# Mites Have Pushed Me To The Edge... I'm Jumping



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

good for you! it's what i've done and i feel quite successful. all my bees didn't die and they're even expanding.
another thing i've done is i've stopped grafting from limited hives i decided were best. to many of them would be boomers one year but not the next. this also lets the bees make more choices and do more of the work.
now i split from all hives. those that can be split multiple times have gotten split multiple times through out the season.
so in a way those that are more vigorous expand while those that aren't don't.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

I feel your pain. I exchanged e-mails with the state apiarist for Maine yesterday and his mantra regarding mites is "test and treat." I have some yards that I will be doing that it in. I have two yards of Russians that I won't be treating, but they made hardly any honey last year and if they don't make substantial honey this year I will end that experiment. I just this week ordered 8 packages from Bee Weaver to see what these survivor bees are all about. They won't get treated and as best I can do I'll leave them alone. I won't look to get any honey out of them this year - but next they'd better produce. I'll be posting details of my adventures with survivor bees on my web site.

Please keep us posted on how things end up for you with your new focus. I for one will be eager to hear how it goes.


----------



## woodguyrob (Jul 29, 2010)

Adam,

Did you by any chance compare some capped worker brood to your Drone brood? 

I'm a newbie into my 2nd year with an overwintered hive. I watch my girls everyday.This spring I have seen lots and lots of Drone larvae and those more mature with DWV dead or dieing out side the hive. No where near that of the few worker brood bees showing problems. Based on my limited experience the Mites going for the Drone comb seems to hold true. That being said I'm formulating my IPM to include plucking capped Drone comb and interupting the queens laying cycle.


----------



## Mosherd1 (Apr 17, 2011)

Adam, I think that is a fantastic decision. I have recently done the same, for 1.5 years I have been treatment free and have been pleased with the results so far. Still early but so far so good. From everything in the journals and from anecdotal evidence it seems that the people who do not need to treat are the ones that have made the conscience decision to stop treating. I do not think the answer is another chemical, different equipment, or even different IPM techniques, but the answer lies in better bees. If varroa came in the 80's and noone treated anywhere, the bees would have developed a tolerance by now. No way mites would have wiped out the species. So I believe that you, me, and others like us are on the right track. Good work!


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

Hi Adam,
Just make sure you don't have too many mites from July- fall, & you'll probably be fine. This time of year you're queen will hopefully lay fast enough to keep ahead of a mite population exploitation.
We just use powdered sugar with good results, don't know if you have screen in the bottom of you're TBH


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Adam you mention foundation in your TBH. Are some of the TBH combs built on foundation?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Adam you mention foundation in your TBH. Are some of the TBH combs built on foundation?


When I first started the hives in 2010, I got a nuc on plastic foundation in lang frames. I cut them and attached them to top bars to start them. So they had four combs on foundation in each hive. I had two left. I put a new nuc in hive 2 last year, and this time made an insert for lang frames that allows a transition. So that hive has all natural comb in it.

Adam


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Adam, I have never treated so I don't have anything to compare to, but being treatment free and letting them draw natural comb has resulted in no losses due to mites over the last four years. I have had losses due to starvation, those being nucs that I tried to winter over for the first time and did not do it properly, my fault. I don't worry about mites, don't check for them at all, what I am going to do is continue to breed from my long term survivors. John


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK.

Anyhow, your first post is a very honest examination of the current situation, and probably puts into words a point a lot of new beeks come to at some stage.

The "leave the mites alone" philosophy, appears to work for some, but for others has not. As your comb is likely a bit of a mix of types and cell sizes, I'm wondering if the other part of the equation, the bees, could be your best line of defence, ie, requeen with something like Beeweavers, with claimed mite resistance.


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

Welcome to "being off the treadmill".  It ain't bad. Honestly, I think you will be more rewarded in your efforts. I got a swarm three years ago and decided it was an omen. No more chems. That hive supeceded the swarm queen.(not unusual) I still have that queen. I have made splits from her and she is still kicking butt. IMHO, hive health is the main thing. The second thing is to allow nature to decide. If nature produced a hive that survived, there is a statement there. "Think like the bee,,,be the bee." sorta


----------



## DC Bees (Sep 24, 2009)

Adam,i to have stopped treating for three years now.I decided to keep more hives and nucs than i need to help make up hive losses due to mites or whatever may come my way.I have been working with wild stock mostly and they seem to be getting better.Lost two hives to mites last year.If i see a frame with a lot of drone brood i will pull it out,that's all i do.


----------



## Kristen2678 (Mar 21, 2012)

I'm a new beekeeper so I don't have any valuable personal experience to add. I've been reading Kirk Webster's articles. Here is an interesting one on Collapse and Recovery. I think I'll be making the trek to Vermont next year. 

http://kirkwebster.com/index.php/collapse-and-recovery-the-gateway-to-treatment-free-beekeeping


----------



## Steven Ogborn (Jun 3, 2011)

Adam,
I haven't done as much to take care of my bees as you have.
All that stuff with sticky boards mite counts is way more complicated than I want to deal with.
I didn't see any mites last summer. I blamed it on the drought. This spring was a different story.
When the queen started laying for real back in late January, drone brood, not just tiny patches of worker
brood, my bees started pulling them any warm day available. The ground under my hives was littered 
with drone brood in different stages of development. I was wondering if they were ever gonna stop,
or run out of drones to pull. During my latest inspections I've noticed some mature drones with mites
attached to them, but there's also a whole lot of healthy drones in there and flying strong.
I haven't seen many workers that seem sick. These hives built up so fast in Feb. that I couldn't
stop them from swarming. Yes, I guess they got a brood break, but that's all I know of that
could have inhibited the mites apart from their own behavior. I didn't do anything.
I bought an 8oz. bottle of HBH winter before last. Didn't use much of it at all. Probably have
about 7oz. left. I believe the treatment free guys have the closest solution to the mite
problem. The bees own behavior is the only thing that's gonna save them.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> The "leave the mites alone" philosophy, appears to work for some, but for others has not.


Exactly.

I won't repeat my experiences, less I get more rocks thrown at me.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Maybe all the bees will die, but I guarantee that I'll save the cost of nucs in the labor time I'll save - particularly in the area of reading about how to deal with mites.


I understand your frustration, and saying "maybe all the bees will die" may work for you individually, but it isn't a mentality that will work for the industry, or the human race.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> I won't repeat my experiences, less I get more rocks thrown at me.


 Ha Ha! Yes Specialkayme, I have seen your travails! 

Anyway, good to see you back, for a while I thought you had gone for good!


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> for a while I thought you had gone for good!


Real close.

I decided just not to contribute as much . . . and stay away from the treatment free forum entirely . . . at least for now.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> I understand your frustration, and saying "maybe all the bees will die" may work for you individually, but it isn't a mentality that will work for the industry, or the human race.


You're exactly right. And please don't take this as some kind of rant against anyone's preferred way of doing things. It really boils down to me personally being sick trying to figure out the mites, and running into so much conflicting information - and just feeling like I'm trying to understand something that can't be completely understood. My comments on the bees possibly dying are in reference to my own bees - and I am a hobbyist. That means my living isn't tied to them.

At this point, I'm not going to try and tell anyone how they should keep their bees, or manage their mites. I am totally NOT into any kind of "us against them" thing in beekeeping. I think everyone is doing the best they can to do the right thing. And I completely empathize with people who really can't figure out what that is. This decision is about my own frustration, and letting go of the need to fully understand the mites and the bees. 

I'm just going to leave more of it in the "hands" of the bees, and see how things go. 

Oldtimer. I'd love to get some of those genetics going. But we are in a closed border situation here. That's part of the specific dilemma of this region.

Adam


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> That's part of the specific dilemma of this region.
> 
> Adam


How do you know you are not better off?

Some people believe you have to be a biologist to raise bees. I think that is silly. Bees don't need humans. That is like saying mosquitoes need humans. If you have the will to keep bees then you will keep bees. If you are trying to make a business at it you are talking a different story. All most anybody could be a carpenter, a plumber, a painter, a mason or an electrician but if you want to be in business at it, different story.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Not that we shouldn't be concerned about mites, as with any other disease or pest of honey bees, but I think that the bees will ultimately take control of the mite problem without treatments if given a reasonable chance to do so. Why don't we try to control a honey bee problem without the use of chemicals for a change? How about starting with preventing the starvation of thousands of colonies every year? This is something that we have a great amount of control over as beekeepers whether we realize it or not. Are we making a serious effort to manage our hives to avoid winter losses completely? I am tired of hearing that treatment free beekeeping for mites is stupidity of the highest degree. If that is true, then why are winter starvation losses not looked upon as stupidity also? Let's control what we can control, and let the bees control what they are more capable of controlling, keeping in mind that none of this can happen in a blink of the eye. John


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

No, Acebird. You don't have to be a biologist to keep bees. It's just that most beekeepers become ametuer biologists of sorts. As well as becoming ametuer at a number of other things, like carpentry, accounting, etc.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

adam, maybe your successful build up this spring is partially due to your late summer/fall knockdown with the oxylic acid. this will be my third fall and winter coming up, and i have had really good overwintering here even though i haven never treated for mites.

i am planning on doing mite counts with an alchohol wash bee shaker after i harvest the spring honey. i want to compare brood expansion and honey production to mite loads.

if i find that a weaker hive has a lot of mites, i plan to kill the queen, treat with hopgaurd for three weeks while they get a brood break, and requeen from a hive with low mite counts/good brooding/good honey production.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So I closed them up and then sat down with a couple of sharp tools and that drone comb in the sun. I opened every one of the cells and pulled the brood. Tons of mites. Tons. One thing that saddened me was how easy it is to miss them. The brood is easily destroyed, and it's white ooze will easily disguise a mite and you'll miss it. Another thing that I saw for the first time were white immature mites. In the bright sun, I saw a lot of them, and I had never noticed them before. pulling drones during an inspection and without really bright light, you'd never see them and count one adult mite, and miss the several others. Bottom line: Even if you're pulling drone brood, chances are you're not seeing a lot of the mites that are actually there.

True, but most of those immature ones won't be viable as they have to mature and mate BEFORE they emerge. Still a lot of mites in drone brood is a pretty good indication of a lot of Varroa.

>The bees know what they're doing. And with all the lack of clear understanding, and the impossibility of finding it in the collective wisdom of other beekeepers, I think it might be time for my beekeeping activities to turn as hard as they can in the direction of getting out of the bees' way.

>I've been paying more attention to mites than bees and I'm tired of it.

I've been there. I'm happy I'm haven't worried about them in almost a decade.

Here are some quotes from Kirk Webster you might find interesting:

"In a few different venues, I've given a presentation called Making Varroa into an Ally. The first is of Sir Albert Howard, the British agricultural scientist who gave voice, direction, and an intellectual framework to the modern organic farming movement. (I've written about him before, in the ABJ—June 2006.) After a lifetime of work, one of his principle conclusions was that pests and diseases should always be seen and welcomed as friends and allies, not as adversaries to be destroyed. Their real purpose, he concluded, was to indicate where our methods, crops and livestock are weak and unbalanced, and to show the pathway to restored health and vitality. Within a few years of the arrival of tracheal mites it was clear, in my apiary, that this principle was active and easily usable in honeybees. Still, I wondered if it would apply in the case of Varroa, which was so out of balance with its new host, and with so little co-evolution. The good news is that now I am convinced that these ideas apply in this case also—the process just takes quite a bit longer to run its course. I have no doubt that Varroa will, in the end, be an enormous help to both honeybees and people—as they both struggle to adapt to a rapidly changing world. It has been a great trial, privilege and thrill to watch this process at work, and it convinced me that Nature really does have all the answers, if we can just learn to be humble and ask the right questions. “How can Varroa help to restore health and balance to beekeeping and agriculture?” is a much better question than, “How can I kill the little buggers?” Utilizing Varroa this way is not a mystery to me anymore. It's not a mystery to Kent Anderson, (Ky.); or Chris Baldwin, (S.D.); Dan Purvis, (Tn.); Dee Lusby, (Az.); Danny and Binford Weaver, (Tx.); Hans Otto-Johnson, (Norway); Erik Osterlund, (Sweden); John Ke-fuss, (France); and I'm sure to many others who are not as visible."--Kirk Webster

"And now I have another terrible confession to make. Not one as bad and un-American as passing up short-term gain and investing in the future-but still horrible: I have never yet counted even a single sample of mites from any of my bees. I consider counting mites as a way of evaluating Varroa resistance to be fraught with all sorts of shortcomings and difficulties. It's very time consuming and hence the size of the apiary, the number of colonies tested, the gene pool, and the income available all start to shrink. It's also very easy for the results to be skewed by mites migrating from other colonies or bee yards. And it doesn't show which colonies are more resistant to secondary infections- a trait I consider very important."--Kirk Webster


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

Kristen,
Thanks for the article post. Excellent. Have to check out some more of his writings. It makes sense to me. Looks like a rough wagon ride to be on. I may have "stumbled" into it. I hope.
Good luck and best


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> It's also very easy for the results to be skewed by mites migrating from other colonies or bee yards. And it doesn't show which colonies are more resistant to secondary infections- a trait I consider very important."--Kirk Webster


:thumbsup:I like it, I like it alot.


----------



## tsparkman69 (Aug 18, 2010)

I feel your pain, I went from around 80 hives to about 12. I have chosen a different route. I started with SBB, sugar dusting and all that "natural" stuff and went the oppsite route. I *was* just going to treat just once "to knock the mites back" and re-queen to interupt the cycle and resume but.. As I am in Florida our season is about over until late summer/early fall, I did a roll to check after almost all flow is over and *full of mites again*. I am currently treating again with some of the stuff I had leftover from lasttime so what is left will be strong enough to make it until winter where I plan to treat again with different chemicals before they slow down for the three week winter. I tried treatment free and just delayed the crash. Now I am going to try the otherside and see if that works better and cross my fingers. I hope that I winter better this year or I am Done!


----------



## theriverhawk (Jun 5, 2009)

If you're less than 3 years into having bees, you probably won't see the total loss of bees yet. It's after 3 years of no treatment that things begin to fall apart. Buddy of mine here in AL has been treatment free and lost almost all his hives to mites this winter/spring. The mites just finally caught up to him in the 4th year.
The only real "treatment free" process that I have seen work is outbreeding the mites via splits and new queens in the MDA Splitter plan. If you can make each hive queenless at least twice a year, you can almost beat the mites by not giving them a brood cycle to lay in. Notice I said "almost". We'll always have mites. It's just a matter of find the manageable level.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

tsparkman69 said:


> I started with SBB, sugar dusting and all that "natural" stuff and went the oppsite route. I *was* just going to treat just once "to knock the mites back" and re-queen to interupt the cycle and resume but.. ..I tried treatment free and just delayed the crash....


See, I think this is where a lot of trouble lies: The whole definition of "Treatment free". The truth is, anything we add or subtract from the hive is an unnatrual treatment. Sugar dusting, oxalic acid, removing the drones, adding essential oils - any or all of these things could be causing some sort of imbalance that we do not understand. That's why I'm heading this way.

My first efforts were with essential oils. I thought that things like thyme oil just had to be okay because they're "natural" - but they're not. Not in a beehive. They're just another bit of chemistry. And they're going to alter the chemistry of the beehive. And who am I to know what the implications of doing that are? Beekeepers don't know - they can't agree on anything. There's are reason for that:

We don't *know*.

So why keep flailing around in a mess of things I don't have a clue about? Any one of my efforts could be ruining them. 

For those of you who have gone truly treatment free - as in NO treatments of any kind - how did you transition? Suddenly? Or did you change over time?

Adam


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

theriverhawk said:


> If you're less than 3 years into having bees, you probably won't see the total loss of bees yet. It's after 3 years of no treatment that things begin to fall apart.


For me it was just the opposite. High loss of bees the first 2-3 years and then things came together and I've never looked back.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

If I am reading some of these posts correctly, one could simply pinch the queen every year and break the breed cycle of the mites? Does anyone do this with success?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

lazy shooter said:


> If I am reading some of these posts correctly, one could simply pinch the queen every year and break the breed cycle of the mites? Does anyone do this with success?


I do.....sort of. We have a large migratory operation and have gotten by in recent years with spring requeenings and just a fall treatment of oxalic and/or thymol treatment yearly with good success, virtually no chance of honey or comb contamination. That's just me though. For the record and trying to read between the lines of Adam's op I think he has made the best choice for himself and what his goals and expectations are for his beekeeping venture. One more observation that I think is pertinent since Mike Bush chose to extensively quote Kirk Webster. Kirk uses the Baldwin operation (that roughly parallels ours) as part of his argument for being treatment free. According to him Baldwins claimed losses of 2/3rds of his operation in one day in the South Dakota 120 degree heat. I remember that summer very well and the almost unbelievable heat. The bees certainly underwent a lot of stress but I don't remember losing any of our hives as a result.


----------



## tsparkman69 (Aug 18, 2010)

if the mites let me that is my plan with a "sot chemical" treatment


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>For those of you who have gone truly treatment free - as in NO treatments of any kind - how did you transition? Suddenly? Or did you change over time?

Fairly suddenly. I was already used to not treating for anything when I started losing them to Varroa. Finally in desperation I used fluvalinate. It worked the first year and failed the next. When they all died WHEN I treated them and since I had finally found a few people who were succeeding at not treating by using small cell, I started regressing. I fogged with FGMO the first year. Then, as much to test the success as anything else, I use oxalic acid every week for three weeks after the brood rearing stopped to see what would I would find and I got very few mites. But the trend was interesting. I don't have the numbers in front of me now, but the numbers were in the low hundreds on the first treatment. The next it was 80% or less of that one. The same for the next. So the knockdown was impressive. That was the last time I treated with anything. So I used two things in the interim and have not used anything since. I had no major collapse once I stopped treating and got on small cell and natural comb. In fact I try to inspect all losses looking for signs of Varroa being the cause and cannot find many Varroa at all.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

So should one treat while regressing? Is it too much to expect the bees to survive a sudden stop in mite treatments?

If it might take a while to regress them to smaller cells, should one combat the mites in the meantime? I have 5.1mm foundation. Is that something that could be useful?

I ask because my top bar bees have the smallest cells at 5.2mm. So they would benefit from another generation of new combs. Such regression can take a while without plastic small-cell.

Adam


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael, not to belittle the effects of small cell but were you also doing crush and strain for harvesting? I am wondering if new white comb makes it harder for the mites to hide. I assume you cycle out brood comb (that could be a wrong assumption) what is your cycle?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So should one treat while regressing? Is it too much to expect the bees to survive a sudden stop in mite treatments?

I can't see that treating did much.

>were you also doing crush and strain for harvesting? 

No.

>I am wondering if new white comb makes it harder for the mites to hide.

It was new comb at the time as I was regressing.

> I assume you cycle out brood comb (that could be a wrong assumption) what is your cycle? 

Never.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Really, you never replace comb in your hives?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> So should one treat while regressing? Is it too much to expect the bees to survive a sudden stop in mite treatments?


This is really an individual choice. One can do it either way. I decided to go cold turkey and stop all treatments. I got rid of all my wax comb and started with my own clean wax. I didn't want to then get any chemical residue back in the clean wax.



> If it might take a while to regress them to smaller cells, should one combat the mites in the meantime? I have 5.1mm foundation. Is that something that could be useful?


I let the bees combat the mites. Most of them (bees) lost the first two years.


----------



## wolfpenfarm (Jan 13, 2009)

Well what i am doing is if i have a hive that has mite problems, i go to my top bar and grab some larvae and make a new queen for the hive. I have a ferel hive that i have had for 2 years which has never been treated for mites, or anything. They just grow and produce. These are my strongest resistant hive. I have another hive that is also mite resistant that is a carny, and i am splitting them off into russians. Not sure how they will be afterwards but we'll see. In the end i might have only ferels and carnys. But i do not treat the hives. I do if i think mites might get a foothold dust them with powdered sugar, and i'll also put in a screened bottom board.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Adam
I feel exactly the same - I overwhelmed by contradicted information regarding ANY aspect of bees. Being a scientist, it is very stressful (to me) to be in the position when situation is not "under control"... I learned a lot from bees already and main wisdom I got from them - "we know better"... yes, it is not acceptable to industrial beekeepers... but I am not. I am an amateur bee-enthusiast and keep bees out of curiosity and amusement by their social skills. Also, it seems to me the industrial approach is totally different from amateur. We (amateurs) could afford to pay more attention to the bees, observe them and try to help them in their own way. Industry is industry, it is all about business (no affence, but I am very bad at business)... Good luck with your bees and keep us posted. Sergey


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Not dissagreeing with anything anyone's said, it's all valid.

But a word about the "bees know best" philosophy. It's a nice little catch phrase, but that doesn't make it true.

We, especially when we are beginners, often put bees in unnatural situations, leaving the bees no recourse. An example would be somebody who takes too much honey off the hive in fall, leaves them with not enough to be liveable, then says "I don't believe in feeding the bees, I don't want any weak ones who are not survivors". I have seen that scenario or similar on beesource numerous times.

So it is with mites. Varroa mites are not natural to our honey bees. So, how would our bees know what to do about them? Point of fact, for the most part, they don't. Just watch a hive with varroa mites crawling on the bees. It's frustrating. We think, why don't they just chomp those mites? But they don't, cos they just don't know.

I often hear it said, "I don't believe in putting anything in my hive that wouldn't be there naturally". Well, varroa mites are not there naturally, we put them there. 

The other thing, humans are intelligent animals. Bees are creatures of instinct. I have no problem, when seeing a problem the bees are not equiped to deal with, of applying my intelligence to help them out.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Oldtimer
I agree with you. "Bees know best" is too simplistic. But my personal problem is that I feel hopeless when trying to help them. I am trying to be a good bee-host. I read approximately 100 (Yes!) books, the oldest was at least 150 years old (and still popular in England). I searched the Internet tirelessly to find answers... One example - I noticed increased "aggressiveness" in my bees after any bee-hive inspection (invasion). 95% experts (Internet, local bee-organization, a few blogs...) suggested to re-queen. I was about to do so and then just figured out that it basically means to kill the existing colony and replace it on another, supposedly better one. Wait a minute, the whole purpose of my beekeeping adventure was to preserve survivor local bees I inherit from my neighbor. If I shall kill them and replace on "proper" one, what is the point? So, I left my bees alone and, magic - after week or so, they are back to normal - very gentle and busy with their own business, so I could sit next to them and observe them - exactly what I needed! So, if I follow numerous experts suggestion to requeen, at this moment my bees will be gone... this is what I mean under "Bees know best" ... but, I totally agree with your position. Sergey


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> I have no problem, when seeing a problem the bees are not equiped to deal with, of applying my intelligence to help them out.


As long as "help them out" by default doesn't mean treat them.


----------



## Aerindel (Apr 14, 2012)

The only advantage I think I have over my bees is size, strength and a wallet. I can move their hive components for them and buy them sugar. Other than that I don't think I can do all that much for them.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Cerezha, well put.




Aerindel said:


> Other than that I don't think I can do all that much for them.


 Oh, there's a lot you can do for them. Wether you do or not depends on what your goals are, your personality, etc.



Barry said:


> As long as "help them out" by default doesn't mean treat them.


Why not? Personally I have no issues treating, other than the cost and time it takes. But again, that's about a persons goals. My own goals are not to treat with anything residual, ie, I don't use anything that stays in a hive permanently. That's out of the hives that I treat, the treatment free hives get no chemical treatment, as another of my goals is to be treatment free, but first I have to make that work and I haven't been in that long enough yet to know. As per others, the mountain of conflicting info has left me rather jaded about believing what anybody ELSE claims might work for ME, I'm finding my own path.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Why not? Because as you said, that's your personal issue. Someone else may choose to go about it a different way that doesn't start, and may never include, treating with chems. You're following your path, I followed mine that didn't include some of the options you use. That's why default isn't going to be treatments.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Agree fully. If somebody can make it work, all power to them.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Aerindel said:


> The only advantage I think I have over my bees is size, strength and a wallet. I can move their hive components for them and buy them sugar. Other than that I don't think I can do all that much for them.


You can obviously type and use the internet, so maybe you are trainable?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> As long as "help them out" by default doesn't mean treat them.



If there was something wrong that treating would beneficially address, why wouldn't one treat them?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Well I did that for many years and it was only temporary. Next time I had to do more of it or more often. Because there may be other ways to deal with what's wrong without treating. It may not be as fast acting or be a "success" in the short term, but in the longterm actually do better. I guess each of us have to make that decision and do what works for our circumstances.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> ...the "bees know best" philosophy. It's a nice little catch phrase, but that doesn't make it true...I have no problem, when seeing a problem the bees are not equiped to deal with, of applying my intelligence to help them out.


Oldtimer,

You're totally right in the "bee knows best" simplification. Of course, there are times, when they are in our care, when we can see issues that our efforts can easily remedy. And so we step in.

But what I'm finding - and where my present perspective is rooted - is that it once you get beyond the most obvious (ie providing water when there is none; feeding when they are starving) then one rapidly finds themselves in the land of guesswork. How well do we understand the far-reaching effects of our "help" and "intelligence"?

Take the essential oils as an example. On the surface, many people will see then as "natural" and therefore "good". But what do we really know about the chemistry of say, thyme oil? And how many of us can say with certainty that we know that the addition of thyme oil to feed isn't harming some aspect of the bee in a way that is causing harm? My guess is: not very many.

I feel like you can apply the same line of questioning to foundation, to plastics, to mineral oil, essential oils, pollen substitutes, and from there, you can move on into inter-colony trading of bees and brood, all kinds of management approaches, and on and on.

Now, this is NOT to say that any or all of that is bad or harmful. I'm not trying to criticize anyone's approach. But I am saying I do doubt that many people really know the full implications and effects of these and other practices on the bees. So when we're seeing a collapse in the bees - and issues that no one can fully understand or cure - I just feel like that point has to come to the fore.

My own position at this point, in my hobbyist situation, is that in the face of overwhelming lack of understanding, maybe the thing to do is to be as "hands off" as I can be, and to see how that goes.

Given that I'm only a few seasons in, it might be the best way to build up understanding of the bees, so that I can move gradually into more intervention with more confidence as I build my own set of experiences and beliefs. Because it seems that all beekeepers are an island of their own in a way. No one seems to fully agree.

Mike Bush points out on his site that sometimes, if you're in doubt on what to do - then it is often your best bet to do nothing. And maybe if more beginners started from there, our bees would be better off. But the reality is that most beginners begin with a set of gear and manipulations that have come from some beekeeper that 100 other beekeepers would disagree with. We've all heard an "expert" that we thought was out to lunch.

It comes down to finding a starting place. 

Adam


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If there was something wrong that treating would beneficially address, why wouldn't one treat them? 

But what would be beneficially addressed in the long run by treating? You only end up with weak bees and strong enemies.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good points Adam and like most of your posts I follow your reasoning completely. You've made your call which direction you will go, for some this approach has worked so let's hope it does for you.



Michael Bush said:


> But what would be beneficially addressed in the long run by treating? You only end up with weak bees and strong enemies


Not sure that has been proven, unless by strong enemies you mean mites that are resistant to treatment. I don't think they are any more strong in any other way just because they survived treatment, in fact now they have to expend something in being resistant, they are probably weaker in other ways.

One of the few paper qualifications I have is in pest control, when I took a break from beekeeping I worked as an exterminator for several years, and it was an interesting time. Resistance is not quite as simple as it sounds. If you have a population of say, ****roaches, and the building has been treated for several years by an exterminator who always uses the same thing, you'll get resistance. So then the exterminator, if he is not very bright, adds some new chemical to his brew, and eventually you'll have a ****roach population resistant to just about everything. Then he gets fired and a new exterminator has to sort out the mess.

What happens next is a good exterminator will breed out the resistance, and it can be done. You just don't expose that population to a particular chemical for a certain number of generations, and they will lose their resistance. Then, when you finally do use that chemical, it has to be done comrehensively and thoroughly, to devastate that population and leave few / no survivors. Then next time, a different product again is used. So a good exterminator will manage the resistance of the ****roach population and ensure that every time he does a treatment, they will be susceptable to whatever it is he uses that time.

This approach can be used with any pest insect, and I see no reason why varroa mites should be any different. I don't think mite resistance need be feared, nor will it be the end of the world.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Not sure that has been proven, unless by strong enemies you mean mites that are resistant to treatment. I don't think they are any more strong in any other way just because they survived treatment, in fact now they have to expend something in being resistant, they are probably weaker in other ways.

Mites and microbes. They have to have both resistance to the treatment and be able to reproduce fast enough to make up the losses to the treatments.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The suggestion is treated mites can reproduce faster? Doubt there is any cause and effect relationship here, the lifecycle between the two is the same. However further debate on that would be better in a different thread.


----------



## Aerindel (Apr 14, 2012)

> You can obviously type and use the internet, so maybe you are trainable?


Those skills aren't very useful to bees. Most of what I have learned on the internet about bees has been to not listen to what I have read on the internet about bees.



> But what would be beneficially addressed in the long run by treating? You only end up with weak bees and strong enemies


If this isn't true it would make mites the first species known to man that becomes weaker through treatment. 


Every other species we have poisoned as grown stronger. Every human pest, parasite and virus that wasn't totally eradicated in one fell swoop has grown stronger than it was pre-treatment. With a couple exceptions all the old diseases that we supposedly cured are all coming back worse than ever, why would it be any different for the bees?

We're just lucky that mites aren't evolving that fast. We have bacteria now that can develop multiple antibiotic resistances in a matter of hours.

We would probably end up with stronger bees by using pesticide on the bees and feeding the mites than the other way around.

If you ever want to read a really interesting little book on the war on parasites check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Guinea-Tapeworms-Jewish-Grandmothers/dp/0393304264

Be warned though, its pretty depressing. It shows how the vast majority of the time we try to improve the health of a population we make things much worse. Even when you can successful treat one parasite it almost always turns out that the original parasite was keeping something even worse in check.



> This approach can be used with any pest insect, and I see no reason why varroa mites should be any different.


This approach hasn't worked with any pest, but I agree, I don't see any reason why varroa mites should be different.

The science of resistance is extremely simple in the long run.

Evolution rewards survivors. Any treatment that kills the weaker members of any species will make that species stronger, which pretty much means that any treatment that doesn't kill 100% of the treated individuals before they can breed makes that species stronger.

Even if your treatments are reducing the members of that species they are still becoming stronger and someday will overcome your treatment and if you ever stop treating your not just dealing with the original pest, your dealing with something stronger than it ever was.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Aerindel your whole post is bad science.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

It is normal science - the mechanism of resistance described above is proper. Bush is also right - creatures with very short reproductive cycle - adapted to treatments (whatsoever) quicker. Real champion in it is bacteria, but small insects also quick. In contrast, reproductive cycle of bees is from one queen to another queen, a few years - thus, mites will adapt x1000 quicker... Bees are ancient slow adaptable organism. Sergey


----------



## Aerindel (Apr 14, 2012)

> Aerindel your whole post is bad science.


I didn't exactly invent these ideas.

Its really basic science, available in any biology book.

I may be new to bees but I am not new to science. This is evolution at its simplest and there are many many examples of it happening in many species, including our own. I really don't see why bees and their parasites would act any differently from all other organisms in the world.

But I would happily discuss any problems you have with the science I presented. I'm not a trained science teacher so there is a chance I didn't present the concept properly and It was after midnight when I made the post, maybe I'll look at this in the morning and wonder what the heck I was thinking.

Or better yet if there is biology teacher on this forum he can explain it more precisely to the both of us.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK well if we have to debate it on this thread, I'm not disagreeing with the mechanism of resistance. Any fool knows about that.

It's the other rather broad, if populist, generalisations. Such as 



Aerindel said:


> If this isn't true it would make mites the first species known to man that becomes weaker through treatment.


False



Aerindel said:


> Every other species we have poisoned as grown stronger.


False




Aerindel said:


> We would probably end up with stronger bees by using pesticide on the bees.


A good argument to support the use of neonicitiniods.



Aerindel said:


> This approach hasn't worked with any pest,


I've done it, it worked, so it works.




Aerindel said:


> The science of resistance is extremely simple in the long run.


I'm suspicious of anyone who thinks it's simple.Did you even know for example, that resistance can be bred out of an organism? Yes, the broad principles are simple. But libraries have been written on the subject, it can on occasion be intricate and complex. A simplistic understanding does not address all the issues, genetic variants, and interelationships.

However, a proper debate on this subject, to run to conclusion, is probably going to take 30 or 40 hours of my time. How do I know? I've done it all before. I cannot be bothered doing it every time some beginner beekeeper pops up with a simplistic understanding, plus, this is the wrong thread for it.

I will say though, that despite the factual innaccuracies and generalisations, I do know, Aerindel, what you are trying to say and get across, and agree in principle with 99% of it. But when I get told, for example, that methods I used to use profesionally, don't work, when they did, you are denying what I know to be fact so it tells me your agenda / belief system is flawed. Has to be when facts have to be bent to fit it. No amount of online banter can alter the methods I used and that they worked. Or the principles around resistance I employed in the process.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> >If there was something wrong that treating would beneficially address, why wouldn't one treat them?
> 
> But what would be beneficially addressed in the long run by treating? You only end up with weak bees and strong enemies.


Do you manage your horses that way too? Your children, if you have any? Yourself?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Do you manage your horses that way too? Your children, if you have any? Yourself? 

You are starting with the assumption that the treatment will actually do more good than harm even in the short run. That has not been my experience with treatments nor with western medicine.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I hear ya OT. I had no idea that what has been going on for me in recent years is the culmination of all the weak bees and strong enemies that I have created. I suppose I should use the same "worked for me" argument but I really don't feel I have anything to prove by getting deep into a debate. I stated early in this thread that I feel that Adam is making the right decision and that is based on the fact that he was so unhappy with what he had seen in his bees and seems prepared for the struggle that lies ahead. Let's just not try to assume this approach is the right one for every beekeeper with such a myriad of variables out there. I made the decision years ago to try to treat less rather than more with safer rather than harsher treatments but first and foremost to keep my bees alive and it has worked out nicely. Had I made the choice to quit "cold turkey" I have no doubt that the next major decisions about my bee operation would have been made by my bank. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes Jim I think you are a very good example of a good approach. It has been claimed by some that if you treat, you get onto a "treadmill", and only have to treat more and more. 

In fact, your own experience runs counter to this theory. You started out treating with the so called "harsh" treatments, which saved your bees and enabled you to earn an income. But over time you have refined and reduced treatments. This does not fit with the normal anti treatment over simplistic dogma, but in fact is the experience of many in the industry.


----------



## Aerindel (Apr 14, 2012)

> However, a proper debate on this subject, to run to conclusion, is probably going to take 30 or 40 hours of my time


Of course, there are thousands of pages written on this subject.

Hence, the generalizations. I could copy past papers on all the various pest or disease species that have acquired resistance because of treatments but that would take days and its not my job nor am I qualified.



> I will say though, that despite the factual innaccuracies and generalisations, I do know, Aerindel, what you are trying to say and get across, and agree in principle with 99% of it. But when I get told, for example, that methods I used to use profesionally, don't work, when they did, no amount of online banter will convince me I just imagined it.


I think I see the problem. 

I have no doubt that whatever methods you are using work for you. If treatments didn't work no one would use them! This applies to all diseases and parasites.

Resistance, for bee's or their pests doesn't happen overnight and is very hard to observe on a small scale over a short period of time. Even if you have a thousand hives and have been doing it for fifty years that is still small scale by biology standards. 

I would love to defend my generalizations in detail, I've spent a lot of time studying resistant and emerging disease and seen some of the effects of our failed eradication attempts first hand but I think we both agree that would be a waste of time. Just remember that you can count the number of diseases that we have eradicated in the entire history of mankind on one finger and that was with a "treatment" that did kill 100% of the target population and hence made resistance impossible. 



> I've done it, it worked, so it works.


This statement and the thinking behind it represents what I think is perhaps one of the biggest problems in the world today. What it really means is that you did something and what you wanted to happen happened and so you choose to believe that it happened as a result of your actions. Every person who has ever solved a problem could make this statement but *most* of them would be wrong. So would the people who say "I've done it, it didn't work, so it doesn't work" 

In the real world outside of peoples heads its extremely difficult to ever lock down cause and effect. This is why we have science, which is not a set facts like most people believe it to be but rather a system for solving problems in a way that lets you determine the difference between what you believe happened and what actually happens. It works very well for physics at most scales. ( I won't even get started with the things that it seems belief does have an effect on, there is some spooky stuff going on at the quantum level)

However, laws and rules don't work very well for biology. Just as one example their are a large number of commonly prescribed drugs that we have no idea how they work or don't work, chances your already your taking one. We can measure the effects but don't know what is causes these effects or even if its the drug thats causing them or why sometimes it causes them and sometimes it doesn't. I think the biggest benefit so far to come from applying science to biology is all the things that it has shown DO NOT work.

There are so many variables you have to work more in terms of patterns and trends than in outright results. 

And when it comes to treating any pest their are some very definite trends, wether its bacteria, bees, tape worms or people nearly every time we use a treatment susceptible to evolution AGAINST a species we end up with a stronger species than we had before. This works both ways of course but when it comes to adaption the species with fastest life cycle adapts faster. This is why its BAD to stress an eco-system, the small parasitic species adapt to the stress faster than the hosts which is bad if your a human or a human that raises host animals.

This doesn't mean that all treatments are ineffectual. There are some very clever methods for pest control that people are starting to use that lower the population of a pest species without leading to resistance such as sterile insect technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique

But even things like this have not yet been proven to work in the long run.

There is one biological control system that works very well and has worked for billions of years, that is biology itself which is incredibly good at surviving everything the universe has to throw at it. _Apis_ has been around for 23 to 56 million years and has solved enough of the problems it has encountered in that time that its still here today.

The point of all this is that I think that the genetic tools that all life has built in is far more effective at solving its problems than anything we know how to do so far. I have no doubt that bees will eventually adapt not only to mite but to the chemicals we are using on them but chances our the more we push them less they are going to do what we want them to and the more likely it is that we'll end up killing off the kind of bees we like to raise and end up with something less manageable.

Right now honeybees have the great virtue of being one of the few domesticated animals that can still survive in the wild in the environments we have moved them into. Most of our other farm animals would die the first winter we left them on their own in the places we currently raise them and most of them now require humans for their survival to say nothing of our farm crops.

It just seems stupid to do things to bees (or any animal) that gets in the way of this massive unstoppable force of biology that is pushing us along. I'm not one of these save the planet types, I think the planet is doing just fine, humans are a minor disaster compared to what the biosphere has delt with in the past. I'm more interesting in how we are going to survive.




> Do you manage your horses that way too? Your children, if you have any? Yourself?


Yeah, I was expecting to see this one come out. Its what everyone always says(and I'm not talking about bees). I don't know what Mr Bush. does for his horses or children. Some people really do manage their lives this way and it often turns out okay I was born at home and didn't see a doctor until I was 20, on the other hand I am really happy that there was a doctor to see me when I needed one. On yet the other hand the only reason I had to go to the doctor was because of my own incompetence so the world would probably be a better place If I hadn't recovered. I guess it depends on what I do with the rest of my life.

But its an irrelevant question. Its comparing an individual directive with species directives and most of the time, especially with humans, what the individual wants is exactly the opposite of what is good for the species. Lucky most of the time we don't have much of a choice, our biology seems to always get its way in the end.

Bees don't seem to have this problem, one of their finest traits. 

But the really important thing is, _we aren't bees!_ We are in the position to make cold calculating decisions for the sake of what we want them to be. We should be able to do a better job managing them than we do ourselves. Most of us would think it a job well done to incinerate a hive with AFB, but we would never get away with using nuclear weapons to sterilize a city with an outbreak of malaria even if we knew it would save millions of lives in the long run. Going treatment free is less drastic still, its mostly just staying out of the way of the bees.

Humans are incredibly selfish when it comes to protecting our own but its how we're built so no point in feeling guilty for it. The willingness to throw our fellow man under the bus is part of what has got us so far. Luckily it generally balances out. Most really selfish decisions end up removing the offending individuals from the gene pool and in grand scheme of things I think it will all work out eventually, even if that means that we are the ones who get worked out, although for selfish reasons I hope this is not the case.



And sorry to everyone for this being so long but its hard for me to just say "I think I'm right, and your wrong" without writing a small paper on the reasons.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Oldtimer said:

"I'm suspicious of anyone who thinks it's simple." 

Agreed. And from the experience you allude to in your professional life, it seems that there are likely volumes of information - causes and effects - to discuss around the specifics of treatments, methods and the reactions of specific organisms to such methods and treatments. And that's exactly why I'm looking in the direction I'm looking.

But as you describe Jim's approach, mine might be considered similar. I have been using treatments, as minimally as possible, but now I'm trying to reduce that from there. The bees have lived through two winters, and now I'm better prepared to try an even lighter hand - which may, in fact, be a heavier hand from the perspective of the bees. They may all die under the sudden spike in mite numbers.

But it is the complexity that I recognize behind it all that makes me want to be more hands-off in terms of manipulations and treatments.

One can simplify their approach, but that doesn't mean the effect of their approach is simple at all. 

Adam


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer, I think Jim's approach is good as well, but it's not the approach I took, nor the approach Adam is planning to take perhaps. Again, I think it needs pointing out that Adam and Jim are in two very different worlds in regards to their beekeeping. We get into these discussions as if all variables are the same for everyone.

"many in the industry"

The "anti treatment dogma" _*I*_ speak of is always focused at non industry beekeepers. When one, such as myself, does not need one dollar of return from my bees, going through two years where the bees crash, and the retooling of all the equipment, is an option that an industry beekeeper may not be able to afford.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Adam, good post. Hoping it works out for you, but based on the experiences of others who have followed the same route, for some it has worked and for some it hasn't. By what you say about the current state of your bees it sounds like you'll likely know within the next year, for better or worse. Anyhow, I've always enjoyed your posts so will follow with interest.

Barry and Aerindel, perhaps I'm going soft, but I'm even agreeing with just about everything you guys have said.

So. Y'all can go to bed now LOL .


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Go to bed!? We just got up! lol


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

An earlier post on this thread asked how to move from treating, to being treatment free. One company of my knowledge (B. Weaver) suggests requeening with one of their queens will make a hive treatment free when the hive's genetics change over from the previous queen to Weaver's queen. 

A couple of posters mentioned going treatment free out of frustration perhaps? and breeding from their survivors. All I do is share what I did, why I did it, and how it's working. My philosophy is that I don't have to reinvent the wheel, as it were. So I buy my bees and queens from breeders who paid that price years ago, and produce bees/queens that survive. 

Going on 7 years now with this success. Never a treatment, never a mite count. No hives lost to mites. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

steveng, that's a great success story. genetics may be the single most important factor.

can you share what kind of equipment you use, i.e. type of bottom board, entrance, ventilation, foundation or not, ect.

also, do you continue to purchase vsh queens, or are you raising your own from your stock?


----------



## Mosherd1 (Apr 17, 2011)

Steven, that is exactly what I did. If I went treatment free with the same stock of bees I had when I was treating I have no doubt my losses would have been huge. I am now in my second year of being treatment free and had 100% success of my 10 production hives this winter and 50% success with my 4 nucs. The 2 nucs died of starvation. I started with a pure VSH from Glenn. I think starting with the right genes is crucial to taking some of the bite off of getting away from treatments.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

See, that's where my central challenge lies. We have a closed border. No BWeaver bees or Glenn bees are easily attainable for me. What I'm trying to do now is to trap swarms and hope to diversify the genetics I'm working with. The bees I have, have always been treated to some degree.

I have put ads online looking for places to trap swarms, and have gotten a few responses - so it looks like I'll have at least 8 traps out in different parts of the province.

All I can do is try to work with what I can get.

Treatment free is not popular here, and I have never yet heard of anyone offering treatment free bees in this area.

Adam


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

JMHO and .02 worth. The genetics have to be there. It only makes sense that unhealthy, and poor genetics are not going to make it. ( I state the obvious) I read over and over the folks that are having success, started with feral stock, or got bees from someone who has them. Bees that were pressured by the mite onslaught enough that a response/ change happened. (and disease didn't get them) Just my thinking out load,,these colonies get extremely weak before they respond. They still have to survive other hives trying to rob them. Mite populations are highest in the fall, colony weak, and all the other hives want their stores. Even if they survive the mite, they have to survive the robing. A lot going on there. The swarm I had last year that was heavily infested, made it through the winter because, I believe, I reduced the entrance to prevent robbing. It wasn't to keep the hive going, but to keep the mites out of my other hives if the hive was robbed. Just seemed to work out that way. The bees did their part, I guess I luckily did mine


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Adam, you may have to do what the Weavers apparently did when the mites hit...take the loss, breed the survivors...next generation take the loss, breed the survivors. Then YOU would be the supplier of treatment free bees/queens in Canada! Maybe you have one yard you could devote to this? I don't know, just thinking out loud.

Squarepeg, to answer your questions... I used 10 frame deep Langstroth for the brood nest, 2 deeps. Use shallows and mediums for honey harvest. I run screened bottom boards but try to remember to close them off in winter time. I've heard sbb or solid, makes no difference. I used both foundation and foundationless. I have better luck with foundation, getting good comb. But am trying to expand the foundationless as I grow. 

Large cell. That's how Weavers raise their bees, and I have neither the patience, time, nor inclination to go small cell. Studies are all over the place on that issue, so your methods may vary.

Bees. Russians don't do it for me...they survive, but I don't get as large honey crop from them as I do the other bees. MIGHT be location though. I have used B. Weaver, Purvis, both good. Have not had any luck at all with MnHyg, so won't be doing those again. I've ordered and will try R. Russell Sunkist. I do like to keep a variety of genetics in my apiaries. Seems that variety makes the overall apiary stronger. I do walk-away splits at this point. Open mating. I plan to raise my own queens when I retire and quit splitting. Might even try selling queens and nucs then. We'll see.

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

StevenG said:


> Might even try selling queens and nucs then. We'll see.


You have been stung too many times!! :lpf:


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Not yet Barry, my arthritis is flaring up again. :lpf:


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

StevenG said:


> Adam, you may have to do what the Weavers apparently did when the mites hit...take the loss, breed the survivors...next generation take the loss, breed the survivors...


Yes, that looks like the rocky road I'm facing here. We shall see. 

Once I get a sense of how many swarms I am able to catch will give me a better idea of how I might go forward. If I have to buy bees, then I may have to look at other ideas. Because bees here are about $150 a nuc, and they're treated for generations.

If I've only got $150 nucs to work with, survival-of-the-fittest might be a mountain too steep to climb.

Adam


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

steveng, many thanks for the answers and congrats on finding a system that works for you.


----------



## JD's Bees (Nov 25, 2011)

Adam can you import from other provinces? There are VSH queens available in Quebec at www.api-culture.com.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

JD's Bees said:


> Adam can you import from other provinces? There are VSH queens available in Quebec at www.api-culture.com.


Thanks for this link. I watched the documentary they were featured in. Can't remember the name at the moment - "The Ailing Queen" I believe. It was French - "La Reine Malade". Have you every ordered from them? It seems that it's not easy for me to get bees in, even from within Canada. But I will look into it more.

Adam


----------



## JD's Bees (Nov 25, 2011)

I haven't ordered from them, they have an add in the Alberta Bee News and I thought of them in regards to your dilemma. The Saskatraz queens, www.saskatraz.com, would be another good source of resistant stock.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Squarepeg, you're welcome. Personally I think many sideliners and hobby beeks can use my method, which really isn't mine, as many of us go that route. Just fine tune it for your locale... I simply want to provide the information, let others make their decisions, and I want to be encouraging.

Adam, perhaps to minimize expense, you could do that plan with swarms you catch? I certainly understand not wanting to lose a $150 nuc to mites. My big hope for you is the bee reference your Canadian colleague gave you works out. But please keep us posted on your plans, and results.
Kindest regards,
Steven


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

One thought, this may go against the grain for some but it's an idea.

What I do, I have treatment free hives, and I have treated hives, kept totally seperately from each other. The TF hives are fairly new and I don't know if it's going to work out or not, I'm only a year in with them so it's early days at this point.

Obviously the hope is it will work, and I can eventually go completely treatment free. But the treated hives mean that even if I lost 100% of the TF hives, I still have bees available to re-stock, plus my operation continues uninterupted. I think the only important thing is to ensure the TF combs and other equipment is never contaminated with treatment residue.

Other than that, I'm with Steven, the eventual answer must lie in genetics. Small cell has been fun to convert to, but I'm also realising what a pain it is as even regressed bees don't always like building it. Far better a bee that can survive on large cell.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

JD's Bees,

I've emailed both of the contacts you posted in order to find out if they ship queen cells or eggs. Those are the only ways Nova Scotia allows genetic stock in from the rest of Canada (other than drone semen).

Adam


----------



## Tiwilager (Mar 13, 2012)

Adam,

Let me know what they say!


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Adam, good post. Hoping it works out for you, but based on the experiences of others who have followed the same route, for some it has worked and for some it hasn't. By what you say about the current state of your bees it sounds like you'll likely know within the next year, for better or worse. Anyhow, I've always enjoyed your posts so will follow with interest.


I'd like to contribute some experiences from Germany here: 

Whether treatment-free works or not also depends on external factors.

The main external factor that affects varroa resistance is proximity to crops treated with neonicotinoids. Apparently treated maize/corn is particularly harmful to bees, as its flowering time coincides with winter bee production in Germany and affected colonies cannot produce bees that live long enoug to survive the winter. 

As the neonicotionids mainly affect the nervous system of the developing bee larvae, you end up with compromised bees that cannot defend themselves against parasites effectively.

All your selection for varroa resistance becomes futile if you then move these bees into neonic-polluted areas, especially if there is a shortage of uncontaminated pollen at crucial times of colony development.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

JD,

I contacted both breeders you mentioned. I got nothing back from Saskatchewan, but did hear from Quebec. I am now trying to figure out how to navigate the closed border through permits and getting the breeder to ship capped queen cells.

We shall see...

Thanks,

Adam


----------

