in your calculation? IMHO, any "economic" threshold based on the cost of treating vs the value of additional honey production needs to include the cost of replacing your soon-to-be-dead bees.

>> Jennifer was a stand-up comic?

From stand-up comic to EAS President... I don't see a conflict there









George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>The only "pest threshold" that makes any sense
is a pest/host ratio or a pest/predator ratio.
"Thresholds" are inherently ratios, and
rates of change not simple absolute 
integers.

I couldn't agree more Jim and I'm as guilty of throwing around absolute integers as the next guy. The problem with pest/host ratios of course is accurately estimating the number of bees in the hive. But do we really need to get too excited about that? By examining mite drop counts over time we can observe rates of change, and interestingly, drop counts are pretty much independent of the total bee population, and pretty much dependent on the mite population. Rough ratios can be developed from this information, for what it's worth. The rates of change are valuable for me.

>Truth be told, I don't think we have a very good idea yet of exactly how much effect mites have on hives, either directly or through vectoring other diseases.

We have a VERY good idea of EXACTLY how much effect mites have on hives. They KILL them, given time, deader'n a door nail, and usually just when you thought your hive was kicking honey butt.

What we don't understand is EXACTLY how mites do the damage they do. This dearth of information on the effect of mites on honeybees is being relieved, slowly, but it's taken a long time.

>Sure, we all know Varroa isn't in our interests, but how bad do the infestations have to be before we have grave problems.

You want my opinion? Well I'll give it to you anyways







I don't think there's a safe level of infestation. If you've got mites, any mites at all, you've got a potential problem, it is just a matter of time before you have a lot of mites, and not long after that before you have too many mites. Somewhere in there the situation becomes "grave". Mite populations grow exponentially. Mite populations can easily increase 12-fold in a single season. In southern areas where brood rearing pretty much occurs year round, the growth is much greater.

According to the New Zealand manual for varroa control, theoretically 1 mite can become 11 in the first 50 days, to 115 mites by the second 50 days, and to 1330 mites by the third 50 days.

So you tell me, how bad does an infestation have to be before you have grave problems?

>And, like Jim says, if you have many mites in a hive but the numbers are decreasing, do the mites still pose a danger to the survival of the hive?

The only time mite populations drop is when a treatment removes mites, or when the hive they've infested dies. Otherwise, their numbers are either static, or increasing. Jim was referring to their rate of growth. They're either breeding in which case their numbers are increasing (sometimes dramatically) or they're taking a forced break from breeding in which case their population remains relatively stable.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>What I said, George, was that the IF every mite killed its individual host. . . . 

>I stick to my assertion.

It's all yours







Mites don't typically kill the bee they're hanging on. They're only phoretic (during brood rearing) for 3-10 days before they enter a cell to breed again. The damage is done to the pupae, some of which may die, others may just emerge weakened or infected. Honey bees don't live that long to begin with. If they're weakened by mites and die even sooner, the hive will fail to thrive. I've seen this.

>By the way, how do you calculate 14% infestation? Do you have good estimates both of the numbers of bees in each hive and of the numbers of mites in each hive? I'm not trying to be mean here, I just want to know how you calculate infestation. 

Never thought for a second you were being mean Jon and I apologize if anything I've written has rubbed you the wrong way. Not my intention. This is information exchange for everyone's edification.

To answer your question, I don't generally calculate the level of infestation as a percentage of the total bee population. When I do, I estimate the number of bees based on how many fully covered frames there are, figuring 2000 bees per frame. I count partial frames too. If I've got 2 deeps "pretty full of bees" I figure about 40,000 bees. It's probably more.

I most often just look at mite counts and their rates of change over time. It's anyone's guess at how mite drops correlate to total mite population. I have mine







I use a multiplier of 20-40 for periods when there is brood in the hive and 250-500 for periods when there is no brood.

>And, actually, I DIDN'T know that Varroa kill their Apis mellifera hosts all the time.

It can take time, but without effective treatments or other extenuating circumstances such as the elusive "mite tolerant" bee or having your bees on small cell, a hive with mites will eventually die. And all hives have mites. Will all hives if left untreated die from mites? No. Did I exagerate? Yes. It's been estimated that if we'd just let nature take it's course when varroa first arrived, 90% of the honeybee colonies in the country would have been wiped out. Those bees that were left would make great breeding stock, eh?

>I've seen a lot of old bees (tattered wings) wandering around with a Varroa mite stuck to their thoraci. I've seen bees with the deformed wings people list as a "classic" symptom of Varroa. Obviously, those bees hadn't been killed yet by Varroa when I saw them.

Yup. Any idea what happened to those hives? It typically takes 2 to 3 years for a hive to succumb to varroa. Look at Davew's miracle hive







If the hive starts out with a healthy mite population, it might not last that long.

If you're seeing deformed wing virus or other symptoms of PMS in a hive, typically in late summer to early fall, the chances that hive will make it through the winter are slim to none. If they do make it through winter, they'll likely be so weak in the spring that they'll fail to thrive.

George-


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Jon,
I culled this a few posts back.
>>>>are Varroa mites really to blame for the loss of so many hives.>>>

There are a number of bee diseases that can kill hives. In the main I think they are controlled by breeding. I think of the hive as an organism with antibodies and resistant behaviors like a human body. We carry viri [that is the plural of virus isn't it?]within us that only emerge when our resistance gets down. Think of cold sores and other Herpes.
The presence of Varroa seems to energize these bee bugs and they take their toll. DWV is probably there in every hive but doesn't show up until the weakening effect is far advanced. Varroa affected bees live about 33% shorter lives. That's like cutting the work force by 33%. As George just said, by the time you see DWV, it's probably too late.

In an evolutionary sense every dead out is a dead end for the Varroa too. Non-virulent mites would be a good answer. Breed some up and offer them for sale. Like the sterile fruit fly caper.

Dickm


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Dickm, 
what are you doing??? You just broke a string of posts by George who was having a conversation with himself.  Show some respect....


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Bjorn,
I can hardly type I'm laughing so hard. Sorry George but that was funny. It's morning and I still respect you!

Dickm


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

dickm,

>It's morning and I still respect you! 

Hey lets keep it clean......


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm laughing, too, Bjorn! Great observation!

George, I think you're contradicting yourself. You said:

>>We have a VERY good idea of EXACTLY how much effect mites have on hives. They KILL them, given time, deader'n a door nail, and usually just when you thought your hive was kicking honey butt.

>> If you've got mites, any mites at all, you've got a potential problem, it is just a matter of time before you have a lot of mites, and not long after that before you have too many mites.

>>It can take time, but without effective treatments or other extenuating circumstances such as the elusive "mite tolerant" bee or having your bees on small cell, a hive with mites will eventually die. And all hives have mites. 

Based on this, I would assume that all hives will die from mites. What if AFB or EFB or tracheal mites or any other disease gets there first? Anyone (such as Michael Bush, maybe?) want to make a comment about their untreated hives that have little if any mite problem?

"Economic thresholds," by definition, mean that the cost of treating is less than the potential gain from treating (trust me, I've helped establish a lot of economic thresholds for a lot of insects). If the hive or the corn crop or the wheat or whatever dies entirely because of the pest, the levels are WAY beyond the economic threshold. Based on what you've told me, the economic threshold for Varroa in your hives is one. You see one mite, you treat.

I'd still like numbers on the Varroa problem, from anyone at all. I've asked before, and I'll ask again: what percentage of hives died out over winters before Varroa arrived? Under similar conditions other than the addition of Varroa, what percentage dies out now? I'm not interested in the, "Well, I heard it was 10% before and it's 70% now," type of numbers, either. Actual numbers collected in the field. Anyone?

>>So you tell me, how bad does an infestation have to be before you have grave problems?

That's what I've been asking. I think that's what we must ask rather than simply pointing at Varroa as the cause of all our problems.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>>>So you tell me, how bad does an infestation have to be before you have grave problems?

Is this the answer;
"If you've got mites, any mites at all, you've got a potential problem, it is just a matter of time before you have a lot of mites, and not long after that before you have too many mites."
- - George Fergusson 

Oh, you want a "number"?

Why not do some (few hundred) mite counts and figure it out?
















Jon Kieckhefer . . .
I explained how my mite numbers were listed in the thread w/ the numbers. But here it is again:
Example - 15.0 (30/2)

15.0 is derived by dividing total mites found (30) by number a days (2) sticky board was in place. Often called a "24 hr mite drop".








All of the drops listed are from ONE (same) hive.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks, Dave W! Sorry I missed the explanation earlier.

I have to tell you, I admire your mite counting and your willingness to post your numbers. I realize it's just one hive, and weird things could be happening with your "super bees," yet I think it's a good example of what I've been trying to point out all along. **We really don't have a good idea of how big a problem Varroa really represent for honey bees.** Do the mites pose a potential problem for your bees? I imagine you think so, otherwise you wouldn't be treating for mites.

But the "potential problem" angle bothers me. We have mosquitoes in this country -- in large numbers, really -- that are capable of carrying and transmitting malaria. I would call that a "potential problem." Since we don't have widespread instances of malaria in the U.S., I would argue that it isn't a problem now.

Short of running controlled, replicated experiments, how do you determine that mites are solely responsible for the number of dead hives each winter?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Just to throw s**t in the game: 
a commercial guy, migratory, told me: "that everyone he knows loses half his hives every year and that was true before varroa." 

This has to be taken in the context of the fact that each hive may get 30 minutes of management a year. Queen loss etc. won't be noticed until spring.

Dickm


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>what are you doing??? You just broke a string of posts by George who was having a conversation with himself. 

Arrgh! Bjorn, I can't help it if you and the guys gang bang this topic while I'm off, making a living! I come home and I got a ton of catching up to do!

>I can hardly type I'm laughing so hard. Sorry George but that was funny.

I'm laughing too









George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>Just to throw s**t in the game: 
a commercial guy, migratory, told me: "that everyone he knows loses half his hives every year and that was true before varroa." 

Exactly! Thanks, Dickm, for bringing this up. Sure, beekeepers can say, "That's just one guy. I know a guy that lost (fill in some low percentage here) before Varroa and loses (fill in some higher percentage here) now because of mites." But what makes the example of a guy losing more hive now than before any more relevant to the rest of us than the guy who isn't losing any more now than before? That's where science comes in. . . .


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>George, I think you're contradicting yourself. You said:

I was having an argument with myself. How could I not? For what it's worth, I feel life is a series of contradictions and if you're not contradicting yourself, you're not seeing all the possibilities.

That said, I don't see where I contradicted myself.

>Based on this, I would assume that all hives will die from mites.

Might die from mites. A lot will. Some might die from something else. Some might not die. When mite infestation levels reach a certain point, they weaken the hive and the bees lifespan is shortened and they become succeptable to a wide variety of diseases and virii they're normally able to ward off. Mites impact honey bees in much the same way AIDS impacts humans. People don't die of aids. They die of pneumonia. Or bacterial infection. Or any number of complications due to the aids virus.

>(trust me, I've helped establish a lot of economic thresholds for a lot of insects).

I don't trust you







I believe you though, and respect your perspective, but you're in bed with them agri-business folks, or so I gather from your comments. I choose not to manage my bees using your definition of "economic thresholds". I ask myself, if I don't treat, will they live? For how long? If I do treat, will they live? For how long?

>Based on what you've told me, the economic threshold for Varroa in your hives is one. You see one mite, you treat.

Hehehe. Don't be silly, it's not economically feasible to treat for one mite







Guess again!

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>- - George Fergusson 

Oh my. Davew is quoting me. That's scary









>**We really don't have a good idea of how big a problem Varroa really represent for honey bees.** 

Jon, with all due respect, please don't include ME in that "WE"







I for one have a VERY good idea of the threat posed by varroa. I've already lost 5 hives to the little buggers this season, and the year ain't over. I expect to lose 50% of my hives this winter for reasons directly attributable to varroa mites. To suggest that I don't have a good idea of the threat they pose is ludicrous. Insulting. No, just silly









In fact, now that I've read your statement again, I do find it insulting! Hehehe.. just kidding! No, seriously! I respect you, you're obviously an intelligent, well educated person, but you don't seem to know much about varroa mites. I only say that because everyone else I've ever spoken to has a healthy respect for their ability to take out hives. You don't seem to have that respect for mite. Perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, I suggest you read everything you can lay your hands on. I have, and I still am. Someone here on this board said "To defeat your enemy you have to know your enemy" or some such statement. I took it to heart.

What do you have for hives Jon, and how long have you had them, and how are they doing? Got mites?

George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Actually, George, in your original posts, you said a hive with mites WILL die. Now you say MIGHT die. I see a big difference. I will agree that mites might kill a hive. I've seen plenty of hives with plenty of mites where the hives are still doing well.

I do want to see all the possibilities. If I contradict myself, too, I guess I'll have to live with that. Have you really considered the possibility that Varroa might not kill as many hives as poor management or bad genetics?

>>but you're in bed with them agri-business folks, or so I gather from your comments. 

I'm not sure how I gave that impression. I'm suggesting that mites might not be as big a problem as a lot of you are suggesting. Big agribusinesses want to sell you the products to kill mites. If I'm telling you they might not be a problem, therefore you maybe won't have to treat with the products the agribusinesses are trying to sell you, how am I helping them out? 

The big agribusinesses really don't like a lot of the results from the research I do. I tend to find results like, corn rootworms are already resistant to the Bt varieties that target them, and, rootworms don't really damage corn as much as you've been told in the past so you don't need to spray as aggressively as you have been, and things of that nature. Not really in the interests of the big agribusinesses. I prefer to help the "little" guys -- the producers -- out. If it doesn't make sense to treat, don't waste your money.

I go back to my comments about mosquitoes: if you die from malaria, did malaria kill you, or did a mosquito kill you?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Actually, George, in your original posts, you said a hive with mites WILL die. Now you say MIGHT die.

Sure. I guess it's the difference between hypothetical and real world scenarios.

>I'm not sure how I gave that impression.

Sorry, I hate it when people jump to conclusions about me, I should be more careful about doing it myself. It was your comment about establishing a lot of economic thresholds for a lot of insects, made me think you buy into that whole paradigm. I'm an organic farmer ex-computer programmer currently timber framer trying to be an organic beekeeper. "Economic" considerations in the production of my food just don't factor in much.

>The big agribusinesses really don't like a lot of the results from the research I do. 

I'm sure they don't









>If it doesn't make sense to treat, don't waste your money.

You seemed to disagree with my initial statement that economic thresholds ought to take into account the replacement cost of the bees, not just the cost of treating vs continued production. Are you saying that replacement cost is NOT a valid consideration in the generally accepted understanding of economic thresholds, and if not, why not?

George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

We seem to keep butting heads, George, on several threads now.

Economic thresholds are established to help producers know when it's feasible for them to spray, or just as importantly, when they shouldn't waste their money. Pesticide companies want you to spray, regardless of whether or not your pests constitute a problem. 

Like I said before, replacement cost is a part of economic thresholds, but by the time you start considering that, your pest problem is way beyond the threshold. Think of economic thresholds as a pivot point: pest levels below the threshold, you spend more money dealing with them than you stand to gain from those treatments; above the threshold, you actually gain by treating, because the amount you spend on the treatment is less than the additional gain in production. Economic thresholds are intended as ways of helping producers optimize their production; if your livestock or crop dies prematurely, you're a long, long way from optimizing production.

The rate at which organisms die because of a pathogen is measured against an LD50. LD50s are the levels of infection/exposure at which 50 percent of the organisms infected/exposed will die. That's how poisons are measured. If you only refer to absolute death of hives, you're talking about LD50s.

You said you lost five hives already this year to Varroa. Do you have mite counts for the hives? I'd be interested to see/read them. I'm not denying that it happened, just trying to satisfy my scientific needs. You see, unless you had an equal number of hives without mite problems and a significantly smaller number of those hives died, all other conditions being the same, you can't necessarily say that Varroa killed the hives. For your purposes, you might have enough evidence, but it's not testable.

What percentage of your hives survive through the winter if they have no mites present? How does that compare to the ones with low mite numbers? How about high mite numbers? What are "low mite numbers?" What are "high mite numbers?" See my problem?


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Jon Kieckhefer . . .

Your "economic threshold" is different from what most (I) understand. I think of it as a "number" that cant be exceeded. Maybe this mis-understanding is widespread JUST in beekeeping.

>I'm suggesting that mites might not be as big a problem as a lot of you are suggesting.

PLEASE tell us more, NOW!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Economic thresholds, really, are composed of series of numbers. Good thresholds account for differences in production, different times of the year, trends in pest populations, etc. 

For example, if soybeans in your area typically produce about 55 bushels per acre, and you count 200 aphids per plant on your soybeans in late June, you may have exceeded your economic threshold. In the same field, if you count 200 aphids per plant in early September, you're probably well below the economic threshold. (All these numbers are fictional; please don't use them for determining whether or not to spray soybeans.)

However, if you're in an area that only produces 30 bushels per acre regularly, your numbers will be quite different (in this example, probably higher numbers of aphids to reach the economic threshold). Economic thresholds can be shown as series of graphs, not just single numbers.

Yes, there's still room for error with economic thresholds. If you exceed the threshold level for a pest, treat for the pest, and something else destroys your crop, you wasted the money treating for the original pest.

To paraphrase, what I keep reading/hearing about Varroa is, "I've got mites! My hive will die from the mites!" I do think Varroa is a problem. A big problem. But I'm not sure that Varroa will kill off hives as certainly as a lot of other people are. If that's the case, the selective pressure on the bees would be very, very high, and resistance or adaptation to the mites should develop quickly. (A bunch of us are arguing about the merits/demerits of selection and evolution and that type of stuff on a thread about the downside to Oxalic Acid on the Disease/Pest board; a lot of the arguments for and against rapid selection have been written out there.)

So, the test of how badly the mites affect the bees should include large numbers of infested -- with various levels of infestation to determine economic thresholds -- and mite-free colonies kept under otherwise similar conditions. Differences in survival and production could then be calculated, and the impact of the mites more accurately assessed. Otherwise, see, you never know if the mites killed the hives or if the cold-to-warm-to-cold cycles may have killed the hives.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>We seem to keep butting heads, George, on several threads now.

It's a small world, and we're just exchanging ideas and opinions. It's why this board is here. I'm enjoying it, hope you are









>You said you lost five hives already this year to Varroa. Do you have mite counts for the hives?

I don't have numbers to compare with Davew's counts. He's got too much time on his hands







I also doubt I have numbers that would satify your scientific enquiry. I had 27 hives this summer and I did counts on all of them once, some of them twice, and others 3-4 times. The hives that died this fall I pronounced dead- the populations had dwindled to the point where there was no use trying to winter them. They all had 24 hour drops on the order of 80-90 mites. I redistributed their stores amongst the other hives. The one that I just discovered dead last weekend was dropping in excess of 150 mites a day in early October.

>For your purposes, you might have enough evidence, but it's not testable.

Yup, enough evidence for me. Nope, not testable









George-


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

George Fergusson . . .

>I did counts on all of them once, some of them twice, and others 3-4 times . . .
>They all had 24 hour drops on the order of 80-90 mites . . .

My guess is they will ALL die of FB









What are your counts NOW?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

You BET I'm enjoying it, George!   I have fairly thick skin, so to speak, but if I weren't enjoying it, I'd just leave it alone.

Nice numbers, and thanks for posting them! Now, unless I'm not interpreting them correctly, the hives that have so far died (6) have had mite drop counts between 80 and 150 per day. What about the hives that still survive? What kinds of daily mite-drop totals were you seeing from those hives?

Yeah, I'm impressed with Davew's counts, too. One hive doesn't mean much from a statistical point-of-view, but why do you suppose his hive survives with such high mite drops? His drop counts seem much higher than yours.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

The question is, "How LONG will they survive"?

They ARE dead hives, waiting to DIE from FB


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Wait a minute!!! They HAVE to die from FB?!? Why can't they die from tracheal mites, or sacbrood, or maybe they could just abscond? Of course, then we would get back into the discussion about swarming (or absconding, in this case) as a method to reduce mite loads.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>What about the hives that still survive? What kinds of daily mite-drop totals were you seeing from those hives?

I have 6 I started from nucs last spring, their drop counts were ever less than 10 per day all summer. I stopped checking them after a while, they're doing fine.

The remainder for the most part had counts between 15 and 45 with a few somewhat higher. I expect I'll lose those with the higher counts. Most of the others should make it through the winter OK.

>My guess is they will ALL die of FB

Merry Christmas to you!

>What are your counts NOW? 

I'm going to start my counting regimen January 1st. Honest! Would I lie? To you? I've got 8 hives on screened bottom boards and so far, they're all still alive. I'll count those. Stay tuned









George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'll confess! I don't count mites in the winter. I don't do anything, unless it's absolutely necessary, to my bees over the winter. When the weather is as cold as it gets here in the winters, I think any disturbance can severely limit the hives' chances of surviving. If the bees freeze when I disturb them, how could I tell if the mites were to blame? Hmmmm...from what I've read on this thread, I should just blame 'em regardless of what else might happen!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I'll confess! I don't count mites in the winter

I wouldn't bother either except that Davew keeps harrassing me about counting mites and I figure it's the only way to shut him up. That, and I'm actually very interested in the data as I've been working on some population models.

George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Will you models include economic thresholds, George?


----------



## Jim Young (Aug 31, 2004)

Varroa mite treatment threshold in Southeastern Oklahoma. 

A beekeeping friend, operating about 75 hives, and I evaluated and treated his hives for Varroa mite infestation. This evaluation and treatment was conducted in September 2004. CheckMite strips were used on hives requiring mite treatment.

Colonies were sampled by collecting 100 plus bees from brood comb in a jar of alcohol and counting the mites from the wash. 

Colonies with four (4) or less mites per 100 bees produces excess honey; whereas, colonies with five (5) mites or more per 100 bee produced very little surplus or no honey. Thus, colonies exhibiting five (5) mites or more per 100 bees were treated with CheckMite strips. 

Colonies with 14 or more mites per 100 bees exhibited a rapid decline in bee population and produced no excess honey; however, after CheckMite treatment, the colonies recovered. All treated and untreated colonies produced excess honey in 2005.

In 2005, most of the colonies exhibited zero mite drop counts in screened bottom board collection pans. However, a few hives dropped between one and five mites periodically over a week period. Thus, the colonies were not treated for Varroa mites in 2005. The colonies will be monitored in 2006 for Varroa mite infestation; and perhaps, the treatment threshold will remain the same if Varroa mite infestations must be treated. However, before the hives are treated in 2006, an alcohol wash will be conducted on each hive.

Jim Young


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks for the info, Jim! I'm curious about how you determined which hives to treat in 2004 and which hives to leave alone in the first place. You said even untreated hives produced excess honey in 2005; I assume any hives with less than 5 mites per 100 bees were left untreated?

Any chance any colonies with more than 14 mites per 100 bees were left untreated to check survival rates? I know that's hard to do for hobbyists, and I'm not recommending that you or your friend do it, but I would be interested in the results from an experiment like that.

Thanks again for posting your numbers!


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Jon,
Five years ago I started 8 colonies from packages and fed them all summer. They went into the winter with plenty of good feed. The only treatment I used was FGMO which didn't apparently work. All the hives died in the winter. Make of that what you will. No counts available.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm not sure what to make of it, Dickm. That's a terrible loss, no matter how you look at it though. Sorry to hear about it.

Eight colonies, and all died. I assume, even without mite counts, that these hives did have mites? You say they had plenty of good feed -- how much per hive? What type of bees were you using, and how populus were the hives going into the winter? Even with plenty of food, if you have tiny clusters of Italians, I'd expect they would die over the winter.

On the other hand -- and I know this will draw a lot of fire from some on this board -- any chance the FGMO treatment killed them? Did you leave any without treating to see what effects the treatment might have had? Maybe your treatment worked, only it worked on the bees.

Again, the problem is that the hives died, but what else do we know about them?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Jon,
All healthy with 80# of feed. All large boomers. All italians. All in double deeps with wndbreaks etc. I just didn't handle the mites. 
Many people were using FGMO and I never heard of a negative effect on the bees. It may at least be good for trachael mites. I now preach: "Be prepared to deal with mites or don't get bees."
Anyone could do it with Apistan or Checkmite...until they hit resistance. I wouldn't do what they told me.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I now preach: "Be prepared to deal with mites or don't get bees."

Well said! I'm not advocating ignoring mites, just trying to throw a little caution into the discussions about the effects of mites before they get blamed for all our problems. Are Varroa are problem? They can be. Should we blame them for every hive that dies? I don't think so.

I've encountered beekeepers who haven't managed their hives properly, then simply blamed mites when the hives die. It's an easy way out, and the beekeepers don't have to assume any responsibility for their shortcomings (human nature).

What I've said all along on this thread about mites is, "Where's the evidence of mites?" The hives that I've seen that have been killed by Varroa are left with thousands, or like other have said, tens of thousands, of dead mites on the bottom boards. In the ones I've seen, I've also seen some mites around dead bees, mites in the comb, etc. I don't see that in the pictures bschmidtbauer has posted. Therefore, I question pinning the blame for this dead hive on Varroa.


----------



## Jim Young (Aug 31, 2004)

<Jon Kieckhefer> I'm curious about how you determined which hives to treat in 2004 and which hives to leave alone in the first place... I assume any hives with less than 5 mites per 100 bees were left untreated?

Hives producing an average honey crop exhibited a count of 4 or less mites per 100 bees; and, hives exhibiting a count of 5 or more mites per 100 bees produced considerable less or no honey crop. Therefore, my friend decided to treat any hive exhibiting a count of 5 or more mites per 100 bees with CheckMite strips in an attempt to prevent any losses to Varroa mite infestation and attempt to increase 2005 honey production in the infested hives. So far, the plan worked because no hives were lost in 2004 and 2005 due to Varroa mite infestation and the unproductive mite infested hives produced an average honey crop for 2005. 

<Jon Kieckhefer> Any chance any colonies with more than 14 mites per 100 bees were left untreated to check survival rates? 

My friend is more concerned about honey production versus the survival rates of bees heavily infested with Varroa mites. Therefore, he treated all hives exhibiting high mite counts per 100 bees because in past years he has experienced the loss of hives due to exceedingly high Varroa mite infestations. 

Perhaps, someone may be able to secure a grant to determine the survival rates of hives infested with high numbers Varroa mites when the hives are left untreated.

Jim Young


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Very good! The numbers are small, and the differences might not be statistically significant, but your friend has begun to establish his economic thresholds. I much impressed that he has based his numbers on honey production rather than survival -- that's a mark of an "economic threshold" rather than an LD50.

Again, I appreciate hearing about his observations. Please keep us posted on how things work out, both winter survival and honey production in 2006!


----------



## bourdeaubee (Dec 23, 2005)

If mites can be killed by using alcohol then would fermented honey or mead kill or diminish the mite population also?


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I'm not recommending that you or your friend do it, but I would be interested in the results from an experiment like that.

There aren't too many beekeepers, hobbyist, sideliner, or commerical that is going to play russian roulette with his hives in the name of science, especially when their experience and understanding tells them that if they don't treat a hive, it will die. And why should they? Just to satisfy the curiosity of someone else?

I'm all in favor of controls in experiments, but I'll leave sacrificing perfectly good hives in the name of science to the scientists. I wish they'd get busy









>I've also seen some mites around dead bees, mites in the comb, etc.

For what it's worth, I didn't see any mites on dead bees or on the combs in my deadout today. I saw some on the top bars, and plenty on the bottom board- there were more mites in the hive than there were bees.

I think mites got `em







Pictures will have to wait until I get a new camera.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>If mites can be killed by using alcohol then would fermented honey or mead kill or diminish the mite population

We want to kill the mites, not the bees.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>For what it's worth, I didn't see any mites on dead bees or on the combs in my deadout today. I saw some on the top bars, and plenty on the bottom board- there were more mites in the hive than there were bees.


Yep. I would expect that in a hive killed by mites. You'll notice I said "mites around dead bees." Note the AROUND, not "on." Like I've said before, though, I would expect to see a lot of dead mites in a hive that the mites killed. You confirmed that you did see a lot of Varroa. Therefore, I would agree with you -- mites got 'em!  

Do you remember my comments about bschmidtbauer's hive? I pointed out that mites were very scarce or entirely absent (depending on whether or not you want to count "blobs" as mites even if you couldn't actually tell in the pictures) in his dead-out. I said I wouldn't be too hasty in blaming Varroa as the cause of death, especially since I didn't see much evidence. The general tone I've heard on this thread is, "Blame Varroa, whether you see evidence or not. Clearly they were the cause of death."

So, I ask, why do you see George's hive with a lot of dead mites in it and bschmidtbauer's hive with few if any dead mites as similar causes of death?


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>why do you see George's hive with a lot of dead mites in it and bschmidtbauer's hive with few if any dead mites as similar causes of death?

Maybe the hive showing a lot of mites hadnt had them removed. The bschmidtbauer hive MAY have had a lot of mite too.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Good point, Dave W. The mites may have been removed from bschmidtbauer's hive.

If he had enough mites to kill the hive, though, I'm surprised he wouldn't have noticed them. I know they're small, but they're not invisible. If I found a dead hive, opened it, and found even a few dozen critters the size of Varroa, I would be very suspicious about what the things might be and whether they might affect my bees!
For what it's worth, bschmidtbauer did notice and mentioned in his original post the fecal stains on the top bars and on the comb.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Kieck . . .

Just from this thread (I mean no disrespect), Im not sure he was "aware". Many have a hard time learning to identify Varroa the FIRST time.

>fecal stains on the top bars and on the comb . . .

Please explain.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Dave W,

What I meant wasn't that he should have identified them as Varroa, but that I would expect most any beekeeper to recognize a pile of dead (whatevers), no matter how tiny as long as they're still visible, as being different. If you found a dead hive, and notice a bunch of parasitic wasps, for example, each about half the size of a Varroa mite, on the bottom board, wouldn't you wonder if the wasps were related to the decline of the hive?

I lifted the comment about the fecal stains from bschmidtbauer's original post. The sentence read:

>>There are fecal stains on the comb/top bars so I'm thinking dysentery or nosema. 

What I was suggesting was that bschmidtbauer was observant enough to notice these fecal stains. If he took time to notice that, I would expect him to notice dead mites in the hive, too, even if he couldn't identify them as Varroa.

Michael Bush mentioned on another thread that the hives he's seen that have died from Varroa infestations have been littered with thousands or even tens of thousands of dead mites. That's been my experience, too. I have never encountered a hive that died because of Varroa mites (and I've seen many) that didn't have a pile of dead mites on the bottom board as well as dead mites around (not on, but around) clusters of dead bees. Most of them even had some dead mites still on the comb. The lack of evidence of Varroa from bschmidtbauer's hive tells me that something else was largely responsible for the loss of the hive. I'm not sure why so many people want to disagree with that opinion and insist that Varroa was responsible for the death of this hive.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I will only say that I haven't seen a clear picture of the bottom board of bschmidtbauer's hive. The only mites I saw in my hive were on the bottom board. There might have been a few on the top bars, don't recall seeing any though. I don't even know if bschmidtbauer knows what a varroa mite looks like. He probably does.

As for fecal stains, I didn't see anything like that on any of the pictures of the combs. Did you Jon?

It's all just speculaton at this point. I suggested mites as a cause because of the appearance of the brood which looked like evidence PMS, to me at least. If there are no mites found in the hive, then all bets are off









George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I didn't see anything that I took to be fecal stains on the comb, either, George.

Again, my point was that bschmidtbauer wouldn't need to know what a Varroa mite looks like. As long as he noticed a whole lot of, well, whatever they might be, does it matter whether or not he could identify them? If you found a whole lot of what appeared to be purple salt on the bottom board of one of your hives, even if you couldn't identify it, wouldn't you wonder what it was? Same goes for the mites -- with the numbers that I've seen on the bottom boards of hives killed by mites, I think almost anyone would notice them even if he isn't looking for mites. 

I guess honestly I didn't notice any brood in the photos. I saw a few dead pupae that were partially pulled from their cells, but that was it. Hopefully we'll hear back on the tests from bschmidtbauer's hive soon.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Hopefully we'll hear back on the tests from bschmidtbauer's hive soon

Amen. I don't care to speculate on what bschmidtbauer saw or didn't see and what he thought or didn't think. I'm pretty sure that what I saw is what you think I saw but I'm not sure that what I thought is what you think I thought.

It's bed time.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RESULTS<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well, I'm at lake of the woods right now, but at home I got the results and over the phonefrom home i apparently have American FoulBrood on the comb and the bees have varroa  URGH... Now I could have a problem... When I bought the bee eqiptment from the guy I put 2 deeps on the hive that died, and 1 deep on my other 2 (along with supers for these 2), and they seemed to be fine. Now do I have to expect that all of my hives have FB? I suppose I do (and all of the supers that are in storage right now) is there any way that I can find out if there are FB spores on just the comb that is in storage? URGH that would be a waste of money (Oh well... more where that came from







) when I get home I will post what the actual letter said. thank you all... Now I have another job to do... I get to burn my hives (That's new)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Too bad about the results. But at least now you know. You gotta be careful when you buy used equipment. There is a reason it wasn't being used and you may have found out why. The hard way. Do you think that there is any way that the original owner would realize his responsibility and refund your money. Or at least part of it.

Yeah, I can hear the laughter and see you all rolling on the floor. I still hold out hope that people are good at heart and that given the chance they will do the right thing. If they can. I'd like to think that I would.

Mark


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

sqkcrk: Thanks, yes, I hope I can talk to the guy a bit and see. He said that he bought out a beekeeper a few years back, than he got about 35 hives, and he only runs 5 or less every year. I'm gonna give him a heads up that he could have FB too. I don't know if he inspected by the state either. He seems like a pretty nice guy though so I'll keep my fingers crossed! Thanks


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Sigh. AFB *and* Varroa. Shoulda seen that coming. In the real world as in the computer world, it is not uncommon for 2 or more things to go wrong at the same time. At this point, what actually killed them is irrelevant- the hive was clearly doomed.

Anyways, sorry to hear it bschmidtbauer. It's our worst fear, but it's nothing to be ashamed of and it's not the end of the world. It is however quite likely that most if not all your equipment is contaminated with AFB spores. Start over, start fresh, and move on. I would expect that the person you got the equipment from is due for an inspection sooner rather than later. I would certainly appeal to his sense of duty in this matter. Good luck, I look forward to hearing the "official findings" and thanks again for being so forthcoming on this matter.

George-


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Terrible luck...sorry again about your hive, bschmidtbauer. Don't let this situation drive you away from bees. Like George said, start over and start fresh. Buy new equipment, if you can, and find some bees, either local nucs or splits or order packages. If plan to order package bees, I recommend getting your order in as soon as possible -- packages are selling out fast this year.

Thank you again for posting your problem and letting us all take a whack at it. Cases like this help all of us by testing what we know and how we apply it. We all run into problems, but most of us never admit it.

By the way, what part of Minnesota do you call home? Depending on how things go this winter and how far away you are, I might be able to give you a split to help you start up again.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Just another question: I have eqiptment stored with the "contaminated" equiptment and that is just foundation (mostly plastic frames) can I use that or do these spores "travel" from place to place (which would mean burning I guess) Thanks


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Just another question: I have eqiptment stored with the "contaminated" equiptment and that is just foundation (mostly plastic frames) can I use that or do these spores "travel" from place to place (which would mean burning I guess) Thanks


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

bschmidtbauer, you may not have to burn the wooden components. I had a case of ABF a few years ago and had the hive tops, bottoms, supers, brood chambers, and plastic stuff (like queen excluders, feeders) fumigated by the NC state bee keeping association - perhaps this could be done in Minnesota? I burned the wooden frames and wax comb. I think you should fumigate and keep the plastic frames. If your other hives survive until spring, I would move them into the fumigated equip and monitor very closely for AFB (you can always destroy them if it shows up again.)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Etholene Oxide(ETO) fumigation may still be available in some states. ETO is highly carcinogenic so be careful. Some states offer radiation treatment. Ask your inspector. Any method of control can be expensive. One has to decide where to put ones money.

No spores don't move. They are in the honey and on the surface of the comb or equipment. That's why burning the combs and honey and scorching the wooden ware is the most commonly required or recommended procedure once AFB has been detected in a colony of bees.
Mark


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

The form as it was sent to me: http://home.earthlink.net/~bschmidtbauer/id11.html
To contact my state inspector do I have to be registered? I was planning to do it but I was going to increase my number of hives so once I ordered my packages (depending how many on price) I was going to send the form/money in. If they do have it is it to late to treat with Terramycin? Also, is the honey I extracted from my two hives (not the one that died) still edible (for humans) if It has AFB spores in it? We have eaten some of it naturally, but should we burn the rest if it possiblly contains spores?
Thanks Oh...also it appears that mites weren't a HUGE problem (I sent in a 1/2 pint jar of bees)


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>also it appears that mites weren't a HUGE problem (I sent in a 1/2 pint jar of bees)

Bschmidtbauer, I wish mites were the problem. Oil well, chalk up another misdiagnosis









FYI, the honey from the hive is fine for human consumption.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If they do have it is it to late to treat with Terramycin?

The problem is that Terramycin won't kill the spores.

>Also, is the honey I extracted from my two hives (not the one that died) still edible (for humans) if It has AFB spores in it?

Yes. It has no effect on humans.

>We have eaten some of it naturally, but should we burn the rest if it possiblly contains spores?

Eat it.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

So...The honey that is left over in that hive I must burn or can I extract it and use it for HUMAN CONSUMPTION ONLY not to spread it to other colonies, and then bleach all of the etracting equiptment or is it to risky? Thanks


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I would extract it and eat it. I'd try to keep it seperate. I'd try to clean up well, of course. Burning it is probably just as likely to end up with some honey the bees would rob as extracting.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If you are going to extract the honey just wash your equipment like you normally do. I'd think that bleach would be excessive, especially since it doesn't kill the spores. All you are doing by washing your equipment is getting what ever spores might be present soemwhere where the bees aren't likely to come across them.

As far as burning your frames, before or after extracting, do so in a pit in the ground so you can cover the residue with dirt. A deep hole of 18" is preferable. Also to keep bees from getting to any left over honey. If you can't dig a hole, try using a steel drum. Once all of the equipment is burned and COLD, bag it up and send it off with your trash. 

Mark


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

> Bschmidtbauer, I wish mites were the problem. Oil well, chalk up another misdiagnosis


On who's part? It was obviously FB. And in addition mites could very well have been the problem because they make the bees more susceptible to FB.

And what's with the witch burners out there? The hives and equipment should be fine. Destroy the come with signs of FB and treat all the bees regardless of whether they are showing symptoms or not.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Obvious Tim? Unless you saw photos that I didn't nothing was obvious. Not to me anyway.

As far as the "witch burners", which witches are which? The diseased colony's combs should be burnt to minimize any further exposure to the spores of AFB that are still in the residual honey. The boxes should be scorched so that the charred interior can be removed by scrapping, after scorching. Also done to minimize exposure to AFB spores. Inner covers, covers and bottom boards too. These can be scorched with a hand held blow torch, readily available from your local hardware store.

The rest of the colonies should be inspected, at least by the beekeeper(if compitent at IDing AFB), for signs of AFB now if possible. For sure in the spring. And especially those colonies that die between now and spring. To avoid further expense and exposure problems.

By the way, in case you though I was, ain't no one panicing here. This is just standard operating procedure for the folks that I know.

Mark


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>On who's part?

Well, on my part obviously. I didn't initially rule out brood disease, but as the battle lines were drawn, I felt compelled to retreat to the mite side of the street.

>It was obviously FB.

To you at least. Congratulations









Does AFB typicallly kill off a hive so quickly? I didn't think so at least not in early winter when brood rearing is limited. That was one of the reasons I looked for a more plausible explanation for it's relatively quick demise. I'm also not convinced mites weren't a bigger problem than indicated by the lab results- you don't find many mites on dead bees.

Perhaps it's a moot point. They had AFB. They had mites. They're dead.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

Here is my plan Will this be okay?
1. Extract Honey that is left
2. Clean all Equipment
3. Burn all frames and comb from dead hive and all frames/comb that I bought used that are in storage (where I most likely got the disease).
4. Fire all of the supers/brood chambers in a stack with gas (as described in ABC/XYZ Bee Culture) Scorch all Bottom Boards, Inner covers, Telescoping Covers, and Stands.
5. Repaint all fired equipment
6. If another hive dies later on send bees to lab and possible burn that hive too just like above i fit has AFB.
7. If they live (or 1 lives) treat with it/them with Terramycin every year.
Thank you for your input


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Perhaps it's a moot point. They had AFB. They had mites. They're dead.

Yep, everybody was right and nobody was wrong. R.I.P.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Your plan sounds solid to me, bschmidtbauer. Better luck in the future!

I'd like to learn a little something more from this example: what were the symptoms visible in the pictures that made this example an "obvious" case of AFB? I saw the performated, sunken cappings, too, and thought it could have been a case of AFB, but I'd like to know what signs or symptoms any of you used to be sure AFB was involved. (I'm not intending to slight anyone or sound sarcastic; I really do want to know what characteristics clearly pointed to AFB.)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

bschmidtbauer, DON'T USE GASOLINE!!!
Kerosene is much safer.

You may already know this, but I'll say it anyway.
To scorch supers:
1.Place bottom board on the ground.
2.Place a sheet of newspaper on the bottom board.
3.Stack some supers, upside down, on the bottomboard.
4.Dribble some kerosene around the top inside edge of the top super. Enough to get down to the paper.
5.Light the paper from the edge that is sticking out of the entrance end of the bottom board.
6.Stand back and watch it burn for a while. It'll burn with a whomping sound like the chimney fire that it is.
7.Before the fire burns through the handholds, carefully so as not to singe your eyebrows, place your outer cover on top of the stack. This will dampen the fire,
8.Knock the stack over, using a shovel. Roll the supers around with the shovel. They'll soon stop burning.
9.Let them cool.
10.Scrape the insides, down to new wood or until you think you've done enough.

This is all moot if your equipment is in such poor shape that it won't stand up to a fire like this. Go ahead and have a weiner roast with those.

Have fun and BE CAREFUL,
Mark


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kieck,
Until you've had the oportunity to tell someone that their colony had AFB when it didn't(according to lab analysis) you won't fully appreciate MY caution at diagnosing something that I didn't have in my hands. There are other conditions that "could" appear to be AFB. So I was more interested to hear what the final verdict was. As you were too, I believe. I didn't see anything to gain, except bragging rights if I had been correct, as Tim turns out to be. Tim got there first, so clearly(or should I say obviously) he's the winner.

Mark


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The problem is that chilled brood and a failing hive from other causes can result in sunken cappings too. But sunken cappings like that should always be a warning and you should do a rope test and/or a holst milk test. I wouldn't burn a hive without confirmation. It could be chilled brood or Parafoulbrood.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Sunken cappings, oily look to capped comb surface, punctured cappings, presence of brown viscuss or gluey mass on the wall of the cell, black scale on the wall of the cell, the smell of a glue pot of hide glue, rope test of brown viscuss liquid. Once you've gone through all of these a swab from the cell or a section of comb sent to the Beltsville Bee Lab will verify your field diagnosis. If it's your own hive and you are confident in you analysis, go ahead and burn.

Mark

If I left anything out I'm sure someone will let me know.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

The trick with the chimney fire method of scorching boxes, which Mark eludes to but doesn't quite say is *scorching* them well without burning the daylights out of them.

When I do it, I just stack them neatly in my driveway (mine is gravel, don't do this on asphalt) and have a shovel and a lid or piece of plywood handy to cover the top. Toss in 3-4 pieces of crumpled up newspaper. Dribble in some kerosene. Jimmy up the side of the stack with the shovel, and light the newspaper. The trick is to know when to put it out. It doesn't take too long.. when you're ready to put it out, pull the shovel out to close the draft and put the lid on. It goes out pretty much immediately. It might not if your boxes are sitting on a bottom board, but it won't take long.

The first time I did it, I pretty much ruined the boxes but they weren't great to begin with so it wasn't a great loss. What you're looking for is a good char all around. Once the fire gets going and the flames are shooting out the top, it is only a matter of seconds really.

George-


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

George,
I agree with what you said here.
I think that you should review Steps 6&7.
Especially step 7 in which I say, "Before the fire burns through the hand holds,...."
Otherwise yeah, what you said.
I like to do this procedure on the bottomboard so it gets heated and you have a place for the paper to be accessable. You still have to do a more thourough job on the bottom board though.

"The trick is to know when to put it out."
That's for sure. It takes some practice. Which as an inspector I get during my inspection season. Since I've been doing this for quite some time now, supervising the beekeeper that has AFB equipment to burn, I've gotten to know beekeepers on a different level. There is nothing like a good fire to bring people together. It's almost like a Hindu cremation or an Irish Wake, sometimes. Some of the folks, who I have supervised, take it quite maturely. While others still try to resist and avoid the inevitible. The disease, when present, is either going to get you or you are going to get it, ie get rid of it by burning.

Mark


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Have any of you seen a cell or two that could be "roped out" ....that wasn't AFB?

Dickm


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yes, extreme cases of varroa infestation cause a condition that looks like, smells like and ropes like AFB, but not quite. I've only experienced this once. Lab verification came back negative for AFB. That's probably the main reason that NY State verifies all field diagnoses, to be sure. Even though field diagnosis, here in NY State, have been 99% accurate for years.

Another thing that may have eluded some of you is that the font for BEE SOURCE BULLETIN BOARD is in Bees Knees font style. Isn't that neat. I've thought about using that style of font on my truck door lettering.

Mark


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

I have another queston now; I burned 10 supers and 6 Deeps of comb yesterday and got them buried, but since it is almost positive that I have FB in the other 2 hives to get totally rid of it should I just burn all hives-even those that are alive? My plan would be to burn all of the comb/frames (possiblely extract the honey) and then fire all of the boxes and also scorch cover, inner cover, bottom board, and stand, and then repaint it all. What exactly would Teramycin do? It doesn't kill the spores, right? so the equiptment would still be contaminated right? also does it make a diference if one have has a MN Hygenic Queen? Thanks


----------



## carbide (Nov 21, 2004)

According to the state bee inspector in my area; "All hives have FB spores in them". Actual FB outbreaks are related to stressed hives, i.e. hives that are under stress due to v mites, t mites, lack of available forage, lack of ventilation, etc. If we were to kill all hives that have FB spores in them, we would have to kill them all. A sampling of retail honey in Pa. (I believe it was three years ago) from over 2000 stores confirmed FB spores in EVERY sample. 

Terramycin is supposed to help prevent an outbreak of FB not cure it. I would not do anything with the remaining hives unless they showed signs of active FB. I certainly wouldn't take the drastic step of destroying them.


----------



## bschmidtbauer (Feb 28, 2005)

My little stroke of genius  : To be a bit safer I tried using a big torch that we have (500,000 BTU for burning weeds) on the boxes and it seemed to work great. Why don't other people do that? I think it would be a lot safer and easier than stacking them and lighting them on fire with kerosene. Thanks


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Most of us don't have a half million BTU torch around.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

back in the days when I made a living as a welder, we had what we called a "rosebud" tip to go on an oxy/acetylene torch
we used it when we wanted to heat stuff rather than cut it (the standard tip is a "cutting" tip)
I know not everyone has access to a torch but I suspect lots of folks here do
I would think that would do an excellent job
very easy to control

Dave


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I like the torch idea for scorching woodenware. I wonder if a propane torch or MAPP-gas torch wouldn't work just as well, just take longer to get the process done? After all, as long as the temperatures are high enough to scorch the wood, they should destroy FB spores as well.

Thanks for the answers, guys, about the FB symptoms, too. I already knew the rope test, and, even though I've never tried it, I knew about the milk test, too. I was hoping for an answer from Tim in particular; something in the photos (not a smell or a test or some scale way down in the cells) convinced him that this was a case of FB. I'm not saying that I would use it as a way of confirning FB, but I'd like to know what he used to make his diagnosis with so much certainty.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> like the torch idea for scorching woodenware. I wonder if a propane torch or MAPP-gas torch wouldn't work just as well, just take longer to get the process done? 

It will kill the FB spores just as well. But it's MUCH quicker to fire a stack of boxes with some newspaper and diesel fuel.


----------

