# Do "Strong Hives" Die from Mite loads?



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

In the thread about Live and Let Die, Stonefly7 wrote:

*"...I don't do mite counts either, not interested. The weak ones are weak for a reason."*

This made me think about the parasite/host relationship, and the idea that in many instances, an imbalance in which the parasite overwhelms the host is caused by weakness in the host - that the parasite serves the purpose of weeding out weakness. I find with my houseplants, that the appearance of a parasite is often the sign that I have over-watered, or the plant isn't getting enough light, and that my error has made it weak, allowing the parasite to gain the upper hand.

I said in the same thread that I do not believe that all colonies who have mites will ultimately die because of them, but that is a theory at this point.

Many would suggest perhaps, that the situation we are seeing now - with so many bees dying from mite-related issues - is due to the overwhelming strength of the parasite, in contrast to a host which is not accustomed to the pest.

But is this really the case? 

My questions are aimed primarily at those of you who have had enough experience with treatment free colonies I guess, but I'm interested in all perspectives.
*
• Will a truly strong colony succumb to mite-related issues? 
• Or do these strong colonies tend to find a balance and maintain lower mite loads? 
• Or does it really appear to be random? Do you find really strong, thriving, productive colonies that just nose-dive and die due to mite issues? 
• Do Treatment free failures tend to be "total", where all colonies meet a similar fate, or do the failures just tend to be cumulative, or of too-high-a-percentage for the individual beekeeper to tolerate?*

Adam


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I cannot answer most of your questions definitively, but in my experience, large prosperous colonies do not "crash" or "collapse". They dwindle first, a process that may take 1-2 years. My large prosperous colonies tend to stay that way over the course of several years and may eventually wane or may maintain their status. I am not talking about first year colonies.

As to the last question, large loss rates tend to be at the beginning of a program and diminish over time. There have been other modes, as Specialkayme can attest, but I have not seen them personally.

I interpret prosperity to be hand in hand with mite resistance if prosperity exists. I have not seen a diseased (in any sense) hive do well in producing honey.


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

I've seen the strongest colonies crash and die off, fall into winter. I figure strong colonies have more brood so have more mites? I've also had stronger colonies fair just fine over the same time period with less to minimal mites in them... so go figure. Treatment free vs Treating, I've done both, lost hives both ways. I think over all management practices play as large of roll as just "Treating" by itself.


----------



## jimsteelejr (Sep 21, 2012)

I really feel that chemical (hard treatments) treatments are not the way to go. Poisons are usually toxic to the host as well as the parasite; it's just a matter of tolerance.
Fatal doses of chemicals are usually rated at LD50 (the lethal dose that kills 50% of the exposed test subjects) so a mite might have a LD50 of 1 microgram and a bee 50 but that does not mean the stuff is not toxic to the bees. So any toxic chemical affects the bees in some way. Soft treatments like powdered sugar reduce the mite populations with out affecting the bees. I already see bees that are genetically resistant to the mites. Those are the colonies that we need to requeen from. But in the mean time we need to keep our other bees going until we can requeen with them. So treating with soft treatments keeps us in business short term but long term we need to breed for resistance.


----------



## Tony Rogers (Oct 18, 2012)

Adam, mites do attack and kill strong hives. Here is the reason why. If hives are not tested and treated for mites the population of mites grows exponentially, just like your honey bee population. As the season ends several things happen, queens slow their laying to prepare for winter, drones are kicked out, the laying of drone eggs slows and then stops and mite populations continue to increase. All this results in higher mite populations per worker bee cell going through the roof. The mite levels grow to a point larva never forms into a bee or very deformed bees from wing deform virus carried by the mites. I know from personal experience one can have full blown hives in August, to nearly dead hives at the end of September/October. I will treat from now on. It's really the moral thing to do if you think about it. What would you do if animal had ticks, lice, flees? Although it's true we can seek out mite resistance honey bees, I'd rather not risk the economic loss again, nor have mite attached to the back of my honey bees sucking their hemolymph(honey bee blood). When this happened to me, I realized I need to treat and to break down my hives into nucleus boxes so the remaining colony would have less space to heat. I also lined them up in two rows, back to back, with space to create a channel. I put two inch risers on each nuc to lift the lid and placed 1 inch insulation under the lid and laid 4x8 insulation board across the top of the hives. I treated my bees with the Oxalic acid drizzle method and which seemed to have worked rather well. Lastly I placed a ceramic heater in the channel between the hives and plugged it into a thermo cube that turns on and 35 degrees and shuts off at 45 degrees.


----------



## xcugat (Mar 4, 2008)

Yes they do and have for 20 some odd years since the mites came to the US--this is not a new phenomena. I have seen strong hives that SEEMED HEALTHY collapse in less than a month exactly at this time of year in my area from mite infestation. I say SEEMED HEALTHY because unless you do some kind of a mite count, you really have no Idea what the mite load is--waiting for deformed wing virus or other symptioms late in the stages of the mite infestation are usually found too late to take action.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Do not confuse "strong" (as determined by the beekeeper) with "fit" (as determined by nature).

deknow


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

deknow said:


> Do not confuse "strong" (as determined by the beekeeper) with "fit" (as determined by nature).
> 
> deknow


and "fit" hives would not be mite ridden and full of virus.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

being that the varroa mite is a relative newcomer on the scene, the definition of 'fit' is being refined.

my view is, that we are in a position to 'help' the bees as they struggle to adapt.

synthetic miticides have been shown to leave toxic residuals in the wax, and aquired resistance to them has been documented. for me, these are off the table for my personal operation.

and now that i know that successful treatment free beekeepers tend to use requeening as a method to select for mite resistance, 

i am still not seeing the reasoning for not ridding the hive of mites with a noninvasive 'soft' treatment prior to the requeening.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> ...i am still not seeing the reasoning for not ridding the hive of mites with a noninvasive 'soft' treatment prior to the requeening.


Depending on the 'soft treatment', I still wonder what the total effects are. What is the total effect of oxalic acid? What is the total effect of essential oil? The problem I keep coming back to is do we really understand what the total effect of the actions taken to combat mites? Are we doing harm in places we're not seeing?

Killing mites is not succeeding. The mites do not appear to be getting anything but stronger. 

Adam


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Once strong colonies may die from varroa infestation, if that's an answer. I imagine there is a critical mass ratio between bees and mites and the damage they do getting the upper hand on the colony.

Adam,
I don't know or understand everything as well as I might aught to, but, I believe if a person uses a rotation of treatment materials one will find the most benefit. If any resistance is created then it would be to the rotation I guess. Some folks believe that not treating buildfs a population of bees that can deal w/ the mites, to oversimplify.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Mark,

The there is so much information out there, but it doesn't lead to many clear conclusions. So I don't claim to understand or have a great grasp of much in this regard myself. But a constant schedule of treatment suggests that the bees are always 'sick', and that's basically true.

Tony Rogers asks "...What would you do if animal had ticks, lice, fleas?"

Well Tony, I understand your analogy to a point. But if say, my cat had ticks to the point of near death, every season, season after season, I'd be looking to change something other than just killing ticks. I'd question where I lived, or perhaps think about keeping my cat inside, or inside during part of the year, etc. etc. 

It isn't the presence of the parasite, it's the consistent presence to the point of killing the host. It's the consistent imbalance that's notable here - an imbalance that is proving deadly to the bees, and crippling to the beekeeper.

Adam


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Depending on the 'soft treatment', I still wonder what the total effects are. What is the total effect of oxalic acid? What is the total effect of essential oil? The problem I keep coming back to is do we really understand what the total effect of the actions taken to combat mites? Are we doing harm in places we're not seeing?
> 
> Killing mites is not succeeding. The mites do not appear to be getting anything but stronger.
> 
> Adam


adam, you have a knack for asking really good questions.

i believe the effects of the treatments you mentioned and some others are covered on randy oliver's site.

i committed a couple of weeks last winter to go through all of his papers, and plan to do it again soon for a refresher. do you have an opinion on this work?

for me, as i am not an expert in this field, i have to rely on those who are experts for information. and, as with any science, the understanding changes and evolves with time and new discoveries.

i am curious as to why you say 'the mites do not appear to be getting anything but stronger'.

i am too new at this to know, but it seems to me that i have seen opinions to the contrary suggested here from time to time.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

deknow said:


> Do not confuse "strong" (as determined by the beekeeper) with "fit" (as determined by nature).


I like fit. Strong is good too. I have had quite a number of fit hives which were not strong, never made honey, but wouldn't die either.




squarepeg said:


> my view is, that we are in a position to 'help' the bees as they struggle to adapt.


It's my position that most of what we do ultimately hurts rather than helps.




squarepeg said:


> i am still not seeing the reasoning for not ridding the hive of mites with a noninvasive 'soft' treatment prior to the requeening.


What would be the point? You'll remove the new queen's stimulus. She may appear to do really well and then mites take her down. On the other hand if she is tested from the beginning, she won't be fooling you when she does well.




sqkcrk said:


> I don't know or understand everything as well as I might aught to


It would make this whole beekeeping thing a lot easier if someone knew everything about it.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

>>It's my position that most of what we do ultimately hurts rather than helps.

i know it is sol, and i respect your position.

i believe it is possible to help more than hurt.

it's the old risk/benefit ratio. i imagine a scenario where the new queen might be great under 'normal' circumstances, but doomed to fail if the odds are stacked against her right off the bat. plus, her offspring won't be around for a few weeks anyway, so they may never get a fair chance to be tested.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Tony Rogers,

As much as I like my bees I really don't consider treating for mites a moral thing to do. If my pet dog or cat needed treatment for something that wasn't going to get better on its own, yes I would seek treatment for it. I honestly don't look at the bees that way, and I don't consider the income I derive from bees as more important than the bees themselves, but I am committed to producing treatment free honey and wax for my customers, so this requires I don't treat, I don't make any more of it than that. John


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

john, how long have you been treatment free? can you describe your methods? do you have many losses?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Been a livestock farmer much of my life. I view my bees as another variety of livestock. they are around for a purpose and it's my job to help them produce as much as possible. Mites, virus and other diseases should be treated if possible to maximize profits. Without profits there won't be many bees left.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

If that's the case Cam, you're in the wrong forum.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> ...randy oliver... do you have an opinion on this work?...
> i am curious as to why you say 'the mites do not appear to be getting anything but stronger',


Beekeepers the world over are throwing everything from cow urine, to nematodes, to essential oils, to organic acids and 'hard chemicals' at mites and have been for 20 years, and just about every hive of bees has still got mites. The should've called it _varroa indestructable_.

I have read a number of Randy's articles with great interest. Just as I have read articles and listened to the findings and opinions of others. He seems like a smart and thoughtful person, just like most of them do. The problem is that all these smart people come to conflicting conclusions. That means that the only way to find out what works or doesn't work is to try it for yourself. But trying everything takes a lot of time. So what if we aim more at NOT doing stuff? That brings me to trying to reduce my activities as much as I can, and follow an approach which basically says:

"Whenever you can choose a path that the bee would take without you, choose that one."

So if it is possible that the bees can work it out with the mites without me adding some mite killer, then I have to try to allow for that. If I wasn't around, the bees would have no oxalic acid or essential oils, or formic, or MAQS. Would they live on their own? They may not, and after some time losing my bees to mites, I may decide that I can no longer choose that path as a beekeeper. But the truth is, I have never really tried not treating before. I have just taken everyone else's word for it, and believed that they would die. I have never seen for myself.

I believe that the bees are still quite a ways beyond our complete understanding. If that is true, then anything we're doing to help could just as well be hurting.

If that is true, then it seems logical to make as few human interventions as possible. Less is more. 

The challenge then becomes finding out how little is too little.

Now, a lot of people might say that the path I've described is "something we all want". But I think a lot of us only pay lip service to that kind of approach. The truth for a lot of us is that we like to *do* stuff with the bees. We like to be active and involved with those bees! Just look at the stuff we do: landing boards, pollen substitutes, queen excluders, all kinds of feeders, all kinds of feed, instrumental insemination, swarm prevention, foundation, large cell, small cell, plastic, styrofoam hives, heaters, ventilation, moisture absorbers, navigation aids... it goes on and on and on. We're excited by the bees and we want to "help" them and "improve" them; maximize, increase, produce...

All of this is well-meaning and for many, the pressures of necessity are there as the bees are tied directly to their income. All of this makes plenty of sense from the human perspective.

But which of these "improvements" or inventions has actually made life harder on the bee? Any of them? All of them? If so, how?

No, I don't think that a minimal approach is the norm for beekeepers. If any of us were really of a mind to let things alone, we wouldn't be beekeepers. Beekeepers mess with the bees to one degree or another by default. I'm guilty there for sure. If anything, I feel that a minimalist approach is something some might get to once they have a great enough depth of experience to reach it. I'm making it a goal to work toward.

I'm just trying to find a balance point where the bees at least appear - to my own deepest and truest judgment - to be unharmed by my interest in them.

Adam


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

jmgi said:


> Tony Rogers,
> 
> As much as I like my bees I really don't consider treating for mites a moral thing to do. If my pet dog or cat needed treatment for something that wasn't going to get better on its own, yes I would seek treatment for it. I honestly don't look at the bees that way, and I don't consider the income I derive from bees as more important than the bees themselves, but I am committed to producing treatment free honey and wax for my customers, so this requires I don't treat, I don't make any more of it than that. John


John if it could be proven that your mite treatments could not be detected in the honey would that change your mind or are their other reasons you feel treating may be, as you put it, "immoral"?


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Jim, Where did you get the word "immoral" in my post, please point it out to me? John


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

nice post adam.

and really, i think most of us share your frustration about the lack of concrete information ,as well as the diametrically opposed approaches.

on the other hand, and especially for those who like a challange, like to tinker, like to experiment, and figure things out, beekeeping appears to be the perfect pursuit. 

my view is that since apis cerana has evolved to the point that the host/parasite relationship has found equilibrium, there is every hope that it's european cousins will do the same.

i feel that is where our bees find theirselves today, in the process of establishing that equilibrium. they are obviously delevoping traits that help them be resistant. those traits are becoming more common in the feral population, and are being selected for by beekeepers.

this is the way i see us helping the bee. 

to your op, from what i read, strong hives are every bit and maybe even more vunerable to varroa collapse. this is because you end up with many more mites in the hive, that gang up on the remaining bees as the population dwindles.

you asked in another thread, 'what have you learned this season?'. for me, too much to post here, but up there near the top of the list would be to know the mite counts in my hives. without that, you are really shooting in the dark.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What do you expect? We are dealing w/ an organic natural system. Tell me how to reduce the Divorce Rate in humans. You'll get all sorts of different opposing answers I suspect.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

True enough, Mark. But you won't get much of an argument going over how to deal with Polio, or about what causes a thunderstorm...

Some things about the world we have a pretty solid grasp on. Most things we don't, I suppose. So I'm not terribly surprised by the lack of consensus on things surrounding the bee, it just took me a while to see that was the situation.

I'm not critical of the situation; just trying to figure out what path to take myself with so much conflicting information. This situation is not uncommon for a relative beginner in anything, but that fact does not make it any less perplexing, or worthy of discussion.

Adam


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

another point that i picked up on, when re-reading randy's stuff, and having to do with strong hives collasping, (and this is paraphrased from what i gleaned):

it is not in the parasite's long term interest to totally wipe out it's host, because it needs the host to live off of, this is what is meant by parasite/host equilibrium.

with a. cerana, this equilibrium has been reached, and the mite is no longer the threat it was.

with the european honey bee, there has not been time for equilibrium, and the mite continues to collapse colonies.

the primary mode of transmission for the mite, is by attaching itself to robbing bees, thereby hitching a ride to a 'new' colony.

allowing hives to die out, and get robbed out, selects for mites which end up collapsing the colony.

if there were no managed bees, and as the mites eventually killed off all of their potential 'new' colonies, the mites would have to adopt a strategy of not completely devasting a colony to survive, and thus, 
parasite/host equilibrium would be achieved.

if this is true, it suggests to me that we might be selecting for more virulent mites, if we allow the colonies to totally succumb to them, and especially if they are picked up and carried to other colonies.

so my strategy will be to not allow any dead outs from mites if i can help it, and i see no other way to accomplish that other than taking mite counts and acting proactively to prevent the spread.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

I've read that too.

Which means that in a natural situation (or one without human intervention) the genetic selection of the mite favors mites who don't get so strong as to overwhelm their host. It isn't just the bee who is at risk. The bee must select to deal with the mite, and the mite must select to accommodate the bee that it needs to live.

In the treated scenario, the mite is selecting for offspring who can deal with the human attempts to kill it, and is kept from killing it's host by the treatments. So there really isn't much natural selection for mites who don't kill the host, and when treatments are stopped, the bee is having to deal with a very strong "over-breeding" mite. So the imbalance is perpetuated.

At least, that's the theory...

You take it and run with it or you don't. I'm running with it at the moment.

Adam


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

yes, treating can select for mites who can survive the treatment, and deprive the bees of the opportunity to evolve resistance on their own, and in the end, slow down the emergence of parasite/host equilibrium.

it took a. cerana and varroa 150 years to work it out. can we afford to wait?

jmho, but it looks like the best thing we can do to the help process along is selecting for bees with the right stuff, back them up when needed, and not let the collasper mites spread.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Why would killing mites keep bees from developing mechanisms to deal w/ mites? Not enuf impact from mites?


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Adam, I recently asked one of our top bee researchers about numbers of wild honeybees left in the wild (Canada). I was surprised that no one has made that a topic of study, but in any case, in most of the country he felt the consensus was that they are gone. Here and there in warmer pockets there is anecdotal evidence that feral colonies are surviving, but he was skeptical...feeling that it is hard for casual observers to differentiate between colonies that survive year to year in the same location vs. colonies that use a great bee spot, but die off every winter, and then the spot is re-occupied by a new swarm, likely from a domestic kept hive.

This means we have to ask the question, at least here in Canada, whether honeybees would survive if we withdrew beekeeper management (of Varroa in particular).


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

There's always a lot of speculation on feral bees and their health, yet so few real comprehensive or inclusive studies to consider. And that makes sense to me, in that I think it would be pretty hard to find a large enough sample, over a wide enough geography to get a true sense of their condition.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Why would killing mites keep bees from developing mechanisms to deal w/ mites? Not enuf impact from mites?


In a word, yes.

If a colony is allowed to crash, most of the bees and mites die, the exception being those that have drifted to another colony.

So the influence of mites genetic line that totally kills its host population (and so, its own population) is reduced.. it is a smaller part of the gene pool. That's how it influences the _mites,_ and promotes equilibrium.

Where the bees are concerned, any genetic unusually susceptibility to, or lack of defense against, mite parasitism is eliminated, as far as tht particular colony's influence is concerned. The only exception would be if that drifted worker found herself in a queenless hive and became a drone layer, and so passed on its "mite related weakness".

By not treating, we select for mites that do not destroy their host, and bees that are resistant or tolerant to mite infestation.
By treating, we select for mites that destroy both their host population and their own, and for mite susceptible bees.

A guy like you, Mark, would almost certainly sustain crushing financial losses by not treating at present.

But if us small guys overcome the challenge of having the susceptible bee genes and "suicidal" mite genes distributed by all of the bees by you big guys, and can develop lines that are not economically damaged by mites by taking the losses and select for the opposite, we can then provide queens from that stock to commercial people. 
And that could put you in a position where you could requeen with bees from that stock and stop treating without committing economic suicide.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

jmgi said:


> Jim, Where did you get the word "immoral" in my post, please point it out to me? John


John: I think your quote "I don't consider treating with mites a moral thing to do" would equate exactly with treating being immoral. Not trying to be difficult here but perhaps you could clarify or correct as needed.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

how ya been jim? i read it to mean that john was saying he wasn't treating because he felt 'sorry' for the bees, and felt a moral obligation to end their suffering. i guess you could take his statement a couple of different ways.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

When I first heard about Varroa and tracheal mites, it was connected with the prognosis that my hives would die within three years, without treatments to suppress the mites. At first I believed the prognosis, I even began making plans to use treatments to save my hives. Then I realized I had already been keeping bees, at my present location, for more than a decade, without treatments, and without a single lost colony. It's been more than two decades now, and still no losses due to mites. I know that my bees have Varroa, I see one every once in awhile. Fortunately they don't seem to be the scourge they are reported to be.

I often wonder why my experience with mites seems to be so different.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

that's awesome joseph. i know you raise your own queens. have you brought in any new blood, or just raising from your best ones?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

At first I just did a cut out from a neighbors home, then I did as many walk-away splits, each year, as possible. Back then the bees were probably highly AHB -- they were quite difficult to manage, so I determined to requeen with gentler bees, with cordovan coloring. 

Since then I obtained a few Italian Cordovan queens from Koehnen's, then raised daughters from them to requeen all my colonies. Later I purchased a few more queens from Koehnen's to continue raising Cordovan daughters, and then I purchased some from Pendell Apiaries, and most recently from Russell Apiaries. It's been a long while since I kept any of the local, possibly AHB colonies. I use combinations of different comb types in my hives, PF120, Ritecell, but mostly foundationless. I have continued raising queens, thanks to the inspiration provided by those original AHB colonies, I learned that I have a knack for queen raising.

I keep hearing how untreated colonies will perish, from Varroa, within a few years. I'm still waiting to see that happen, not that I am anxious to actually see it.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

that's a neat history joseph. i guess its reasonable assume that some of the good ahb traits got mixed into your queenlines via the drones. which of the russell lines did you get?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

SunKist Cordovan.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Joseph - I think one factor in your experiance with mites may be your location. Research shows mites do not survive as well in warmer hives. We stopped painting hives light colors and went to darker colors as one aspect of our IPM. Although we do not have any direct examination that we correlate directly to this as a succes in our operation the research was good and we felt it important enough to do it with the knowledge we would be losing some production to workers working to keep the hive cool as a trade off. You might be seeing a result of higher hive temps due to region reducing mites. May be other factors as well relating to relative humiditiy etc. we don't know about. In our area, heavy with flora, we know mites get transferred from bees visiting "infected flowers" and mite transfer via this road. Although small factors the combinations may be a "natural" defense for your area. We could talk about the influence of AHB in your area as well and their impact.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> There's always a lot of speculation on feral bees and their health, yet so few real comprehensive or inclusive studies to consider. And that makes sense to me, in that I think it would be pretty hard to find a large enough sample, over a wide enough geography to get a true sense of their condition.


There is at least one, that I know of. It was done in my country by a government funded project to try to produce a varroa tolerant bee. Because of the stories of beehives that had been in some place "for 12 years", or similar, the team decided to investigate this to see if there was any useful genetic material for their program. They advertised in newspapers asking people to report feral hives, and around 80 were reported. They were checked and 30 of them were suitable to monitor, cameras were set up to see if occupation was continuous. Of the 30 hives, every one of them had died within 12 months, although some had been replaced with new swarms.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

very interesting oldtimer, thanks.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> Of the 30 hives, every one of them had died within 12 months, although some had been replaced with new swarms.


We had one a couple summers back. Homeowners said that hive had been in the eave of the house for years and years. By chance, we met the prior owners, and they confirmed, bees in that eave for _at least_ the last 25 years. So, we started watching it more carefully. By november, no activity at the entrance. Nice sunny march day, our hives beside the house were flying, lots of cleanup, big piles of dead bees on the ground in front of the hive. Out to check the eaves of the old house, nothing. Late may, when we were first starting to watch our hives for swarm preps, guess what, we got a call. The bees in the eave had 'woke up for the summer', and sure enough, lots of activity.

Just because property owners think the bees have been there 'forever', doesn't make it so, as we discovered.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

How long feral colonies survive here has also intrigued me.

I've been tracking, mapping, and mining feral colonies that I've found catching swarms, making sure to check them every couple of months for activity. 

Lost 1 out of 1 collonies I found from two years ago, 3 out of 5 from last year, and 3 out of 9 from this year. 

Worried homeowners are a bigger problem here than the mites though, for instance a couple of weeks ago I went by to look at a thriving colony that I've caught 4 swarms from in the last 2 years only to find the whole tree completely gone.  


Don


----------

