# Beginners: A Hard Row to Hoe: Getting on the Treatment Free Treadmill



## Solomon Parker

A Hard Row to Hoe: Getting on the Treatment Free Treadmill

http://vimeo.com/10196856

This is a presentation by Dean Stiglitz about the ideas behind treatment free beekeeping, why it is important, and how it can be done. Learn the dangers with chemicals and where that store bought honey actually comes from and what's in it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

http://vimeo.com/10207692

Sam Comfort's presentation about how he got started in beekeeping. He uses topbar hives primarily.


----------



## WI-beek

I would like to have a yard of treatment free bees some day. I wonder though if treatment free beekeeping will ever be feasible on large scale operations. I dont think someone with 1000 plus colonies can risk it no matter how good your genetics are. like he talks about in the very beginning when you have bee hives side by side, four to a skid, and 100 to a yard, thats an out break waiting to happen because its just not natural. Like us, living and mingling together, we have to have medicine and doctors. If we all lived in isolated tribes we would survive with the resistance we have, but like small pox hit the naives here, when you mingle all tribes together an out break is going to occur.


----------



## sqkcrk

WI-beek said:


> like he talks about in the very beginning when you have bee hives side by side, four to a skid, and 100 to a yard, thats an out break waiting to happen because its just not natural.


So, is the perscription to have only one hive per yard and the yards to be a certain distance away, such as in nature?


----------



## jim lyon

That's hitting the nail squarely on the head and you didn't even directly mention the migratory element. Treatment free is an admirable goal but not a lot of large migratory operations are going to bet their investment on it. It is no excuse for irresponsible use of chemicals though. Believe it or not there are many, many large operations that are very responsible in what they put in their hives and when they do it.


----------



## sqkcrk

Is mentioning commercial beekeeping necassary at all, on a Thread titled "Beginners:..."? Just askin'.


----------



## jim lyon

You are right Mark. Thought about that right after I replied. Better just keep my distance from this area.


----------



## scdw43

jim lyon said:


> but not a lot of large migratory operations are going to bet their investment on it.


I can understand not wanting to bet the farm, but are you/*we* saying that if you leave a hive in one place all the time that the mites can't find it. I don't think so, all hives have mites treated and untreated. It is how the bees handle the mites, in FL, SC, VT, TX or on a truck to CA or MI. If you pull bees out of a untreated yard in SC and move them to a yard full of treated bees in CA how is that going to make a difference on how many mites are in that hive. Are the few mites left in the treated hives all going to go to the untreated hives, I don't think so. Does the stress of the moving make a difference? Does anybody know of a treatment that doesn't stress bees? So would someone please explain to me how moving bees makes me have to treat the hives. Just enlighten this old country boy. Thanks in advance.


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> You are right Mark. Thought about that right after I replied. Better just keep my distance from this area.


Not necassarily. Experience does count for something. imo


----------



## deknow

here is where the split _must_ occur.

we must recognize that the way the vast majority of food is produced in this country _requires_ migratory bees (monocrops and such)....there is no getting around this, and "fixing" this is likely to occur only through devastating circumstance.

but

there is an effort by the national honey board to keep honey as a "commodity"....anything labeled "honey" is essentially equivalent. In essence, this model relies upon cheap honey (imports and/or the byproducts of migratory pollination) as a supply, _and_ the perception in the marketplace that honey is "the last pure food"...that honey comes from farms with rolling hills and the majestic beekeeper in the white suit.

we have to allow this market to split. honey (be it from treatment free operations or not) that is produced by those striving to produce a high quality honey _is_ different from the byproducts of migratory pollination (feeds, treatments, etc).

by no means do i think migratory beekeepers should just stop treating. but as the market matures, there is room at the top for the highest quality of products.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Thanks Dean, your videos point out the things you're talking about. Your points about making a market are spot on, and the same about the quality of the honey you mention in the video. You mentioned selling Dee's honey for three times the price. I sell mine for an average of $6 a pound. [And I'm undercutting one of my friends!] 

Oldtimer asked me how much honey I make per hive, I told him about 50 lbs., but if I were selling to a packer it would be the equivalent of around 250 lbs. The market is there. People will tell you to your face, "your honey is so much better than the stuff I get from Walmart." I know it's true, I sold all mine and had to go buy some from Walmart just to have some to put on my Cheerios. It doesn't taste right. It's harsh, and makes me feel like I drank too much soda. (What's the sweetener in soda?)


----------



## Omie

jim lyon said:


> Believe it or not there are many, many large operations that are very responsible in what they put in their hives and when they do it.


I certainly do believe that. I think U.S. beekeepers are basically good honest people trying to make a living and trying to have healthy bees. People who use chemicals and medications while beekeeping should not be generalized or labeled as irresponsible or having bad intentions. I'll take U.S. honey over foreign honey of questionable origins any day.

*Sol-* I can't speak for the average consumer, but i know that I and almost all my friends are more than willing to pay premium prices for pesticide and medication-free food, including honey. If I knew for certain that some WalMart anonymous honey contained antibiotics and questionable pesticides and was possibly from China, I wouldn't care how cheap it was...I'd rather pay _$8/lb, even $10/lb if i had to_, for local honey I could have solid confidence in that I knew to be untreated and uncut with rice syrup or corn syrup, meds, and miticides.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I do live about 25 miles from Bentonville, the home of Walmart, so that's almost all there is. 

I hold in my hand "Burleson's Pure Honey U.S. Grade A * Fancy Product of U.S.A., Argentina, Mexico, Canada, Uruguay and Brazil." Packed in Texas. So possibilities, there are EHBs in Argentina, combination of overwinterers and end of year exterminators in Canada, and the usual chemical treaters and HFCS in the US. On the other hand, come to my house and I'll take you for a drive in a two mile radius and show you all the cow pastures full of clover.

The upside I guess is that a lot of it comes from AHB country where I imagine there are fewer chemicals and HFCS. I would have bought it from my higher priced friend, but he's out too. My beginner didn't make any last year either. This year, I keep two gallons for myself. But at $48 per gallon, it's a lot of missed profit opportunity for myself.

(Anyone concerned about how my figures don't exactly match up, it depends on what jars it's in. Quarts $48/gallon, Pints $56/gallon, 1 lb bottle $66/gallon. Average of about $60 per gallon.)


----------



## deknow

A few other things to ponder:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238430&highlight=maine+feeder&page=6
...is a thread that talks about some bad practices, and these are big operations with big production.

Also, we've had some honey off the shelf tested. One sample, was from an "Organic Farm" (although I'm told it was bought in from a larger concern), in a plastic 1lb bottle, and sold at a well established health food store for $11/lb. It was 30% beet sugar. Other samples were 15-20%, and one local producer tested at 5% (to which the producer responded, "that sounds about right").

If you were buying 100% orange juice, how much added sugar would you expect to find? 5%? 1%? none?

The florida honey standard (along with others based upon it), allows for nothing other than the processed nectar that the bees collect as pure honey. How would 95% pure honey pass such a test? What about when testing methods get even more sensitive?

The other part of this is that it seems endemic to beekeeping that beekeepers _very often_ buy in honey and sell it as their own. This means that the beekeeper the consumer trusts, and brags to his/her friends about, buys all their holiday present from, is lying to them. Once this is setup, it leads to the rest.

deknow


----------



## WI-beek

"Oldtimer asked me how much honey I make per hive, I told him about 50 lbs., but if I were selling to a packer it would be the equivalent of around 250 lbs."

Is this an exaggeration or is the fraud truly this prevalent with the packing industry? Can packers legally get away with 20/80 honey? They do have to disclose this on label somehow dont they?

As far as requiring commercial honey from outfits who use treatments and those who do not to be forced to have different labels seems over the top to me. I see no reason why someone should not have the right to label their honey as treatment or chemical free but to force a separate market is extreme. If the consumer demands it like an organic produce section, great. That said, be careful what you wish for. If you are telling everyone honey is contaminated with pesticides and chemicals, you may end up with consumption drop off and the result of that is obvious. 

False labeling of corn syrup or rice syrup as honey is fraud and should be stopped yesterday and would be more beneficial in my eyes for all beekeepers in this country. There is just not enough money being lobbied to make it IMPORTANT. If Monsanto was up against this fraud how long do you think if would take before bad honey was a thing of the past. To bad beeks dont have the money survive a strike for a season or two and refuse to pollinate all crops until the fraud is stopped.


----------



## sqkcrk

WiredForStereo said:


> I told him about 50 lbs., but if I were selling to a packer it would be the equivalent of around 250 lbs.


Would you please tell me what you mean, because I can't make sense of it. I'm sure there is something I am not understanding. 
Thanks


----------



## alpha6

I listened to the video and I found lots of inconsistences in what this guy is saying. As an example, he talks about how people are in markets selling other's honey and how can you know how good the honey is, but he is doing just that by selling "Dee's" honey, buying it by the bucket and paying her a better price than the packers. Nice of him to be preaching how to run a commercial bee operation but doesn't even do it himself. He also "assumes" feral hives are stronger and better, but most "feral" hives I know of have swarmed from some hobbiest hives so I don't know what he is basing that info on. I find that while the "idea" of keeping bees un-naturally (in a box or t-bar hive) "naturally" is a noble goal, for most people (Mike Bush and a few others as exceptions) it is not practical for most.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I mean by price. At the price I sell, compared to selling to honey packers I am making a whole lot more money per pound. It's as if I were making more honey. Sorry for the confusion.

And I'm not saying honey is adulterated after it comes out of the bee, I'm saying it is adulterated before it goes in. If one feeds HFCS, the resulting honey can still be sold as honey. If you read the Honey Board's brochures, they say "OMG of course there aren't artificial ingredients mixed with honey!!1!OMG" and rightly so. What they neglect to mention is what goes in on the front end.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks. That's why I sell honey in jars too.


----------



## jim lyon

So, WFS, what exactly does adulterated honey have to do with being treatment free?


----------



## Solomon Parker

alpha6 said:


> he talks about how people are in markets selling other's honey and how can you know how good the honey is, but he is doing just that by selling "Dee's" honey, buying it by the bucket and paying her a better price than the packers. Nice of him to be preaching how to run a commercial bee operation but doesn't even do it himself.


There's a difference between Dean selling Dee's honey as Dean's honey, and Dean selling Dee's honey as Dee's honey. He's selling Dee's honey as Dee's honey and he made that very clear because he's selling non-local honey and he's selling it as non-local honey to people who prefer to buy local honey.


----------



## Solomon Parker

jim lyon said:


> WFS, what exactly does adulterated honey have to do with being treatment free?


Nothing in particular other than giving the bees to eat what bees actually eat.

It's in the video and the video is the subject of the thread.

And please call me Sol.


----------



## sqkcrk

WiredForStereo said:


> What they neglect to mention is what goes in on the front end.



What HFCS that goes into my hives is consumed by the bees before honey production season occurs. What happens in other operation, that's up to them.


----------



## Solomon Parker

That's great Mark but like Michael Bush says, like having a peeing section in the pool.


----------



## alpha6

Give it up Mark...it's very obvious that WFS is on a mission. As for what the vid said...listen to it again. He goes on and on about getting into a market that another beek is in by selling local and showing that the guy that is there is selling someone elses honey or honey made else where.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Keep it civil.


----------



## BeeCurious

To me it seems unfortunate that "treadmill" was used in the title of Dean's video.

Getting off of the chemical treatment treadmill sounds like a good idea... but I would prefer "Treadmill-Free Beekeeping".


----------



## WI-beek

What about the neighbors pile of pop cans, ........

I dont think a few drops of corn syrup nectar are going to ruin the quality of a quart of honey. Now is someone feeds corn syrup and harvests it, thats just obviously wrong. The FDA decides how much contamination is allowed in all food products before they are considered unsafe or not pure for example visit links below and maybe you wont freak out at the idea of a little HFC pee in the honey pool. I would rather worry about a bit of HFC honey than rat crap or flys or......

http://boingboing.net/2009/02/13/our-food-is-full-of.html

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/...and_rodent_hairs_are_allowed_in_your_food.htm


----------



## StevenG

Getting back to the original intent of this thread - getting on the treatment free treadmill... It actually isn't that hard at all. Simply start out with bees that haven't been, and don't require, treatments. Easy enough for the hobbiest or sideliner. Much more difficult for the commercial beek. 

I keep thinking there is some commercial beek out there somewhere, who is trying this with one or two yards, or one semi-load of bees. That way they're not "risking the farm" so to speak. If so, and if you're reading this, want to chime in?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## alpha6

SteveG...I will chime in. I do treat my hives with thymol and other EO's and that's it. Contrary to what people think, we never have supers on during this time as I feed and treat at the same time. Usually, there is a 4 to 6 wk period between the last feeding and the first supers. I consider myself chemical free as EO's ARE found naturally and are bought into the hive naturally, just as nectar is. 

Anyway, getting back to your question. Every hive I have produces honey or pollen and then is sent to Calf. in the winter for Almond pollination. To "risk" losing one or two yards to chance will cause a loss of thousands of dollars for me. I don't know about you but right now every penny counts. I have expenses associated with running my operation, these are not hobby hives they are income producers and I need each one. That being said, I do run a home yard that I try different things in, including no treatments. I try different types of queens from different breeders and we do our own queen rearing on a very, very limited basis just to try different things. So far the results of the home yard are mixed at best. Two seasons the untreated hive does well and the next winter it dies out from heavy mite load. Always looking to better the operation, but I can't lose the operation in that search. I think most commercial guys are in the same boat. Hope that clears things up.


----------



## Roland

SteveG - I am not sure what "trying this" you are talking about. We are a small commercial operation, that does not use any chemicals to treat for mites, but we do treat heavily for mites. There is little risk in that, just alot more work. Mites are easy to deal with , CCD is not. 

Roland Diehnelt
Linden Apiary, Est. 1852


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Steven, we did take a couple of yards and breed mite resistant bees. They were not treated for 7 years.What happened is the bees learned to cope with the mites but in the process of us breeding that bee, they lost something important to all beekeepers. The would over winter as small clusters that built up slowly but not in enough strength to make a BIG honey crop. That is the reason I keep bees--to produce honey. Now the good side of this experiment. The bees were recognized by Baton Rouge as being resistant and were incorporated into some of their resistant lines. So some of you out there may even have some of these genetics in your bees. The bees we bred are SMR type bees. SO as a commercial operator that wants to produce as big a honey crop that is possible for any given year, it is better to have a honey producing bee. Even if I had to treat it with something to keep it alive. And we use in an responsible manner, soft natural chems. TK


----------



## StevenG

Alpha6, Roland, and Ted, thank you thank you thank you! I knew commercials were doing some work in that area, you folks simply had to be doing something. It is good for the rest of us to know what's going on with you folks, and the struggles you're having. Because some of us do realize what happens with you impacts us sideliners and hobbiests. 

Folks like me can afford to "play" a little bit, as the income is important, but not crucial, as it is for you commercials. I really wouldn't want your headaches.

Hey Roland! It looks like your treatments have succeeded, and sanity has been restored! Haven't seen your "Crazy" moniker in a bit! 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Like I said Steven, IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A BEE THAT PRODUCES HONEY,EVEN YOU HAVE TO USE SOME FORM OF TREATMENT TO KEEP IT ALIVE>Because, that is the reason we keep bees, to PRODUCE HONEY!!! That is the reason they are called honey bees. A bee that is totally resistant and does nothing in the form of production, is not a good bee. No commercial beekeepers are not just sitting on their hands doing nothing, we are fighting the problems of the industry and seeking solutions to those problems. OUR living depends on this..Steven go spend some time with a commercial beekeeper, pick his brain and learn!!! TED


----------



## Barry

It needs to be pointed out again, this is NOT the commercial beekeeping forum. Statements like "IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A BEE THAT PRODUCES HONEY,EVEN YOU HAVE TO USE SOME FORM OF TREATMENT TO KEEP IT ALIVE>" are only appropriate if it is part of a plan to getting off treatments, which in your context is not. You're advocating treatments to save a hive for the sake of honey production. Refrain from derailing the purpose of this forum.


----------



## StevenG

Hi Ted! I _am_ picking your brain and learning!  I too am in the beekeeping for the honey... I love to eat honey, I love to give honey away, I love to sell honey! And I love to keep more money in my pocket, which is why I don't spend money on treatments. I don't have a lot of time, which is why I don't spend time on treatments, or, heresy, test for mites. :lookout: I am reasonably certain I have mites, but the bees are taking care of them.

As I have maintained all along, and really appreciated the input from you, Alpha6, and Roland, the commercial beeks have the same problems as us backyarders, hobbiests, and sideliners. Only you have the additional pressures of making your living from the bees. You have our problems magnified. This forum helps us learn both from you commercial folks who share your time and expertise with us (words cannot express how much I really do appreciate that, too!), as well as from each other as we struggle with these issues. 

Now Ted, print this out, because I'll bet you a steak dinner that within 15 years, commercial beeks will no longer be chemically treating for mites. You won't have to. The economic pressures will force the commercial beeks to find or develop a bee that will be both a good honey producer, and mite resistant. Some of you are already well on the way to that. (I said 15 years, may only take 10, but hey, I'm cheap, want to give myself a chance to win! ) The odds are, you won't even be using essential oils or fumigating or such. I plan to be around to see if it happens that way.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Steven, I will take that bet. Your on to a steak dinner in ten years, if we have hung up the treatments. Every year the bees get a little tougher and more resistant to varroa mite. Years ago we started out with some tough chemicals--Mitacure (amitraz) and later the worst one of all, Checkmite (coumophous). Now as the bees have toughened up-thymol, formic. So maybe in ten years, beekeeping will be back to the pre Orwellian days of 1984, when the mite problems started. I just hope no other problems come into play in the future. TED


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Barry, I have a difference on opinion. That I am not sorry for. It is great that treatment free beekeeping is happening. BUT if the mite loads suddenly spike, and the bees start to die, then the back up plan should be--Break glass in case of extreme emergency. Grab the thymol or whatever, even if it is powdered sugar, do the humane thing and save the bees. They are too precious and valuable to let die. Robert Russell and the Weavers would back me up with the above written line. I ask this question, what good is a resistant line-other than the genetics-if it will not produce honey??? Barry, I intend to post this question as a new thread. TED


----------



## Solomon Parker

Mr. Kretschmann, this is the "Treatment-Free Beekeeping" forum. The moderators (both of us) have determined that posts advocating the use of chemicals do not belong here. As Barry said, this is not the commercial forum nor is it the pests forum and it is most definitely not the 'how to treat your bees so they make honey' forum. Please direct posts involving those subjects to their respective forums. People wishing to view the subjects contained therein are free to find them there.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Sol, I have posted the thread in the queen and bee breeding section. TED


----------



## jim lyon

Hey TK and SG is that steak going to be organically raised?


----------



## StevenG

Ted Ted Ted, I said 15 years, not 10! 15 will get you a steakhouse steak. 10 it would be Sizzling Sirloin! :lpf: 

Jim, I'd prefer Bison, but.... Don't care whether organic or not, but my cardiologist will only let me eat filet mignon - a more lean cut of meat, better for the arteries. 

Now, back on topic: I wonder if there are any beeks on this thread who have bought treated packages or nucs, and have gone treatment free? Just stopped treating them as a way to go treatment free? What were the results? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## NasalSponge

Yes sir. I am at the beginning of my 3rd year with the two original colonies I purchased. If I make it to next spring I am going to be very happy. Both hive swarmed last spring due to my broken foot, they are regressed and on SBB. Nothing else at all, no sugar dusting, no feeding (other than honey) NO NOTHING! I was hoping it was two years but Dean says it is three so I will have to wait until next spring to throw babies in the air. Oh yes, all the original nuc frames removed and disposed of.


----------



## Roland

The moderators (both of us) have determined that posts advocating the use of chemicals do not belong here.

OK, monitor mite levels, and when they are extrapolated to a bad level, use a non chemical method to reduce the mites, then requeen with genetics from a hive that had the lowest mite levels, or the handled mites the best. The bees will survive, but the queen will not. That is entirely within the parameters you have defined, and no bees died.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Solomon Parker

I started with packages, and after 5 years, they were 75% dead, after moving here with our winters they are 95% dead but none after about 50% were due to varroa. Using FGMO treated nucs yielded 66% losses, but none to varroa. Local swarms are two for two alive after one winter.


----------



## WI-beek

Barry, can you share how you deal with varroa, are treatment free, how long, and can you share your survival rates? How many colonies do you keep and how long have you been small cell and treatment free?

Same for some of you other guys if you will share your success. Also how many survive longer than two or three years. I think a lot of new beeks think they are on to something but dont realize that its the third year that is the true test. 

I really like the idea of letting the bees be as natural as possible and I also think its going to be the small scale beekeepers who make it possible for larger scale treatment free operations to exist if that ever materializes. 

I sure hope we dont get any other problems till my days are over.


----------



## Omie

Roland, I feel it's really way easier not to try to re-invent the wheel every single time someone wants to keep non-treated bees- why not cut to the chase and get your bees from someone who has _already gone through the initial process_ of breeding from their most mite/resistant/hygienic acclimatized hives for several years already? Or as several have already pointed out- get a queen from such a person and requeen your hive with her. 

As others have said many many times- the best way to start treatment free beekeeping is to obtain some treatment free bees (or TF queens) to begin with. Makes sense to me, anyway.


----------



## NasalSponge

I agree, but when i started this info was not being put out, I am so glad it is now!! Of course you have to wade thru all the posts from folks who have no intention of going treatment free in the treatment free forum to find it but it is worth it.


----------



## Ramona

Ted said:

Steven, we did take a couple of yards and breed mite resistant bees. They were not treated for 7 years.What happened is the bees learned to cope with the mites but in the process of us breeding that bee, they lost something important to all beekeepers. The would over winter as small clusters that built up slowly but not in enough strength to make a BIG honey crop.

Reply:

Ted, I am curious what a "big" honey crop is vs. what your untreated bees produced. IE what average orders of magnitude are you talking about? Twice as much per year? Three times as much? Ten times as much?

Ramona


----------



## sqkcrk

WiredForStereo said:


> Using FGMO treated nucs yielded 66% losses, but none to varroa.


What was the cause of death?


----------



## StevenG

Ramona, a "Big" honey crop is determined primarily from your locale. On vast fields of clover, 100 pounds per colony is pitiful. On Alfalfa in some locales, 100 pound average is the norm. In some places, 40 pounds is good. It all depends.

My Russians, on pasture in the midst of a national forest, hit 40 pounds this last year, and it was a bad year. They are treatment free. A few miles away, my B. Weavers and Purvis queens on clover failed, but when I moved them to soybeans in July, got me 62-75 pounds, before a pesticide kill. I do not treat any of them. And have been treatment free since restarting with bees in April, 2006.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker

The causes of death were split between late queen losses and cold starvation.


----------



## RiodeLobo

WiredForStereo said:


> I started with packages, and after 5 years, they were 75% dead, after moving here with our winters they are 95% dead but none after about 50% were due to varroa. Using FGMO treated nucs yielded 66% losses, but none to varroa. Local swarms are two for two alive after one winter.


Don't you worry about inbreeding? I seems to me the problem with the "do or die" methodology is that you will have to keep importing genetics, or have a population that is excessively inbred, which will lead to a host of issues.

How do you deal with this issue?


----------



## Solomon Parker

They are open mated, there are plenty of bees around. Why would they become inbred?

Virtually every year I buy queens or bees from different places and catch swarms.


----------



## Ramona

StevenG said:


> Ramona, a "Big" honey crop is determined primarily from your locale.
> 
> This I understand. What I'm curious about is Ted's operation; how many times bigger were his harvests from treated bees v. untreated bees?
> 
> I'd like Ted's answer.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ramona


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Ramona,I take a chance on being deleted but here is the answer. We are in a pretty good honey production area. With some hives hitting 250 pounds of honey off of Chinese Tallow. And some years in the North, where the experiment was done-70 pounds per colony off of Sourwood. BUT year in and year out 70 pounds per colony is what is considered normal in normal weather patterns in the State of Alabama. The resistant stock only produced 35 pounds per hive or half of what the rest of the operation did for those years that we were breeding the lineage. I am not sorry for this experiment. These bees did get used in the broader scheme of things. They and other colonies from other beekeepers have been used to breed some of the resistant lines by the USDA that are in use today!! You can thank Robert Russell for supplying colonies that were used in the breeding program also. Beekeepers from all across the south,-Even Edward Norman, supplied colonies of bees that had survived without treatment for five years or better back in the nineties in an effort to save the species. It worked!! Without this effort by bee breeders and the USDA, I do not know in what shape beekeeping would be in today. Probably extinct along with the bees due to varoaatosis. SO HAVE YOU HUGGED YOUR BEE BREEDER TODAY???TK


----------



## Roland

Omie - the reason most of us keep bees is to make honey or money. As the previous posts pointed out, the treatment free bees are not as productive as the non treatment free bees. I could buy treatment free bees, and try to breed them for productivity, or buy productive bees, use only physical, not chemical treatments, and breed for a treatment free bee. It appears the second route will produce twice the honey as the first route. It is all about the area under the curve(calculus?).

Crazy Roland


----------



## frazzledfozzle

WiredForStereo said:


> They are open mated, there are plenty of bees around. Why would they become inbred?
> 
> Virtually every year I buy queens or bees from different places and catch swarms.


How do you keep your resistant lines pure if you are open mating?

frazz


----------



## Omie

Roland said:


> Omie - the reason most of us keep bees is to make honey or money. As the previous posts pointed out, the treatment free bees are not as productive as the non treatment free bees. I could buy treatment free bees, and try to breed them for productivity, or buy productive bees, use only physical, not chemical treatments, and breed for a treatment free bee. It appears the second route will produce twice the honey as the first route. It is all about the area under the curve(calculus?).
> Crazy Roland


I understand what you are saying.
I guess I was aiming my 'reinventing the wheel' post more at small bk's and hobbiests wanting to start treatment free beekeeping. After all, the title of this thread states "Beginners:.." Beginners aren't really prepared to start out by breeding their own strains of bees, and assuming those beginners want to start BKing in a treatment free form, it only makes sense to me that they should start with TF bees rather than trying to breed their own TF bees before they even have any BK experience yet. In their situation, I'm guessing they'd be happy to have TF bees that give them 70 lbs of honey per hive. I know I would be!
Later, if they were to go commercial, they could figure out what they want to do about maximizing honey production.

Are *all* TF/mite resistant bees low honey producers, or just the ones mentioned here by a few people in the past week? Are all treated bees heavier honey producers? I ask this seriously.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Omie. Larwence Cutts, 'former Head bee inspector for the florida, said he would rather have a good all around bee that required some treatment than one that was 100 percent resistant that had lower yields in honey. It seems that all the treatment free lineages have lower honey yields than their treated counterparts. It is due to the genetics in the two bees. One is more of a hoarder, sloppy house keeping and LARGE populations. The resistant lines I have used and seen were smaller in population, cleaner in house keeping and spent more time at this endevour than the hoarder type bees. Thus what can be infered is the resistant bees spent more time at domestic chores while the hoarder bees spent more time foraging. There are some resistant lines that do produce but there is a trade off there even-- HOT temperment. We are close but the "perfect" bee has not been bred yet. TK


----------



## Solomon Parker

frazzledfozzle said:


> How do you keep your resistant lines pure if you are open mating?


Purity. You know, I have to just admit it. I had never even thought about purity. It literally hadn't crossed my mind. I have no intentions maintaining any purity whatsoever. The more purebred something is, the more likely it is to have problems. I guess this is why I don't replace a queen unless I absolutely can't stand her (hasn't happened yet). If she's terrible, she's liable to die that winter anyway. Purity is for British Royalty, or Nazis or whatever (no offense to any royalty or Nazis.) Cheetahs have one of the narrowest gene pools in the world. Their genetics can be traced back to around four cheetahs at some point in history. They suffer from terrible fertility.

It's just not the way it works well in nature. 

I almost can't stand how many queens are bred from 'breeders.' It's not natural. If a queen wants daughters, she needs to get out of the hive once in a while and prove she's worth it. If I get a hive that can fill six deeps from foundation after being split that year, that's the one I want to make some swarm cells I can start nucs with. And I want those daughters to breed with those nasty disease ridden tree bees from down in the holler, because they know how to survive. And I want them to be as mutt as possible. Because mutts survive. It's genetic diversity.

Ridicule me if you want. But if I up and die, my bees will be just fine, sitting out there in the back yard without any interference at all for years to come. Until all the pink peels off the boxes and they rot away leaving pairs of cinder blocks lined up in a neat little rhomboid grid. It's more fun knowing they don't really need me. It's more freeing. Purity is just something else to worry about. I'm not a worrier. I don't have 'resistant lines' I have survivor bees. If they can't hack it, then they won't be anymore. Its their problem. I just steal their stuff.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Sol, this is a good point to remember and pass as information to beginners. The hives that build up to the point of swarming. The earliest in "your" (wherever the beekeeper keeps bees) area are the ones you want to split. They are the most productive and most likely the most resistant bees in your outfit. So when we find a hive that is building swarm cells early in the season---One, we harvest all excess cells---Two, we split that colony up to three ways, if it is in a two deep colony. The excess cells we use in nucs and other splits. Thus spreading the more resistant and productive colonies genetics in an apiary. TK


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Sol when I say purity I was meaning how do you keep the "survivor" strain going if you are open mating?

I get that your queens can be mating with the bees "in the holler" but could they also be mating with the treated bees down the other end of the "holler"?

I have no intention of ridiculing you I dont know why you think I would.

frazz


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Sol just wondering, How many hives are you running right now? do you build up numbers as the season goes on? and what is your survival rate over winter? Do you get snow over your winter period?

If you dont want to answer thats no worries It's probably off topic anyway 

frazz


----------



## Solomon Parker

The simple answer is that I keep survivors by lettIng weak hives die. It's not only the genetics that keep them alive. It's also small cell and natural honey and pollen to overwinter with. I currently have five hives. I have had as many as 21 and as few as 2. This year I'm planning to split up to 16. I got a foot and a half of snow this year.

Anything that gives beginners information on how to go treatment free is not off topic.

But I am curious as to what you thought of the videos.


----------



## StevenG

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Sol, this is a good point to remember and pass as information to beginners. The hives that build up to the point of swarming. The earliest in "your" (wherever the beekeeper keeps bees) area are the ones you want to split. They are the most productive and most likely the most resistant bees in your outfit. So when we find a hive that is building swarm cells early in the season---One, we harvest all excess cells---Two, we split that colony up to three ways, if it is in a two deep colony. The excess cells we use in nucs and other splits. Thus spreading the more resistant and productive colonies genetics in an apiary. TK


Ted, very interesting point about which hive to split. It looks like you use those swarm cells to make the splits "walk-away" splits. And you use the excess swarm cells to provide queens in your other splits. Makes sense. And as the split nucs developed, one could add that nuc back to a laggard hive via the newspaper method (after dequeening the laggard), thus increasing the health, strength, and genetics of the laggards.

Second, Do you usually get a honey crop the first year from your splits?
And finally, when are you going to get off your duff, and breed us that "perfect bee?" :lpf: 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Omie

frazzledfozzle said:


> Sol when I say purity I was meaning how do you keep the "survivor" strain going if you are open mating?


Just my 2 cents, but I'm guessing that Sol's 'survivor strain' is at least partially the RESULT of allowing open mating. Personally, I see open mating as helping diversity, just like mixed breed dogs tend to have fewer physical problems than purebred dogs. But I'm no expert, for sure.


----------



## Ramona

Thanks, Ted for your comprehensive answer to the treatment vs. non-treatment honey ratios and the info on the origins of the resistant bees. I really appreciate your input.

Hope this thread continues as there are many useful perspectives and nuggets of info that are showing up.

Ramona


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Thanks for your reply Sol.

Before I ask my question I want to say that I'm not trying to find fault with anything you or others are doing I'm genuinely interested in the whole survivor bees issue. But I do have some questions which could be looked at as being picky or argumentative but that is not my intention I just want to understand better the survivor way of doing things.



WiredForStereo said:


> The simple answer is that I keep survivors by lettIng weak hives die.


OK so this is my question.
What is the longest time that you have had a particular hive or hives without it dying out? are we talking years and years or maybe a year or two?

just one more that I've been wondering about.
when treatment free beekeepers post that they have lost their hive /hives over winter or that the cluster is too small to sustain itself and how come it's died with so much honey on it, what do you think the chances are that it died from mite related problems?

I have no experience of snow in winter so I have no idea how that might affect a hive but would think that if the cluster is big enough to generate enough warmth and has enough tucker on board to see it's well fed It should survive quite well. 
Whereas if the cluster is small because of mite problems it can't keep it's self warm enough and the bee numbers aren't there to uncap the honey for consumption. 

cheers
frazz


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Omie said:


> Just my 2 cents, but I'm guessing that Sol's 'survivor strain' is at least partially the RESULT of allowing open mating. Personally, I see open mating as helping diversity, just like mixed breed dogs tend to have fewer physical problems than purebred dogs. But I'm no expert, for sure.


Omie I agree about the open mating to a certain extent but I like to have a good idea what my queens are mating with that dosn't mean that they dont have genetic diversity it just means that the drones that are flooding our area have been selected for specific traits that we want in our bees.

If I had survivor stock I would want my queens mating with drones from survivor hives to enhance my chances of carrying those traits.
If my survivor queens are mating with the treated drones down the road thats not helping my chances of breeding good survivor bees. 

Most queen breeders I know are very particular about making sure they have drones from many different lines to keep that genetic diversity whether they open mated or AI dosn't make a difference.

cheers
frazz


----------



## TwinkieBee

Imo everyones goal is to one day be pesticide free. I am not for pesticides by any means and i jumped on the organic bandwagon just like everyone. It may be possible for everyone to one day be "treatment" free but i don't see it being possible until the pests are erradicated. My hives have never been treated but i would prefer to continue their existence by treating if necessary. As for the organic foods, the producers are allowed to use copper sulfate which can be mildly irritating to deadly. So now we are choosing the lesser evil. If everyone treated for a few years then everyone could actually be treatment free. But imo people wouldn't be able to bash each other and everyones families could be healthier.


----------



## Solomon Parker

frazzledfozzle said:


> What is the longest time that you have had a particular hive?
> 
> what do you think the chances are that it died from mite related problems?
> 
> Whereas if the cluster is small because of mite problems it can't keep it's self warm enough...


I'm more than happy to answer all serious questions with any experience I have.

I have been keeping bees eight years as of April 26. My oldest continuously occupied hive with no artificial requeening was started on that day. It's doing quite well this year, best in the yard.

It's hard to diagnose a dead hive with mite related problems when I can't find any mites during the autopsy.

If I have one hive that dies of cold starvation with a cluster seven inches in diameter, and one that dies being frozen solid with a cluster at two inches in diameter three months later, which one died of mite related problems? I'm serious, I'd really like to know, because this is what happened to me this year. Both hives were sourced in Georgia. The smaller one was superceded. I have come to the conclusion that there was something deficient in the Georgian hives as far as wintering ability goes. I've had four of them not make it over the winter.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Sol are tracheal mites a problem in your area?

There's not alot of talk about tracheal mites on the forum so I dont know if they are widespread or even if they are a problem?

do the treatment free beekeepers do anything about small hive beetle?

8 years and still going strong with no treatments is a great accomplishment:thumbsup:

frazz


----------



## Oldtimer

WiredForStereo said:


> It's hard to diagnose a dead hive with mite related problems when I can't find any mites during the autopsy.


More than likely, you won't. Look for signs in the brood, but not actual mites.

For some time I ran permanent non sticky testing boards under screened bottom boards. It was a mystery to me how one day I could find say, 20 mites on the board, not remove them, but next day, none. Where did they go? Well one day I found ants carrying them off. there could be other ways dead mites disappear also. Not finding any mites would be a very unsafe way of saying the hive did not die of mites.

On another note, about the keeping pure lines against open mating issue, in one of Dees things where she is talking about converting a commercial outfit to resistant bees, she talks about 500 hives. Her wording is confusing, but i THINK she means you need at least 500 hives to allow open mating but be able to maintain your own line.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Oldtimer, do you think their could be an issue with getting any sort of survivor bee going in NZ because of our limited races/breed of bee?

also do you know what race/breed the black bees are that are in some outfits, not the carnis but the bees that are often found in hives on the coast, the black buggers that chase you down the road!

cheers frazz


----------



## Oldtimer

Well we don't have cape bees!

Some SMR bees have been developed here, still a lot of work to do though. because of the shorter amount of time we've had mites the Americans are a few steps ahead of us (i think), and they are working with more breeds, although some of them I'm glad we don't have we'll work with what we've got thanks!

The black ones that chase you down the road? When I started in bees they were known in the trade as "black xxxx". Well, actually, I can't say what they were known as.

They are actually AMM, or commonly, black british and german bees, they were brought here by the first settlers before italian bees arrived. They used to be very common and the bane of beekeeping. Their drones have more semen than italians, giving them a mating advantage, and also their hives have more drones. The hybrid with italian could be incredibly nasty. 
There's a lot less of them now thanks, surprisingly, to varroa mites. As nobody actually wanted these bees many of them were feral, a constant source of drones. But these have been pretty much wiped out by varroa. And even in managed hives, varroa have hurt them more than italians, for several reasons. But their genes are now to some extent in most of our italians. I hardly ever see them up here, at least not in a big enough genetic % to make the hive aggresive. Didn't know you still had them in your parts.


----------



## Solomon Parker

frazzledfozzle said:


> Sol are tracheal mites a problem in your area?
> 
> do the treatment free beekeepers do anything about small hive beetle?


Tracheal mites don't seem to be a problem anymore. They are rarely treated for even among conventional beekeepers. I've seen a bee or two from time to time who looks like she might have T-mites, but I can't be certain.

I see beetles. I see maybe one per hive over the course of a year. I inspected my newbee friend's hive last Friday and saw one. They don't seem to be a big problem here, but I can't be certain if that's a treatment free solution or if the soils aren't good for larvae. I haven't seen beetle larvae in any of my hives, just beetles.

Two Kiwis! We are so lucky!


----------



## Solomon Parker

Side note, Mr. Russell advertises some AMMs. http://russellapiaries.webs.com/apps/webstore/products/show/2019319 The website claims they're gentle enough to work every day, but I'm not sure exactly what that means.

I am thinking about sampling his stock this next year, maybe some AMMs, maybe some Caucasians. Definitely looking forward to Bush's bees, they are dark as well.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes some time ago when I discovered Robert had AMM's and was actually SELLING them I was a bit taken aback. They were diabolical here and a constant struggle to keep out of your own bees.

So I discussed it with Robert and he has been able to produce a variety of them that are not aggressive. 

They actually have their good points. I have had hives of pretty much pure AMM. They are hard working, tough, and will outproduce any italian. They are thrifty and will go through winter on the smell of an oily rag. If any vandals ever mess with them, they won't come back to try it again! They keep a tidy clean hive.

Bad points are two. Swarming and aggression. 

However some of the harder areas in NZ where italians just couldn't really produce a viable crop, commercial beeks used to run a AMM hybrid and they would produce. I've always thought, if you could just take their good points, or eliminate the bad, they would actually be a great bee, if not an awesome bee.

Don't know just whatever Robert has done to them, but for the curious, I'd definately recommend a punt on his "non aggressive AMM's. In fact if anyone does, I'd be very interested to hear eventually what you thought of them.


----------



## StevenG

Frazz, to respond to your question about winter dead-outs and the probability of mites: When I kept bees back in the '70's and '80's, I got used to doing post mortems on winter die-outs. Cluster location, honey stores, position of bees in cells and bottom board, moisture. Now, I do the same thing, but in addition, look for deformed wings. Dead mites may or may not be there. But the only hive I've had difficulties with had many bees with deformed wings. Since that incident, I've not seen any. So for me, all things being equal, with the absence of deformed wings, I attribute a winter die-off to other factors. Here in SE Missouri we've had some very nice, warm, almost hot days, following by crashing temps and snow! LOLOL So bees can get trapped in place by a brood nest, out of reach of stores, and starve. 

Now, I'm not saying mites _could_ have or have not contributed, but my inclination is to blame other reasons. If anyone else has another take on mites and winter kills, I'd like to hear/read it. Thanks!

SHB - yes, I use in hive oil traps (AJ's Beetle Eater) for the shb, and have considered myself treatment free, as I don't use "chemicals" for the beetles, and do nothing for mites. However, as the "Treatment free" definition evolves on another thread, I guess I'm really not "treatment free" :doh:

My oldest hives without any mite treatments of any kind are entering their 6th year now (since I re-started with bees)
Regards,
Steven


----------



## sqkcrk

StevenG said:


> My oldest hives without any mite treatments of any kind are entering their 6th year now (since I re-started with bees)
> Regards,
> Steven


If you haven't requeened this hive, the bees certainly have. Or maybe you have split it every year?


----------



## frazzledfozzle

I'm interested in the numbers of hives and the length of time that they are treatment free.

If I was selecting for a trait in my bees, as I do every year, I make sure my yard has the drones that I want and I graft from the queens I've selected.

We had a situation where we had a large number of hives that were given to us that had the blackest nastiest bees I've ever seen, It was difficult to requeen them as often the queen or the cell would be destroyed so we mainly requeened using nucs.
All those hives now have our own selected queens and the bees are beautiful gentle italians that took about 2 years, and I dont expect to see the black bees back again as varroa has wiped them out in the wild.

So having selected survivor bees for your outfits I would expect all the hives to come through every winter and those hives to be around for 20, 30+ years unaffected by mites as long as you are requeening with survivor queens this would be what I would expect.

Having said all that I know that there are variables and certainly a winter like some of you get would no doubt have a big impact on bee health and of course there can always be the odd hive that dosn't have the survivor trait just as every now and again we get a gnarly hive.

Is there anyone out there that has survivor Apis Mellifera in a climate that dosn't have snow for most/all of the winter? If so what numbers do you go into winter with and what numbers do you come out with and how long have you been doing it?

For every hundred hives that we over winter we would on average lose 1 or 2
but have lost as many as 5, usually from going queenless never from mites as we still get excellent protection using Apivar and Bayvarol.

cheers
frazz


----------



## StevenG

sqkcrk said:


> If you haven't requeened this hive, the bees certainly have. Or maybe you have split it every year?


At this point, I have split every year, and have requeened my two original hives once each. I figure they have requeened themselves though, by this time. If they have, then the break in brood rearing has been beneficial if there were any mites (and I believe there are always mites in my hives, just under control). Personally, I think I would be daft to think there are no mites in my hives, so I operate on two assumptions: a) I'm not daft, and b) there are mites in my hives, just not deleterious to the health of the colony. (And no, point 'a' is not up for discussion! :lpf
Regards,
Steven


----------



## sqkcrk

StevenG said:


> At this point, I have split every year, and have requeened my two original hives once each.
> Regards,
> Steven


What did you requeen them w/? Did you use the same queens in your splits and your requeened colonies?


----------



## Solomon Parker

I just want to posit a point of view here, if you requeen a hive, it's not the same hive. Unless the replacement queen is the daughter of the original, it's a different hive. It's different bees, different genetics. What I have is a hive that has the great great (however many) granddaughter of the queen I bought from Koehnen back in 2003. The hive and its lineage has remained alive and intact and living in the same home for eight years. It has never been requeened and the genetics are original. The boxes and frames have come and gone, and I don't remember the last time it was split, but it's the same bees.

It is the realization of a true survivor experiment, where you take a group of commercial bees and stop treating them and see what happens. It is one of 20 originals. The rest of my bees came either from (or are descendants of) Don K. or swarms. 

Perhaps this is what Mr. Fozzle was speaking about now that I think of it. How do I maintain my line? I don't requeen. Maybe that's the answer. Maybe letting more hives die during the winter is my way of doing the same thing that others do and call it requeening. If I split a hive in the spring and one of the hives dies during the winter, does that not achieve the same thing in the course of a year? 

Perhaps my system of not requeening is not the most commercially and financially efficient plan, and I freely admit this. And perhaps such a system appears to have a higher death rate. But in the grand scheme of things, this is how I see it in nature. A hive is not meant to be continuously inhabited for decades. Wax moths are as much a part of honeybee biology in nature as wax is. Wax is a sink for toxins. Even without treating a hive, wax should be rotated out regularly when the opportunity presents itself. This, I believe, is one way we can keep the bees operating within their natural thresholds. If a hive dies, that gives me the opportunity to inspect each frame and process it with impunity if it is too old or messed up or for any other reason.

I don't remember where I was going with this, but I always enjoy listening to beekeepers ramble about the subject, so maybe a newbee can find something in here that they think is interesting.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

When I was talking about the same hive going after 20 or 30 years I wasn't actually meaning they were sitting in the same frames! LOL although we still have hive bodies that are 20+ years old.

We rotate our combs out deligently because as you said over time they absorb any chemicals that are being used in the hive.

Have you thought about requeening your other hives with queens from your 8 year survivor hive?

frazz


----------



## frazzledfozzle

WiredForStereo said:


> I don't remember where I was going with this, but I always enjoy listening to beekeepers ramble about the subject, so maybe a newbee can find something in here that they think is interesting.


I apologise if you think I'm rambling but as a newbie to the ins and outs of "survivor" bees I can only learn by asking questions and reading other points of view.

frazz


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Yes I know 3rd post in a row!

I'm going to be blunt say what I'm not understanding and then shutup.

If there are survivor bees in the true sense of the word as in they survive infestations of varroa why are hives in treatment free outfits still dying on what I would call a large scale? 

Why isn't it possible to requeen with survivor queens and have survivor stock?
If there's a true survivor bee out there that can live with varroa I would expect that if I requeened my entire outfit with them I would be able to go treatment free but it dosn't seem to work like that and I'm wondering why?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

It is simple...Totally resistant bees have not been bred yet. They may never be. Something everybody is forgetting. While our bees try to genetically evolve and become resistant to the mites over time, the Varroa mite is evolving also!!! The best we may ever be able to achieve is a bee that is tolerant to the mite, thus survives from season to season. It is stressful enough for a bee to have a parasite the size of a dinner plate sucking blood out of the bee. (If the bee were human size.) Throw in other stressful factors with Varroa that are out in the bees environment and a certain percentage of colonies will perish every year ,whether they are treatment free or not. TK


----------



## StevenG

sqkcrk said:


> What did you requeen them w/? Did you use the same queens in your splits and your requeened colonies?


Good points! I appreciate your clarifying questions. One hive was a B. Weaver package, requeened with a B. Weaver bee. other hive was a failing Purvis queen, requeened with B. Weaver queen. Yes, on the second, the genetics changed, even though both were "survivor" or "treatment free." My splits were a combination - walk-away, and some I introduced MnHyg or B. Weaver queens into them. My Russians I have done walk-away splits, and plan to requeen some next year with Russians. 

Then again, I kind of like the idea of letting them requeen themselves, and maintaining those genetics. But from what I've read, we must introduce different genes into our breeding pool periodically, to prevent inbreeding. 

So then the question becomes, if one never treats for mites, and requeens such a "treatment free" hive with a "treatment free' queen, does that really negate the fact that the hive has survived x number of years? One could argue that when the bees requeen themselves, the hive is no longer the same. After all, the now ruling queen mated with different drones than her mother. Who knows what genetics were in the drone congregation area? Something else to chew on, huh? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker

Mr. Kretschmann is correct in a sense. In the same way that there are no death proof humans, there are no death proof bees. However, I will disagree with him about that related to varroa. I don't have a problem with varroa. My bees don't die of varroa as far as I can tell, and I look really closely. 

My bees do die of problems related to not being acclimatized to my area. That has been my biggest problem since moving here. I moved my bees here from Oregon and most of them died of wintering problems. I bought nucs from southern climates and most of them died from wintering problems. That and the occasional lost queen late in the fall, but that could happen to anybody. I think I have bees that are more able to survive here now. I'm expecting a lower loss rate this year than I did last year, as last year's was lower than the year before. It's all part of the process. It is a shame to have lost those four hives that I brought from Oregon though. They had survived 4-5 years treatment free.


----------



## sqkcrk

I find it strange for one to blame the Arkansas climate for killing bees brought south from Oregon and others brought west from GA. Maybe there arew special circumstances about your geographical area which I am not aware of.

I don't know anything else that could be causing your colonies to die, if it isn't varroa, AFB, Nosema cerana or starvation. Is there something I'm missing? There must be.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Varroa may not have killed them but may have put them in a stressful situation where some other pathogen might have gotten a foothold. There are many things that kill bees, including your skunks. But this I do not know, as I have never looked inside one of your colonies, Sol. All organisms on the planet evolve genetically, that is the Origin of Species!!! This include the hated Varroa mite. We have two types of these mites in the United States. Most beekeepers bees in the USA have the Russian genotype that is the most virulent killer. If you are a beekeeper that has bees with the Japanese variant, your operation is most fortunate. As this type of Varroa doesnt kill as quick!! The bees do a better job tolerating the mite. Maybe Sol, your bees have the Japanese variant and that is why you think they are resistant to the mites. This is for all beekeepers!!! If you want more information on the two types of Varroa mite, Contact BEE LEE on this forum for the information. 
This might be the reason why some people think their bees are mite resistant. As the not as lethal Japanese variant of Varroa mite is out there in our general bee population. I hope I have Japanese Varroa mites in my bees!! TK pS the two types of Varroa mite do not coexist well in the same hive.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Let's get to the bottom of this.

How may one identify a hive that has died of varroa or varroa related sickness?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Symptoms of Varroatosis.....Very spotty brood patterns......Many bees with Deformed Wing Virus seen running around in the colony.......PMS, known as Parasitic Mite Syndrome, Capped brood that looks like AFB but has NO rope, is not snotty in appearance and has no smell. The dead larvae looks like a deflated blob but can be remove upon probing. Does not have the appearance of Sac Brood. Sac Brood can be removed whole but the larvae dies laying length wise with the larval head in an upright position. The top of this larvae is black, while the rest is brown. PMS killed larvae are generally black......(You see Varroa crawling around in the colony or hitch hiking on the bees and drones. Lots of Varroa seen on the drone brood that is raised in the burr comb between the brood chambers).....If you can see them in the area marked in parathesis, you got problems....Dead bee pupae or drone larvae out in front of the colony that the bees removed....Ether or Powdered sugar roll that yeilds more than 2 mites to the hundred bees. 3 or more mites to the hundred is usually the threshold for a live healthy colony of bees and a future dead one. Colonies that dwindle out towards the end of winter when they should be building in population.....All these are signs of Varroa infestation and Action by the beekeeper in some form or fashion is required. TK


----------



## Oldtimer

WiredForStereo said:


> How may one identify a hive that has died of varroa or varroa related sickness?


There's a range of things and it's impossible to explain it all in a chat site post. There's also probably 50% of beekeepers that still can't see it in their own bees, even after i have personally shown them.

But some of the more easy give aways are bees 1/2 way emerged, dead, with their tongues sticking straight out. That means mature ones that died while trying to hatch. Secondly bees with unusually small abdomens. Thirdly brood in various states of varroatosis, best to google this and look at pics.
All this is easier to identify the sooner you look at it after the hive died, or even before the hive is dead.

There are other ways but these are much harder to teach someone, for example weak, sickly looking bees that have a particular "look", it was caused by multiple varroa in the cell with them but try to explain the difference between that and a bee with say, SBHD, and it's pretty hard it more comes with experience. 

Frazz has a good point, if survivor bees really existed then people wouldn't be having the huge losses that seem to pass as normal on this forum. I asked about this very thing on the commercial forum, and some of the older guys told me that in the US, before varroa mites, their losses were small compared to now, 1 or 2% annually.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Thanks for that Mr. Kretschmann, that was very informative.

Perhaps you could diagnose the problem that I had to clear it all up.

Here was the case: November, Cluster about 7 inches in diameter over several frames. Capped honey about three inches from the cluster. No brood, clean cells. Bees head down in cells. No K-wing, no mites to be found. No drones. No bee poo in the hive. No obvious signs of problems.


----------



## Oldtimer

Is it normal for there to be no brood at that time?

Was there snow? What were the min and max temps? What was on the bottom board? What breed of bee? What is normal cluster size for you at that time?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Everything seemed to be normal. My bees begin brooding again some time in January or February. Minimum temperatures probably around 20F. They were light colored bees, Italians if you will. Also, there were a few dead bees on the bottom board. We tend to get the occasional very warm day when the bees can work, clean, defecate, etc. I don't usually see a pile of them.

In other still living hives, I see how they've had to contract the cluster during cold spells and have lost brood, capped and uncapped.


----------



## sqkcrk

November seems early to me to have hives w/out brood. The hives I bring south from NY, in October still have brood in them in November.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

If there were several days of prolonged tempartures below 57* degrees for a daily high. There is a chance the cluster starved to death within inches of capped honey. If the bees are not able to break cluster to forage on their stores, even though they can see it, they will die. TK


----------



## Solomon Parker

Okay Ted, how can I fix that? How is that the fault of the supers on the hive? Why do more Georgia bees die of that than locals or others?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Oldtimer, the year 1987 was cold as a rip in Alabama. Varroa mites had not really got established good. I lost 18 colonies out of 1250 that winter. The fall crop had been really good. I wish for those days again but with Varroa, all that changed. TK


----------



## jim lyon

Old-timer: Talk a bit more, if you would, about the emerging dead bees. Seeing some of this in hives I would otherwise think of as being fairly healthy. When we extricate the bees they seem, at least to me,as being normal with no deformed wings. Not seeing any of the other classic signs of high mite load. Is this condition always and only a result of varroa?


----------



## Oldtimer

Sol, OK well based on that, IMHO, a diagnosis is not possible, without actually seeing the hive. Much harder when there is no brood because most of the signs are in the brood. In a deadout due to varroa, if there's brood, it will be clear once you know what to look for. But you may or may not see much in the adult bees.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

By giving your bees a little edge in the fall. Give them a little sugar syrup in the form of two part sugar and one part water. That way the "dry comb area" that your bees are clustering on have something in the form of food right there at them. Remember I said Sugar, not HFCS. Sugar is a more natural complex food for the bees and bulks them up better than HFCS. HFCS is like an adrenalian shot and just does not last. I do not feed HFCS to my bees, due to the past formulation problems producers of this product have had in recent years. Also I want to ask you have you ever done an Ether roll or a Powdered Sugar Roll to test for mites... Have you ever used sticky boards under your colonies to determine what the mite populations are by mite drop???? It would be helpful if we all knew what level of mites your bees have. If the mite level is high, since you want to remain chemical free, I would recommend powdered sugar dusting for a possible control. You need to read up on the article for using powdered sugar dusting for Varroa mite control by Randy Oliverez in the American Bee Journal. Also Oxalic Acid drench works also, and it is another natural substance that is found in your own body,. TK


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Jim, I have seen bees half emerged that died in otherwise healthy colonies also. But it seems it was always where a wax moth larvae had burrowed under the emerging bees. When you pull the half emerged bee out, there was just a wee bit of worm silk attached to the bee. TK


----------



## Oldtimer

Jim, no DWV does not nessecarily mean no varroa. 

DWV was with us here in my country before varroa. But VERY rare. I would occasionally see a bee with it, once every few hundred hives, or even more rarely than that. My own opinion is it's a bee disease that's probably been around for thousands of years.

But once we got varroa, they spread DWV, probably via body fluids, so it's now common. So when there is a hive with high DWV, that's a virtual certain indicator of high varroa. You have to have varroa to spread it among the bees to that extent. But it doesn't always work the other way around, there can also be high varroa but no DWV, just means that the particular virus is not present in that hive, even though there are varroa.


----------



## honeyshack

WiredForStereo said:


> I don't have a problem with varroa. My bees don't die of varroa as far as I can tell, and I look really closely.


If you don't have a varroa problem....prove it...what are your varroa counts?
Preferred method...alcohol wash...300 bees and a percentage
Shake vigorously for either 8-10 minutes or let sit for 1 hour then strain and count



WiredForStereo said:


> My bees do die of problems related to not being acclimatized to my area. That has been my biggest problem since moving here.


If bees die of cold...there would be no bees in the praire provinces of Canada or in the very northern states....and we get our queens from California, Hawai (sp), and some other southern state area. We import packages from New Zeland...can't be more un climatized than that.

Again I state...bees do not die of cold. Bees do not starve because of cold. Bees can not access the feed just a few inches from them in a cold snap because they are weak ...usually due to varroa

Prove there is no varroa problem...counts please


----------



## Solomon Parker

If you would send me the supplies, I would be happy to do all the testing in the world. I'm curious myself, but do not see the value of the time or money expenditure in it.

But I definitely won't be applying any [[[[[treatments]]]]] chemical or otherwise. And I don't feel like bees who need to be fed to survive especially when they have plenty of honey available are worth my time. So while you may see a lost hive as lost income, and as well you should, I see them as natural selection at work.

I guess the question goes, "how many hives did you lose this year?" But all I ask is "did I lose fewer this year than last year?" The answer is yes, and I'm satisfied with that.


----------



## jim lyon

These are in bees that we have just gotten back from the almonds pretty sure it isn't wax moth related. Haven't noticed it on the strongest hives (perhaps because they quickly clean them out?) but have seen some hives with 4 to 6 or 7 frames of brood exhibiting this.


----------



## Oldtimer

And with the 1/2 emerged dead bees with their tongue sticking straight out, you don't see it so much in a mild or moderate infestation. But in a major infestation or dead out you will almost certainly see it.

Take it in combination with the other signs Ted mentioned in post 91 and you have a pretty safe diagnosis.

I'll also agree with Ted that it can be seen under some other circumstances, but other things in the hive would tell you that it's not varroa. the 1/2 emerged & dead with extended tongue requires more than one varroa to have entered the larva at pupation, enough to weaken it to the point it cannot hatch. By this time you have a big infestation. So if the hive otherwise seems healthy it may be something else. But for me I've rarely seen this except in a badly varroa infested hive.


----------



## honeyshack

WiredForStereo said:


> If you would send me the supplies, I would be happy to do all the testing in the world. I'm curious myself, but do not see the value of the time or money expenditure in it.


Can test with things found in your house and vehicle

Windshield washer fluid works well, has to be fluid good to -30 if you have not rubbing alcohol. And a couple of old used jars, and a strainer which would hold bees back but let mites and fluid through Then count


----------



## honeyshack

With varroa damage, we have seen bees that half emerge when the hive gets weak, tongue sticking out. This is usually a sign of a hive which will not recover due to our short seasons...just not enough time to rebuild for winter.
Southern state side however, with a bit of help and some luck, might work


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Sol, I am sure you have an old mayonaise jar laying around with lid. And you will need a piece of newspaper with a fold in it. Shake three hundred bees on the newspaper and dump into the jar. Put the lid on the jar and then fill jar up with alcohol. Let sit for one hour. Strain bees out with wire strainer and let the alcohol that is passing through the strainer strain through a piece of white cotton tee shirt. Count your mites and divide by three. That will give you the percentage of mites per hundred bees. TK


----------



## Oldtimer

Jim have you tested those hives for varroa?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Okay, so do I have to count bee by bee or is there a quicker way? And who is going to be sending me the cash for the quart of booze? I'll waive the reimbursement for the bees.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Jim, I have pollinated in Cali before. I was told that Almond pollen that bees love so much, also has a toxin in it that was a little bit poisoness to the bees. Due you think that the colonies might have been weaken a little bit by ingestion of this pollen source causing the emerging bees that developed off this poisoness pollen not having the strength to emerge???? Just thinking outside of the box. Anymore in this business you have too. TK


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

You drink rubbing alcohol from the drug store and you will go blind and crazy. It is rubbing alcohol you will be using. Three hundred bees is about a half pint of bees. TK


----------



## jim lyon

Ted: I was kind of thinking along the same lines or possibly a fungicide used out there. The hives left here in East Texas the past 2 months aren't showing any signs of it. As a side note those hives that didn't make the trip because they were too small have actually outgrown those larger hives that were placed in the almonds.


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer said:


> Jim have you tested those hives for varroa?


I must admit not specifically on those hives other than a cursory inspection for other overt signs such as mites in drone brood. I did do a number of alcohol shakes recently on random samples and found mite levels averaging less than 1 per half cup sample. Kind of got me out of the sampling mood.


----------



## honeyshack

WFS,
In a sample for testing, varroa testing is done from just the brood chambers and it is a cross reference sample of all your hives. Some bees from some weak and some middle grounded and some strong. It gives a good cross reference sample of the yard. Now if you have out yards, that is a different story. Each yard is it's own sample Recommended 15% of hives should be tested, of those 15%, a cross of each type of hive...weak, average, strong.

ONLY from the brood frames....Not from the outside frames, but the frames where good brood is on

That is the proper procedure for testing for varroa...you want nurse bees


Nosema is different, it is the foragers


----------



## honeyshack

jim lyon said:


> . I did do a number of alcohol shakes recently on random samples and found mite levels averaging less than 1 per half cup sample. Kind of got me out of the sampling mood.


How many bees...?
Where from which did you get the bees? Brood frames or honey frames? Makes a huge difference
How long in the wash? Let sit for about the hour mark or shake like a paint can in the hardware store for 8 minutes.
Even with both of these methods, if the alcohol was left on for longer, more mites would dislodge (got that from the testing lab)


----------



## sqkcrk

I did ether rolls and alcohol washes, as an Apiary Inspector, on hundreds of colonies every year for 20 years, since mites showed up in NY. I prefer the ether roll method.


----------



## RiodeLobo

WiredForStereo said:


> If you would send me the supplies, I would be happy to do all the testing in the world. I'm curious myself, but do not see the value of the time or money expenditure in it.


I really don't understand your ambivalence toward testing. It has been stated that you don't loose hives to varroa, but without testing how can you be sure?
To me this seems to be critical information.


----------



## jbeshearse

Its easier to offer your opinion if you are not concerned about having actual data to back it up. 

There is a vast difference between management free and treatment free. Management free is treatment free by neglect. Managing to a treatment free standard is something altogether different.


----------



## Omie

I may not entirely be on one 'side' or another here, but my thoughts include:

Mites checks are good. Some people do them, many do not, especially when they are not seeing any of the classic mite symptoms. They can still rightfully have their _opinion_ on how their own hives died, for goodness sake! If someone asked me to 'prove' that my hive didn't die from varroa by providing them with 'actual data', I'd tell them they can go jump in the lake. 
If someone chooses to have bees without 'managing' them by doing mite checks using specific methods, well that's a legitimate way to have bees too, I think it's pretty judgmental to accuse them of 'neglect'. I watch for symptoms of mites myself, but I don't do official ether roll mite checks because I don't plan on doing official mite treatments other than regularly splitting and drone brood culling. I reserve my right to change my mind and methods later. I think one of my hives died from starvation due to cold this winter. They had no mite symptoms, but had obvious starvation symptoms. You want 'proof' they didn't die from mites?- sorry, but I'm not inclined to provide you with what you want.  And I'll stick with my statement that they died from starvation.

I feel if someone wants to keep bees in any manner they choose then that's their right. Others might feel it's irresponsible to treat bees with chemicals and medications, after all. I don't necessarily agree with the flat out statement "Management free is treatment free by neglect." _I hear what you are trying to say by it_, but few things are ever all one way or the other. They are usually a combination of factors.
Where is this thread all leading again? It all feels so familiar somehow....

How does any of this relate to the thread topic?...What _is_ the thread topic?...Who am I? lol!


----------



## hpm08161947

I think the point about testing is not to prove how they died, but to instead know that they have survived. For example, lets say I test a thriving hive and find a very high mite count. Well that tells me I must have some pretty tough survivor bees.. the kind I'd like to graft from.. or take splits. With out testing I do not understand how a treatment free beekeep can know what he has in his boxes.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Actually, when I'm offering my opinion, I state it as such. It is my opinion that bees can be kept treatment free. It is my experience that my bees don't die of varroa because I haven't seen the signs of it. And the signs have been very well explained by Mr. Kretschmann and I'm not new at this. If you don't think bees can be kept treatment free, then this probably isn't the forum for you. In the same way, if you don't want to keep bees in top bar hives, then don't use the Top Bar Hive forum.

Rio, think of it from my perspective. I know I have mites. Everybody does. I've seen them. I've seen one this year, on a live bee that flew out to attack me when I opened a hive that is still alive today. I know they're there. But what if I have a bunch of them? What am I going to do about it? I don't use treatments. The only thing I'm going to let them do is die.

Or, I could requeen, but when? At what infestation level? We use mite counts to decide which hives to breed from or whatever, but since when is this the best avenue? I am an engineering student, about to graduate and go into grad school. I know science. I know how scientists discover something they can test for and then try to fit that number to a whole host of other correlations. I understand it. It's something that works on a certain level. But if you watch deknow's videos, on the page to where the OP links, there is vast amount of life within a hive. A hive is not only a collective organism, it's a superorganism, just like the human body. There are thousands of species of critters that live inside. Correlating only one number to the health of a hive is skipping over a whole lot of information. 

In his video, Sam Comfort talks about hygenic behavior which some breeders breed for directly. But as he says, hygenic behavior is not the most efficient means by which bees deal with mites or disease. But is a number we can control and work with and use to make decisions. It doesn't follow that it's the most useful number as wild colonies have wildly varying rates of hygenic behavior and still remain alive. So if a hive can do just fine with 5 or even ten mites on a hundred bees, I wouldn't do anything about it, the same as if they had zero.

I like Steven's definition "TFMM - Treatment Free Mite Management, the beekeeper allows the bees to manage the mites without any input from the beekeeper, other than breeding." So I guess one could say in the area of disease management, I am management free. I let the bees do it. But there's no neglect involved.


----------



## Omie

hpm08161947 said:


> I think the point about testing is not to prove how they died, but to instead know that they have survived. For example, lets say I test a thriving hive and find a very high mite count. Well that tells me I must have some pretty tough survivor bees.. the kind I'd like to graft from.. or take splits. With out testing I do not understand how a treatment free beekeep can know what he has in his boxes.


good points.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sol the problem is the number of hives you are losing.

People are being told that the method is to let hives die and the rest are survivors and you stock from them. The impression is given (not just you by all treatment free theorists), is that after that period you have survivor bees and mite losses are minimal. Especially with small cell and all.

But instead people are seing an outfit start with 20 hives, and over the last 8 years have massive losses, still ongoing, and despite purchases of new bees there are currently 5 hives. The explanations for the death toll don't stack up in some peoples minds. 

Having said that, your information is a great help to the debate because you have largely been open and honest, which has been frustratingly lacking in info given by others. However your statistics, which I suspect will be similar to those of many treatment free folks, must lead to the conclusion that this doesn't really work as claimed.

Not that trying is a brick wall. We MUST try. But I think that progress will be made by a scientific approach such as used by some commercial breeders. And this should be supported on this forum.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer,

Let me clarify the "massive" losses I have seen.

I started with twenty packages in 2003 which were from commercial treated bees. One of the packages absconded. It could happen to anyone. When the population stabilized, there were six left and those six persisted for five and a half years. Then I moved them to Arkansas in 2008 and my bees which were acclimitized to Oregon with temperatures of 20-110 degrees and low humidity were surprised by temperatures from -20 to 90 with 100% humidity. Over the course of two years, I lost five of the six, one after being the biggest producer of the year.

In 2007, I bought one small cell nuc from Georgia. It is still alive. This may be due to the fact that it probably swarmed the first month and left me with a more localized queen.

In 2009, I bought two small cell nucs from Georgia. They both died first winter.

In 2010, I bought three small cell nucs from Georgia. Two died the first winter.

As you can see, most of the bees I have added to that one hive in 2007 have died. I haven't been losing locally acclimitized bees at any great rate. I make no claims that all the bees will live. I am open and honest about all details of my operation. 

You'll notice, I didn't mention many splits. That's because when I bought the original 20, I overstepped my finances and thus, I let the dying hives go unreplaced to consolidate the equipment, much of which was used trash and had to be donated to the campfire after a single season. When I moved here at first, I only brought one hive (boxes) with me, so when I restarted in 2007, I only kept one the first year. Then I brought the six back from Oregon in 2008. I split one that year, but the split failed to raise a queen and was reunited to the original. In 2009, I added the two nucs. They did well, growing into four deeps without feeding, but died that winter. In 2010, I brought in three more nucs, one growing into four, one growing into three, one superceding its queen immediately and getting really behind. Two of those died, the biggest one remains. This last year I brought the last of my equipment back from Oregon and I have spent all winter rehabilitating it and building more, and now I have enough equipment to expand to 16 hives which is my plan this year.

I don't feel like I'm losing a great portion of *my* bees every year. Moving bees is very hard on them, and I have no doubt that the extra stress from moving and compounded by not being treated led to their demises due to various causes. But I haven't been losing my well established hives. And I haven't lost any local swarms. Virtually all the injections of bees you mentioned died before contributing anything. I'm adding to what is essentially is a core of two hives. But it is an extremely strong core. They both have been producing honey consistently for several years. Last year I gave one an entire deep full of foundation and they filled it and went up to six deeps full of bees and honey. These aren't survivor dinks.

If I had started with 20 fully equipped hives in one static apiary and after eight years had only managed to keep five of them alive even after adding two swarms and six nucs, I'd say I absolutely agree with you Alastair, it's a horrible record. But that's simply not the case. Furthermore, I expected 90 to 95% losses from the very beginning. I'm not a good example of a scientific project, I admit it, there are far too many unaccounted for variables. But I want you to know that I am an open book. I endeavor to provide you with the objective truth even if it doesn't make me look good. If you want more positive news, talk to Michael Bush. His stats are a thing of beauty.


----------



## sqkcrk

If one followed Roland's lead and smushed drone brood every 14 days, as a means of varroa mite control, that wouldn't be considered a treatment, would it? Maybe, for those who don't wish to use chemicals to manage their mites, this method of mite managment should be considered.


----------



## RiodeLobo

WiredForStereo said:


> Or, I could requeen, but when? At what infestation level? We use mite counts to decide which hives to breed from or whatever, but since when is this the best avenue?


That was my point. If there were accurate mite counts in the fall, and hives died out in the winter there may, or may not, be a correlation. If there is such a correlation then you would have the data on the level at which you could re-queen.

Or as stated before some hive flourish with high mite counts, or better yet flourish with low ones. This would give a better understanding of what is happening in the hives, and thus, a better guide as to where you could direct your own breeding protocol. 

I also am very grateful for your experience and willingness to share it. But agree completely with Oldtimer's previous post, who stated it better than I can.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Sol.

No need to justify, I wasn't alking about you, just your statistics, which you have been brave enough to share. In fact, reading between the lines of other treatment free peoples posts, personally, I think your stats are fairly typical among hobbyist treatment free folks.

It is very useful to the discussion to have such statistics. That way, if things improve, it can be shown. And if it can be shown, that can be useful.

As an aside, though, most commercial beekeepers could not be expected to follow this route. If they could take all their losses in a year or two and then recover, some could financially withstand it. But nobody could survive 8 years of this.


----------



## Oldtimer

sqkcrk said:


> If one followed Roland's lead and smushed drone brood every 14 days, as a means of varroa mite control, that wouldn't be considered a treatment, would it? Maybe, for those who don't wish to use chemicals to manage their mites, this method of mite managment should be considered.


I have tried a variant of this with a few hives, ( I don't have enough hives these days for what could be considered a proper test ).

However, the results have been surprisingly good. I had thought the method might just be another load of theory that doesn't work. But it's dropped mite numbers in hives dramatically. Using this and some other manipulations most of my hives have not been exposed to any of the cumulative chemicals such as apistan and are free of chemical contamination. Some hives are though but I feel I'm making progress, and over the last 4 ish years I've been back in bees, as a hobby now, I've not lost any hives out of around 30. For any reason.


----------



## Omie

sqkcrk said:


> If one followed Roland's lead and smushed drone brood every 14 days, as a means of varroa mite control, that wouldn't be considered a treatment, would it? Maybe, for those who don't wish to use chemicals to manage their mites, this method of mite managment should be considered.


I've been doing this periodically (not on a strict 14 day basis though).
Too early to tell if it works well, but I'm doing it anyway because it makes sense to me. 
Maybe it's the reason I have one strong surviving hive this Spring.
Or maybe it's the reason I lost one hive this winter. :scratch:
Hard to come to any general conclusions when I've only had 3 hives so far and am starting my 3rd year.

Some folks _do_ consider this drone culling to be a treatment. (I don't)

I also plan to do some splits/nucs this year via the Disselkoen method, and let them raise their own queens at the end of June, thus breaking the mite breeding cycle. This is a new thing for me, so we'll see how it goes this year.

So, drone culling, splitting, and requeening is my current 'row to hoe'.


----------



## Oldtimer

Omie said:


> Some folks _do_ consider this drone culling to be a treatment. (I don't).


Well it is a treatment. Same as small cell foundation is a treatment.

But the point is it is not a chemical treatment. Which means your honey is not contaminated, and your combs are not contaminated. So at some future time you could move to a better method if you found one, in the knowledge that your combs are not contaminated.

I'd also point out that Dee Lusby promotes herself as a natural, treatment free beekeeper. But she culls drone comb very aggressively and will not allow bees a natural level of drone comb. 

So if she can be called natural and treatment free, then so are you Omie.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> I'd also point out that Dee Lusby...she culls drone comb very aggressively and will not allow bees a natural level of drone comb.


An absolute falsehood. I'm curious where you got such an impression.

Dee "culls" frames that have more than 10-15% drone comb (by moving them into a position for honey rather than brood). 

She leaves an inch or so of space between the bottom of her foundation and the bottom bar OF EVERY FRAME, specifically so that the bees can put drone comb on every frame if they see the need for it.

It is notable that there is little burr drone comb between her boxes...because she allows the bees a natural level of drone comb and brood.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Well, deknow went and said everything I did while I was typing, and posted first, so I'll just mention my experience following Dee's method.

I don't have any burr comb either. With my 3/4" top entrances, I have about 15/16" of space between the top bars and the hive top, and yet, there is very rarely ever any burr comb in that space. Leaving a similar space (to Dee) at the bottom of the frame foundationless leaves plenty of space for drone brood, if they chose to utilize it which they don't always do. I cull excessive drone comb to the honey supers where it gets filled in the usual way.


----------



## deejaycee

WiredForStereo said:


> culls drone to natural levels


Surely an oxymoron? Either you cull drones, or you allow the natural level that the bees decide to build?

Or is the implication that other manipulations force an unnatural level of drone comb construction in the first place?


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> An absolute falsehood. I'm curious where you got such an impression.
> 
> deknow


It's in her writings right here on beesource. Please don't tell me you never saw it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

deejaycee, sorry, I edited my post, but I'll be happy to answer your questions.

What Dee found to be natural levels of drone comb, she discovered in fully feral hives. In a fully feral hive, combs are not moved, or added at odd times, or ever. The brood nest is therefore constructed in more or less a single pass. 

The theory goes that messing with the hives in the way we do causes the bees to react differently and to build more drone comb than they would have in the wild. Remember, in the wild, drone comb usually falls between the broodnest and the honey storage area. In man made hives, with frames being moved around all the time, when bees are ready to utilize drone or honey comb, none may be available and so they modify existing comb or draw drone on worker foundation, or build burr comb.

Dee found the wild level of drone to be 10-15% as deknow said. So that's what she (and I) culls to.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> It's in her writings right here on beesource.


I read the same stuff, and that's not how I remember it. She culls to the levels she discovered in natural hives.


----------



## Oldtimer

In fact a natural level is around 20%. And in a natural (wild) hive it stays where the bees wanted it, not get moved to a different part of the hive or cut out totally.

A natural level is what the bees decide to build in the particular situation they are in. If in a particular hive they decide to build 25% drone, that's the natural level they would like, in that particular hive.

In very small wild hives restricted by space, they will not have much drone comb because they can't afford it. But in larger hives they will.


----------



## deejaycee

Thanks for the reply, Sol. I suspected that was the case. 

As an aside, from research papers I've read, 10-15% would be the low end. The consensus seems to be about 17%.


----------



## hpm08161947

Please excuse my confusion... but I think I am reading that Ms. Lusby finds that in a "maintained" hive that there is approximately 85% too much drone. She does not smush them but places the 85% in the honey supers... Am I reading you guys correctly?

Wait a min.. I think I get it... 15% of the brood should be drone... in nature..


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> In fact a natural level is around 20%. And in a natural (wild) hive it stays where the bees wanted it, not get moved to a different part of the hive or cut out totally.


right, a natural hive does not get moved, and does not get managed for honey production. Swarms will tend to move into something about the volume aof a single deep box. It is in this volume that the bees set up a natural nest, and rarely is the cavity "expandable". if one were to keep "natural hives", it would be this size, with no frames, no honey harvest, no beekeeper.
A hive of this size is programed to reproduce sexually...which means both swarming and producing lots of drones. Management for honey is a different thing altogether.



> A natural level is what the bees decide to build in the particular situation they are in. If in a particular hive they decide to build 25% drone, that's the natural level they would like, in that particular hive.


In some parts of the season the bees will want to raise more drones than in others. The "particular situation" in a kept hive varies, and is invariably different from that of a "natural hive". In a situation where every frame has plenty of room to build drone comb, and in which full frames _are_ drawn out without cramming the empty space full of drone, the hive is likely "drone right". Likewise when they don't raise drones between boxes (which is pretty much considered normal for most beekeepers).

But to the point...I don't consider keeping the amount of drone comb IN THE BROODNEST to 10-15% as "culling drone comb very aggressively", and I can't imagine who would. Remember kids, we are talking about IN THE BROODNEST not in the hive in total.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

She says cull drone cells from comb over 10%. Don't recall anything about 15%. She sees this as very important. Even any comb with more than 10% large worker cells gets culled.

So considering some combs would have no drone comb at all, then the ones with over 10% should be culled, the end game must be a level below 10%.

Not natural.

But 1. It doesn't mean that much to me, and 2. I didn't realise mentioning it would stir up such a hornets nest.

My point was, if it's good enough for Dee, being so natural and all, it's good enough for Omie. If Dee is treatment free, then so is Omie, at least in regard to drone comb management.

Me, I'm not bound by any dogma. I manage drones and have no problem with that. My hives are managed hives, I don't claim to anyone my hives are "natural", whatever that is.

A question though, you've indicated a "theory" that in managed hives combs are moved around, causing bees to build too much drone comb. If that was really true, why does she move it around?

Let's just call a spade a spade, she culls drone to less than the bees want. In my opinion aggressively. She definately culls more drone comb than I do.


----------



## Omie

Oldtimer said:


> My point was, if it's good enough for Dee, being so natural and all, it's good enough for Omie. If Dee is treatment free, then so is Omie, at least in regard to drone comb management.
> 
> Me, I'm not bound by any dogma. I manage drones and have no problem with that. My hives are managed hives, I don't claim to anyone my hives are "natural", whatever that is.


Well, just for the record... and knowing that we don't all have the same definition of 'treatment free' at _all_....
I don't consider myself treatment free or completely natural whether I cull drone brood or not. 
I have 1 dedicated drone size foundation frame in each hive, and I scraped them twice last year, when i happened to find the drone frames mostly all capped. I probably did it partly to justify having bought the drone foundation for that purpose. I figured couldn't hurt. 
I didn't know anything about Dee, and I'm sure none of us feels we are bound by dogma- after all, it's always the _other_ guy that is! 
I consider myself more bound by _cat_ma anyway.


----------



## MARBIS

Oldtimer said:


> Me, I'm not bound by any dogma. I manage drones and have no problem with that. My hives are managed hives, I don't claim to anyone my hives are "natural", whatever that is.


And that's what we like about you, no blind following, no time out to check your opinion:applause: You speak what you think, and that's why people like reading your posts.


----------



## jbeshearse

If you really want to know what a natural drone level is, put medium frames in a deep hive body. The bees will build below the bottom bar whatever kind of comb they feel they need.

Conversly, you can go foundationless and they will build what they desire. I do not cull drones as I want my strong hives to flood the DCAs. This is because I do not buy queens but let my bees raise their own and want the geneticts of my best hives to prevail. In my limited experience, the stonger, better surviving hives produce the most drones. They seem to do this prior to the swarming preparations. It is a natural progression.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> But to the point...I don't consider keeping the amount of drone comb IN THE BROODNEST to 10-15% as "culling drone comb very aggressively", and I can't imagine who would. Remember kids, we are talking about IN THE BROODNEST not in the hive in total.
> deknow


What is the effect on the colony if the proper drone comb percentage isn't maintained?


----------



## deejaycee

sqkcrk said:


> What is the effect on the colony if the proper drone comb percentage isn't maintained?


I'll have a crack at that one... 

1 increased honey production (but not really - it's more like retention of honey that would have been eaten by drones otherwise) - I have a paper filed somewhere that shows the effect of consumption by drones on honey production.

2 transfer of drone-oriented parasites (varroa) to worker brood due to the absence of their preferred drone brood, with resulting increased damage to workers.

3 Increase in burr comb as bees try to right the balance by building drone comb where they can. My natural comb hives (only a year old admittedly) are distinctive by the complete lack of burr comb.


----------



## Oldtimer

WiredForStereo said:


> I read the same stuff, and that's not how I remember it. She culls to the levels she discovered in natural hives.


OK well since I'm being accused of spreading falsehoods, and the words "complete falsehood" was actually used, here is one of the quotes in question

Quote Dee - "CULL ANY COMBS WITH MORE THAN 10% DRONE CELLS DRAWN ON ANY ONE SIDE. MAKE THIS A MANDATORY FIELD MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE. THERE IS VALID REASON FOR DOING THIS." End quote.

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/retrogression-back-to-normal-part-2/

Remember now?

Also the culling is even more extreme than I'd realised till just now. 10% of one side of the comb might only be 5% of the total comb.


----------



## sqkcrk

deejaycee said:


> My natural comb hives (only a year old admittedly) are distinctive by the complete lack of burr comb.


Maybe that's one reason it seemed so easy for Dee and Mrs. Stiglitz to take those hives apart. No burr comb? I'd call that beneficial.

Is the consumption of honey by drones significant?


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> Also the culling is even more extreme than I'd realised till just now. 10% of one side of the comb might only be 5% of the total comb.


Actually, wouldn't 10% of one side of one comb be 5% of that comb and therefore .5% of one deep? And what would that be in an endless broodnest?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Since I do not use excluders and thus I have what some call an endless brood nest. Bees are only going to raise just the amount of drones that they need to spread their genetics. Drone rearing is a sign of a healthy normal, STRONG, colony. It takes a strong colony to reproduce and the strong only pass their genes on to the next generation. The bees raise drones wherever they please, so that percentage is going to a lot higher of the amount of drone comb in a colony. Also in an area that maybe inundated by Africanized bees soon, can having so many European drones flying around be a bad thing????Why cull them, as they will have a use in dilution. Gotta go, long day working bees. TK


----------



## Barry

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Why cull them, as they will have a use in dilution.


It has something to do with 'treatment-free' beekeeping, you know, the focus of this forum.


----------



## hpm08161947

If Dee Lusby takes a brood frame and counts 900 cells of worker brood and 200 cells of drone brood (I use these numbers just to oversimplify for simplicity) - Dee would take out her hive tool and remove 100 of the drone brood??

Is this what you guys are talking about... interesting stuff BTW.


----------



## Roland

SQKCRK asked:

What is the effect on the colony if the proper drone comb percentage isn't maintained?

I agree with Deejaycee on his first point - any honey the drones would eat is now yours.

I agree with Deejaycees' second point, but wish to point out that I believe there is a tipping point when drone comb is further reduced, The advantage of few drones is reduced transmission between hives of varroa vectored pathogens, but only if all of the hives in the yard are likewise managed.

I can not speak of the burr comb topic, because I have not noticed a correlation.

WE are not in a AHB area, so take that into consideration.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Solomon Parker

It's "unlimited broodnest" not "endless broodnest".

Let's put an end to the obfuscation.


----------



## sqkcrk

I misspoke. Unintentionally. I forgot what it was called. 

Please don't tell me what I know, when I am not necessarily familiar w/ the language. Obfuscation is purely in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Barry said:


> It has something to do with 'treatment-free' beekeeping, you know, the focus of this forum.


so culling drones isn't a treatment?

:s
kiwi


----------



## frazzledfozzle

WiredForStereo said:


> It's "unlimited broodnest" not "endless broodnest".
> 
> Let's put an end to the obfuscation.


LOL I had to look that word up obfuscation, " intend to confuse, bewilder, stupify"

not sure that the difference between endless and unlimited is bewildering, common sense is always a good thing to bring to any forum and my common sense tells me they are one and the same in this context.

some things have definately stupified me on this forum but this isn't one of them 

frazz


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Unlimited broodnest is not a new concept. I have for 39 years let queens run wild through my boxes laying eggs where ever she wanted to. Many commercial beekeepers I know who's family have been keeping bees for 100 years have been doing the same. It is a standard management practice that is old as the hills that someone has given a fancy new name. TK


----------



## deknow

I'm not sure it is a case of someone giving it a "fancy new name". Certainly it used to be a common way to manage bees, but it has fallen out of favor. I'm not sure if I've ever seen (even in an old book) a clear description of it...never mind a name. If one uses many of the available treatments it gets problematic, as it's hard to distinguish between brood frames (that might be treated) and honey frames (that should not be treated).

It has to be called _something_ in order to differentiate it from broodbox(es)/honey super (with or without an excluder) management (perhaps this should be called "restricted broodnest management").

What would you call it?

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Could y'all go to the other Thread and explain what it is and how it works?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Mr. Kretschmann, I feel the need to remind you that this is the "Treatment-Free Beekeeping" forum. Talking about using chemicals or advocating their use is by definition off topic.


----------



## Barry

frazzledfozzle said:


> so culling drones isn't a treatment?


Not in my eyes it isn't. We're still defining that term. I would call it a manipulation.


----------



## sqkcrk

WFS and ginn... mentioneds in another Thread that they both got nucs from the same source, which later died. So, my question is, to WFS, isn't it possible that your loss of that colony was source related and not climatization related?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Due to the revelation of new information from Ginn, who lives in GA, yes. It is quite possible that the deaths could be attributed to the source. Until this point, I had only heard from people further north.

But it still wasn't varroa. That fact hasn't changed.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay. Established. Still a mystery than.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Only to those who have faith in the idea that bees don't die of cold.


----------



## sqkcrk

I guess that must be what it was then. What else could it be?


----------



## deknow

I don't think Ted's post should have been deleted for talking about chemical treatments...he was responding to a statement that I made wrt treatments and unlimited broodnest management. I won't repost and respond to that part of his post here, though I think that if we are going to talk about unlimited broodnest management, issues of contamination from treatments and feeding need to be discussed......especially for those that are using only one size box.

With that said, I would like to respond here to the other part of Ted's post:



> Deknow, you asked me What name would I call
> "UBN"-Normal management..Good mature queens are more than capable of outlaying
> two deeps or a single and half during the spring build up season. Give her the room to
> build up huge populations of bees for the honey flow. Let her have free run of the place.
> Too many people cause "compressional swarming" by doing otherwise. Also queen
> excluders are one less piece of equipment I have to lug around. A word of advice for
> Beeks in Cyber land,.... If you dont treat fine, I am happy that you have resistant bees
> or think that you have resistant bees but if you do treat, USE miticides responsible. TK
> I hope for the day when beekeeping is back to the days before 1984.


...I agree with everything that you said above. If, however, you started to refer to "Normal Management" to most beekeepers, they would assume you meant 1-3 broodboxes, and honey supers above...with a queen kept out either with an excluder, or with management keeping a honey cap above the broodnest. That is "Normal Beekeeping" as taught in most clubs, schools, and books. To refer to unlimited broodnest as "normal management" in this day and age is inviting confusion.

deknow


----------



## Barry

Let me reply to this in public, though again, this is questioning moderation in public, to which I am running out of patience, and deserves to be deleted. If anyone has issues about a moderator's action, the appropriate thing to do is PM either that moderator or myself about it. Do not discuss it here!

I well understand that there is a fine line when discussing treatments in this forum. If the moderators feel that the tone and intent of such discussion is opposite of the goal of this forum's description, it will be deleted. Talking about chemical treatments when pursuing a treatment-free goal is allowed. An example: "Will using my existing combs which have been treated with Checkmite and Apistan be OK to use in my treatment-free hives?" It is assumed that some discussion of treatments will follow, but the intent will be to help this person, on the road to treatment-free beekeeping, get off and away from using these treatments. Do not post follow up remarks to this post.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> I find it strange for one to blame the Arkansas climate for killing bees brought south from Oregon and others brought west from GA.


I have not been one to actively bring in new bees to my hives. I let the bees settle in and work with what I have for increase. I do know that Dennis M. has purposely requeened his hives from various breeders and has not noticed any difference in the hive performance. So I'm mixed on the whole notion that the queen genetics plays a significant role in SC.


----------



## Oldtimer

Barry from all accounts you are having reasonable success with your TF operation, including a better honey harvest than most TF beeks.

How about start a thread on just what you do - the Barry method!


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

And Barry how many colonies do you own that are on the "Barry" method???? TK


----------



## RiodeLobo

Oldtimer said:


> How about start a thread on just what you do - the Barry method!


I second that. I want to start a couple of treatment free hives, but the "do or die" approach has little attraction for me.
Thanks


----------



## deejaycee

sqkcrk said:


> Is the consumption of honey by drones significant?


Sorry it's taken a while to get back to this. I really need a better filing system 

Here's the paper I base that on: 

Apidologie 33 (2002) 75-86 
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2001008
The effect of drone comb on a honey bee colony's production of honey 
Thomas D. Seeley

available here (free) http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...articles/apido/abs/2002/01/Seeley/Seeley.html


----------



## hpm08161947

That is amazing! In the paper that you cite... honey production appears to have doubled by eliminating drones. I must have read that wrong. Someone must have repeated this experiment... to verify, seems like drone control should be a normal part of beekeeping practice, At least if the data is valid.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes drone control is a normal part of traditional beekeeping, unless you allow the bees a natural comb hive. It's the main reason why people first started making artificial comb foundation. I think the argument that drone production just happens anyway and there is nothing you can do about it is debunked by this experiment. I know my own production hives have way less drones than some I see.

For traditional beekeeping using comb foundation, drone comb will be well under the 20% found in a natural hive. Therefore the hive can save and store more honey. It's one of the ways we force bees away from what they do in nature, so we can take honey from them where none is taken in nature.

There are a lot of other variables that would affect the result such as timing of flow, method of mite control etc. but I'm pretty sure a hive with low drones will always have a honey storing advantage over one with 20% drone comb.

One thing to consider is did he factor in the effect of high drone comb on mite reproduction. This could also have an effect and make the results more pronounced than the effect of just the drones alone, if mites were not a factor

Very interesting to see the results of his experiment. Thanks Deejaycee.


----------



## sqkcrk

Is ten hives over three years enuf of a study?


----------



## deejaycee

sqkcrk said:


> Is ten hives over three years enuf of a study?


I'd love it to be bigger, as with nearly all studies I read. But I know I'm better informed about the ins and outs around drone population effects on honey production than I was before I read it. 

And, like OldTimer, I also now have a bunch of flow-on questions out of it. 

So on that basis, no, it's possibly not enough.. but it's a good start.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sqkcrk, like you, I would have liked to see more hives.

However if there had been more, say, 100, my feeling is the results would have been similar. Perhaps not such a wide difference between drone culled and natural, but I'm sure it would have still been advantage drone culled.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

The size of the populations--(hives)--are going to have to get alot more larger in size on any of these experiments....18 nucs--Thelotoky, Dee Lusby,, Drone culling--10 hives,---some of the non treatment operations are small---The point is to be a viable experiment that can generate data there has to be large group sets. Then you can plot the points on a curve or line and see where the data points fall. If the plotting shows positive results from the experiment, then you can make earth shattering statements to change any industry with your findings. So when people make statements that I have been treatment free for two years with two hives or I treated for two years with two hives and my bees are still alive, THAT is not a big enough data set to make a determination. It is just an observation. This is Ted Kretschmann, Geologist talking not the beekeeper. I wear two hats. TK


----------



## Roland

SQKCRK - yes , too small a sample size, but statistically sound. I feel that it should be viewed as the starting point of further study, not the final word.

Crazy Roland, come try to find a drone in my hives....


----------



## rrussell6870

You all know where I stand... the more the better... there are just so many variables that can effect a few hives, and with only a handful of hives in a study, you can't accurately differentiate between what actual produced the results and answer the most important questions of how, why, and when... 

That said, I fully understand the lack of resources, and so I applaud anyone willing to spend whatever resources and time that they have to work on bettering the industry one way or another...

If I can be of any assistance, just let me know... I do not have much time to get to the forums because if the season, but pm or email me and I will happily add my two cents...


----------



## Michael Bush

I've heard Larry Connor quote a study that said they made less honey with less drones. And one presented by Clarence Collison that says they will have the same number of drones no matter what you do...


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes heard mention of those, just shows you can get the study you want. Small samples could be the issue.

However the one that says you get the same number of drones no matter what you do, I don't believe in it. Never done a formal study on it myself but it's patently obvious from my own experience. Also if it was true, why would Dee Lusby bother to be so emphatic about culling out drone cells? If it makes no difference right?

The other study, the Larry Conner one is there a reference to it? Be interesting to see the method used and what other factors may have had an influence.


----------



## deejaycee

Michael Bush said:


> I've heard Larry Connor quote a study that said they made less honey with less drones. And one presented by Clarence Collison that says they will have the same number of drones no matter what you do...


I did write to Professor Collison and got a copy of that paper a few weeks ago. To be honest I haven't read in full detail even yet, but there are some obvious flaws in that one that put it lower in my priority list. I'll try and dig it out and give it a going over.

Would love to see a copy of the Connor-quoted study. 

I have an inkling we might be heading into a period where drones have a renewed importance in the hive, beyond the genetic repository function.


----------



## StevenG

Oldtimer said:


> However the one that says you get the same number of drones no matter what you do, I don't believe in it. Never done a formal study on it myself but it's patently obvious from my own experience. Also if it was true, why would Dee Lusby bother to be so emphatic about culling out drone cells? If it makes no difference right?


But does Dee cull drones for honey production? Or mite control? or both? While the end result might be the same, is there a singular rationale?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## deknow

Please, everyone...can we be a bit more specific in our terms?

Culling drone COMB is one thing.

Culling DRONES is another!

Confusing the two (which has been happening on this thread quite a bit) does nothing to advance a discussion. If you asked a hotel manager how many guests they had, and the response was the number of rooms (whether they are occupied or not), you would know you are not having a clear discussion.

Dee culls drone comb to the point where there is enough for the bees to raise as many drones as they like (as evidenced by their lack of attempts to raise drones between boxes)...but for the goal of having a maximum of worker comb for raising large numbers of workers. Since her broodnest is not constricted, this has to happen throughout the hive.

deknow


----------



## StevenG

Thanks for the clarification, deknow.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes sorry Deknow, terminology has never been my strong point. Do realise though that culling drone comb and larvae will have the effect of culling drones, none the less in the strict sense as she is not culling drones once they are adult, my wording was not correct. (i think).



StevenG said:


> But does Dee cull drones for honey production? Or mite control? or both? While the end result might be the same, is there a singular rationale?


According to her writings it's all about mite control the less drone larvae the less chances for mites to do well, she does not discuss the effect on honey production, that I have seen.


----------



## Solomon Parker

There are other aspects as well. The culled drone comb is not immediately removed from the hive or 'killed.'. It is merely moved up toward the honey area so that when the brood hatches, it will be filled with honey.

There is also the aspect of comb rotation. Comb absorbs chemicals even if they are not placed directly in the hive.


----------



## Oldtimer

In her writings that I've read she advises removing the culled combs from the hives completely. She goes on to recommend melting them down to produce wax to make comb foundation.

Makes sense I guess, in an unrestricted broodnest it's hard to keep the queen away from a bit of drone comb somewhere if they are short. It's surprising how far they will go to find it.


----------



## Michael Bush

People always seem to focus on Dee's statement that she culls excess drones to keep them at 10%. But you also need to understand that she leaves 10% of the frame open (with no foundation) to ENCOURAGE them to build drone comb. They have all they desire evenly distributed throughout the hive.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes I don't really understand that. Seems contradictory.

Can't say I've seen people always focusing on it. Guess there's a few posts discussing it in this thread. Never heard mention of it before that.


----------



## slickbrightspear

what I understood is that dee leaves about an inch open on the bottom of each comb that they can draw as brood or worker comb as they need it.


----------



## Omie

slickbrightspear said:


> what I understood is that dee leaves about an inch open on the bottom of each comb that they can draw as brood or worker comb as they need it.


You means she uses foundation and cuts it off 1" short of the bottom?
She doesn't use foundationless? Confusing. :scratch:


----------



## Solomon Parker

Omie,

Is there something I can clarify for you? Slick is correct. She cuts the foundation short. You can see it in pictures of her equipment, the picture on the cover page of the "Organic Beekeepers" Yahoo group comes to mind. She makes her own foundation and she says it's pretty thick.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You means she uses foundation and cuts it off 1" short of the bottom?

Yes.

>She doesn't use foundationless?

No she does not ue foundationless. She has been milling her own 4.9mm since the 1980s.


----------



## Barry

honeyshack said:


> Again I state...bees do not die of cold. Bees do not starve because of cold. Bees can not access the feed just a few inches from them in a cold snap because they are weak ...usually due to varroa


I've been thinking about what you said here. Was reading elsewhere and came across this:

"A colony may appear to have an adequate fall population, but if the bees are old, it will weaken rapidly as winter advances and may starve to death. Starvation occurs even with abundant honey in the hive because the cluster is too small to cover the honey stores."

http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/managing-colonies-for-high-honey-yields/

Obviously this is long before varroa was around. I think one can still have colonies that starve over winter and it not be related to varroa. More than likely though, varroa now is underlaying a portion of those die-outs. I had two splits die this winter. They both went into the winter with small populations. Was it their small size that did them in, or the mites that I found on the bottom board?


----------



## Oldtimer

This kind of debate on a chat site can be circuitous, and in fact has been circuitous, during the time I've been on Beesource. Because a person will state varroa was not a factor in the death of their hive. others reading it, will have their doubts. But without being able to actually see the hive the question cannot be resolved to everybodies satisfaction, there is not visible evidence so peoples opinions are simply reinforced.

A better way to approach the question is statistics. What was considered an acceptable winter loss percentage before varroa, and what is considered acceptable now. This method too has it's weakness because there may be other factors now with us such as CCD. But it is still a stronger method than just posted opinions about why a particular hive died because it uses actual numbers, and can be measured.

As an aside, it is widely believed that varroa has a part to play in CCD, along with an effect on many other bee ailments, in terms of worsening and exacerbating them. 

Because hives died during winter before varroa, it is clearly shown that not every single hive death is varroa related. But It is entirely concievable that a hive with adults weakened by past varroa related direct or indirect problems is less likely to be able to survive, even in the presence of honey, and statistics would appear to support this.


----------



## honeyshack

Barry said:


> "A colony may appear to have an adequate fall population, but if the bees are old, it will weaken rapidly as winter advances and may starve to death. Starvation occurs even with abundant honey in the hive because the cluster is too small to cover the honey stores."
> 
> Obviously this is long before varroa was around. I think one can still have colonies that starve over winter and it not be related to varroa. More than likely though, varroa now is underlaying a portion of those die-outs. I had two splits die this winter. They both went into the winter with small populations. Was it their small size that did them in, or the mites that I found on the bottom board?



Yes long before varroa has been around. However, there was a reason why they starved. Weak, small cluster, old bees (=failing queen) going into winter. Still maintain...healthy bees do not die of cold. If they are healthy, young going into winter and have adequate stores, they will get to their feed.
Only one thing will kill them when it gets cold if they are healthy...Brood. A cold snap hits and the hive makes that decision to keep the brood warm, instead of clustering over food. If this Happens there is a big sign pointing to it. No mistaking this death


----------



## BeeCurious

honeyshack said:


> Only one thing will kill them when it gets cold if they are healthy...Brood. A cold snap hits and the hive makes that decision to keep the brood warm, instead of clustering over food. If this Happens there is a big sign pointing to it. No mistaking this death


So... we can blame the brood for the colony's death?

That's a new angle.

To take this a step further, it seems that the queen is responsible, and not the cold.


----------



## honeyshack

BeeCurious said:


> So... we can blame the brood for the colony's death?
> 
> That's a new angle.
> 
> To take this a step further, it seems that the queen is responsible, and not the cold.


I think this is one of those things we can not control. I mean, the queen starts to lay at a certain time of year, probably by, only guessing here, daylight hours increasing. In the early spring, when the thaw starts, they start to get going. However, one of those mighty nice spring cold snaps comes in, and wham, there is a dead hive because the bees decided to save the brood rather than themselves. In our climate, we see this especially when an extended cold snap hits late march early april. When the bees are old and tired, and we the beeks could not get food on soon enough because the weather was not co-operating...this after nearly exhausting 5-7 gallons of feed from the 6 months of winter.

just thoughts of a rambling beekeeper...


----------



## Omie

Michael Bush said:


> >You means she uses foundation and cuts it off 1" short of the bottom?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >She doesn't use foundationless?
> 
> No she does not ue foundationless. She has been milling her own 4.9mm since the 1980s.


I get it now, she makes her own sc foundation and then allows spaces for drone cell building. that makes sense- thanks!


----------



## Acebird

> A cold snap hits and the hive makes that decision to keep the brood warm, instead of clustering over food. If this Happens there is a big sign pointing to it. No mistaking this death


Sorry for my stupidity. What is the big sign?


----------



## Oldtimer

I think what he means is that at the autopsy, it is easy enough to see that this is what happened.


----------



## Acebird

> it is easy enough to see that this is what happened.


OKay, and what I am asking is what does he see or doesn't see that makes it so obvious?


----------



## hpm08161947

I imagine he is talking about all the little dead bees with their heads sticking in the cells with a load of food above them.


----------



## StevenG

When you do the autopsy, if you have a cluster of sealed brood, some emerging bees that are dead, dead bees head first in the cells around the brood cluster, and the cluster itself dead over and around the brood, then look further out from the brood cluster.

A band of empty cells around the brood cluster, with plenty of sealed honey further away, the brood pinned the cluster in place, causing the starvation when cold prevented the bees from getting to the food. They elected to try to keep the brood alive, possibly hoping for a warm spell so they could get to the food. But this is reading human rationale into an insect's behavior. But that's what the autopsy would reveal, and the obvious sign he's talking about.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Acebird

hpm08161947 said:


> I imagine he is talking about all the little dead bees with their heads sticking in the cells with a load of food above them.


Ah yes, you are guessing now aren't you?



> and the obvious sign he's talking about.


Thank you Steven. Bear in mind that nothing is obvious to a newbee.


----------



## honeyshack

Acebird said:


> Sorry for my stupidity. What is the big sign?


What is the sign of how they die if they are trying to protect the brood during a cold snap...
The bees are covering the frame of brood and are all dead. It's like they are frozen in time. No bees on top of each other. Just a single layer of bees covering the brood. No butts hanging out. Food near by but their goal in mind is to protect that precious spring brood by keeping it warm. 
Oh by the way...the he which is spoken of in further posts...is a she....honeyshack is a she


----------



## Solomon Parker

For what it's worth, I wish to again apologize for referring to honeyshack as "he". It's not the only time this sort of thing has happened.:scratch:


----------



## Acebird

> http://vimeo.com/10207692


I just viewed this Entire video. Great video except it is nearly impossible to hear the audience questions like many that I have seen. So much is lost if you can't hear the comments and questions. All it takes is a microphone.


----------



## lakebilly

Amen Acebird! great video, except not being able to hear audience comments . Now I'm gonna go through all these posts.


----------

