# Bee Informed Partnership Data and It's Influence Treating vs. Non



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

So TGIG, if you search the Beesource using exact match on "Bee Informed" you should find this very useful discussion (pretty close to the top).

Basically, you should see that most any question you have most likely have been discussed and rather in detail.

Take a look:








What's your Treatment Free Survivability?


I've been reading quite a bit on treatment free beekeeping although you can mark me as a skeptic, I'm interested in knowing what your overwinter survival rates are-first and second years? How many hives and what kind of hive do you have? For background on me, I am a IPM beekeeper, with 5...




www.beesource.com


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

GregB said:


> So TGIG, if you search the Beesource using exact match on "Bee Informed" you should find this very useful discussion (pretty close to the top).
> 
> Basically, you should see that most any question you have most likely have been discussed and rather in detail.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reference.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

the survey needs to correct the questions, should be used selected products correctly.


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

wildbranch2007 said:


> the survey needs to correct the questions, should be used selected products correctly.


So what you are saying is that the disparity data is skewed due to potential incorrect usage? It's a valid point, but I would be concerned considering the longevity of the data, and the likelihood of individuals who actually don't treat with chems (a small minority) are less likely to respond anyway, so there is that component too. The average number of hives in the reporting respondents borderlines sideline operations, but remains classified as "backyard".


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

thegospelisgood said:


> So what you are saying is that the disparity data is skewed due to potential incorrect usage?


That's my initial critical view. Of course, it's easier for me to tear down than to build - I applaud people who work to collect, interpret and share data. It's always hindsight that kicks in. As others have pointed out, the sampling is flawed, and the questions are not appropriate for normalizing the data effectively. It's something, but it's not the answer to it all.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

thegospelisgood said:


> So what you are saying is that the disparity data is skewed due to potential incorrect usage?


there was a thread on here shortly after BIP started their data collection. There were many people, me included, that entered data into their survey. Since there were few people taking the survey and they broke it down by region it was fairly easy see if your data ended up in the survey. Most of the people in the thread found that their data wasn't included and all of the people that were not included used multiple treatments and had low losses. We all stopped entering data. Can't find the thread as I can't remember what it was called. So I ignore most of the BIP stuff.


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

Lee Bussy said:


> That's my initial critical view. Of course, it's easier for me to tear down than to build - I applaud people who work to collect, interpret and share data. It's always hindsight that kicks in. As others have pointed out, the sampling is flawed, and the questions are not appropriate for normalizing the data effectively. It's something, but it's not the answer to it all.


Thanks Lee - all surveys are flawed and all research has bias. But statistical error is often minimal at least in the survey sample. The error proposed regarding correct use would invalidate the entire survey in both hypotheses - treat/don't treat.

What we have here is a median that is extremely similar year over year. 13 Years of data having similitude seems difficult to debunk based on a marginal error such as correct/incorrect use. I'll also hearken back to the sample is relative to Winter losses. If I remember, the annual loss numbers were just slightly different with a higher percent in the non-treated camp - which may validate the premise regarding proper use/improper use more.


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

wildbranch2007 said:


> there was a thread on here shortly after BIP started their data collection. There were many people, me included, that entered data into their survey. Since there were few people taking the survey and they broke it down by region it was fairly easy see if your data ended up in the survey. Most of the people in the thread found that their data wasn't included and all of the people that were not included used multiple treatments and had low losses. We all stopped entering data. Can't find the thread as I can't remember what it was called. So I ignore most of the BIP stuff.


Question - how does lack of participation invalidate the inquiry in the similarities of loss? You've now posed two potential nullifying data points, but in large seem anecdotal to me? This is something TF/CF/Sustainable is often accused of doing - now that data is being presented, the argument remains?


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

Lee Bussy said:


> That's my initial critical view. Of course, it's easier for me to tear down than to build - I applaud people who work to collect, interpret and share data. It's always hindsight that kicks in. As others have pointed out, the sampling is flawed, and the questions are not appropriate for normalizing the data effectively. It's something, but it's not the answer to it all.


Not the answer - but a valid question for sure.


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

thegospelisgood said:


> This is something TF/CF/Sustainable is often accused of doing - now that data is being presented, the argument remains?


There's a thread on BEE-L that sort of parallels this. HUGELY paraphrased, it's only by (appropriately) criticizing and re-proving data can the "science" be eventually accepted. So, yes, we're going to criticise things that don't fit our version of "truth" and that gives the opportunity to re-frame testing and research to disprove the non-believers.

We're actually doing TF beeks a favor by throwing stones.


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

Lee Bussy said:


> We're actually doing TF beeks a favor by throwing stones.


Fine -I'm okay with that.

My short BeeSource experience is proving that the opposing view keeps inventory of cast stones and rehashes and rebashes frequently however.. Goose - Gander....Potato - PotAHto...? 😆


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

thegospelisgood said:


> The survey includes "those who used some sort of treatment product" and "those who did not use some sort of treatment product."


to get to your answer, your going to need the tool back on line, and then clear threw the chaff as the above survey question includes people who did a single powdered sugar dusting late fall as a treatment on a dead hive walking 

You have to look at what efective treating does.... ie not treating effectively is about the same as no treatment the "Losses by number of products used" tab will be very helpfull
you also have to look as the resent data... not the old stuff, TF (and beekeeping in gen)used to be much easer and both losses have been climbing..

the other thing you need to pay attention to is the number of respondents, the people who get wiped out and quit often don't fill out a survey then you need to look at the total hives in each.

*opens last years power point **

"BIP 4 year averages(2016-2020) for a Colorado BYBK

42.2% losses for those who “looked for mites on the Bees” AKA I didn’t see any mites, what happened?
38.4% losses for those running sticky boards
37.9% losses for those doing sugar shakes
33.3%-losses for those who Alcohol Wash

Colorado losses by mite treatment type
•40% screened bottom board
•39.3% Amitraz
•35.7% drone culling
•31.3 % Formic
•27.1% Oxalic
•26.7% Thymol
amitraz used to be like 25% here... we should have seen the resticance coming

Losses by number of products used
•61.2% loses chemical free
•39.2% Losses One product
•24.3% losses Two products
•15.1% losses Three + products
Point taken, rotate treatments and use the proper treatment for the time of year and temperature

Losses by Queen Replacement
•45.3% losses not replacing queens
•33.8% losses with yearly replaced queen
•33.1% losses Introduced mated queens
28.5% Replaced Queen Naturally"

when you look at "Losses by number of products used" you can clearly see the effect of effective treatment


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

msl said:


> to get to your answer, your going to need the tool back on line, and then clear threw the chaff as the above survey question includes people who did a single powdered sugar dusting late fall as a treatment on a dead hive walking
> 
> You have to look at what efective treating does.... ie not treating effectively is about the same as no treatment the "Losses by number of products used" tab will be very helpfull
> you also have to look as the resent data... not the old stuff, TF (and beekeeping in gen)used to be much easer and both losses have been climbing..
> ...


Agreed, when the tool gets back online. I believe the data I reference was specifically targeted toward chemical treatments - specifically Amitraz,OAV, and the like.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

James Lee said:


> My short BeeSource experience is proving that the opposing view keeps inventory of cast stones and rehashes and rebashes frequently however.. Goose - Gander....Potato - PotAHto...? 😆


My long tenure of over a decade on Beesource has shown we often get new charlatans showing up promising magic bees and it'll make all the problems disappear. Some of them stay until the audience is no longer spending on overprices speaking engagements and/or self published books about garbage beekeeping.

You have found a pinnacle of the 'passive aggressive' approach by asking questions in such a way that they will only find answers in total agreement, or else folks are 'tossing stones'.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

James Lee said:


> Question - how does lack of participation invalidate the inquiry in the similarities of loss? You've now posed two potential nullifying data points, but in large seem anecdotal to me? This is something TF/CF/Sustainable is often accused of doing - now that data is being presented, the argument remains?


it wasn't lack of participation it was making the numbers fit the agenda.


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

wildbranch2007 said:


> it wasn't lack of participation it was making the numbers fit the agenda.


So you feel the data is contrived. That's interesting - In my naivete I had no assumption that there is an agenda for the survey other that what it purports itself to be as it relates to Varroa and Disease and Colony Loss.

What is the agenda?


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

From the rules of this sub-forum (shortened for applicability to this particular thread and emphasis mine):



> This forum is for those who wish to discuss Treatment-Free Beekeeping, not for them to be required to defend it. There is no need to discuss commercial or other methods of beekeeping. There are multiple forums to address any and all subjects.
> 
> Posts or portions of posts judged to be uncivil may be edited or deleted by a moderator. Please avoid making any kind of accusation toward another forum user. Do not impugn their motives, do not question their skills, and do not use pejoratives. Be responsible and do not post offering advice about things you have not experienced and methods you have not used. To avoid misunderstandings, statements intended to be interpreted humorously should be marked with a smilie.
> 
> Please enjoy this forum. There is a wealth of information available from long time beekeepers with real world experience in these subjects. Feel free to ask any and all serious questions and engage in spirited discussion and learning.


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

Litsinger said:


> From the rules of this sub-forum


I find it exceedingly ironic that the forum rules were written by a now-banned moderator, and himself the subject of another thread regarding his flameout in a self-constructed nirvana.

Why does this forum need special rules telling people to be nice do you think? Asking for a friend.


----------



## James Lee (Apr 29, 2020)

Lee Bussy said:


> I find it exceedingly ironic that the forum rules were written by a now-banned moderator, and himself the subject of another thread regarding his flameout in a self-constructed nirvana.
> 
> Why does this forum need special rules telling people to be nice do you think? Asking for a friend.





Lee Bussy said:


> I find it exceedingly ironic that the forum rules were written by a now-banned moderator, and himself the subject of another thread regarding his flameout in a self-constructed nirvana.
> 
> Why does this forum need special rules telling people to be nice do you think? Asking for a friend.


Wow! Is it really going to be this way with every post! Haha...Even if he wrote the rules, are they too much too ask for this corner of the forum?


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

I'm not throwing stones! I just find it ironic. If I pointed out the irony in a treatment forum, would you complain?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

OK, Solomon wrote the rules when the Treatment Free forum was created. That is why his name is attached to the post. However, that post has been modified by subsequent moderators in years since. But modified posts retain their originator's name even if the content is partially (or even totally) modified.

Whether or not the TF forum *should* have different rules is a different issue than whether it _*does*_ have different rules.

I have edited some content in this thread, and it is now open for further posts. But, keep in mind that closing it permanently is an option.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

James Lee said:


> Wow! Is it really going to be this way with every post! Haha...Even if he wrote the rules, are they too much too ask for this corner of the forum?


Pretty much 😁


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

wildbranch2007 said:


> the survey needs to correct the questions, should be used selected products correctly.


I've heard that said about BIP survey often enough. But I've never seen anyone point out what questions should be corrected, what questions should be taken out and what questions should be added.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Data, it's collection, and it's interpretation, are an interesting thing. 

How does this -
Losses by number of products used
_•61.2% loses chemical free
•39.2% Losses One product
•24.3% losses Two products
•15.1% losses Three + products _

Square with this -
_Average loss of colonies for "treated" was 53.2% and Average loss of colonies for "untreated" was 54.4%_


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Not sure if they still do it this way but looking at the bar chart shown in the opening post, I think they still might.

The average losses per beekeeper mean they take a 2 hive beekeeper with a 50% loss, and add that to a 50 hive beekeeper with a 20% loss, and come out with an average loss of 35%. Because it's an average of averages regardless how big or small the beekeeper is.

In fact to do it right and get a true figure of average losses you would total the hives and see what the real average is. so to use the above example the 2 hive beekeeper with 50% loss had 1 deadout. The 50 hive beekeeper with 20% loss had 10 deadouts. So a total of 52 hives with 11 deadouts.

Which equals a true loss of 21.15%, very different to the BIP method which gives 35%.

I would posit that 40 or 50 hive beekeepers are likely to be more experienced than a lot of one or two hivers. The one or two hivers would include newby's who don't know much and would be more likely to treat incorrectly, or, try a treatment after they notice their bees are sick. So likely to have bigger losses. But the curious method of averaging averages gives them all equal weight.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Another thing is that if trying to establish that treatments are worthless, more than back yard beekeepers should be looked at, cos that's cherry picking. To do it right, all hives should be looked at

So if we look instead at all hives which include those managed by commercial beekeepers, the commercial beekeepers have to have skills, or they will not be commercial beekeepers very long. They are more likely to treat successfully than some back yarders who may get it wrong, but have a day job and simply replace their bees every year.

There is a difference between those who treat, and those who treat successfully.

Unfortunately not many commercial beekeepers take part in the survey, and that is because of an underlying sentiment among many of them that the survey does not give real world results.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

so I'm bored and went back through bee-l to remember some of the conversations, here is the link to read them if you have time, I only read certain posters that are usually spot on. not sure if my search link will work for you. nope but if you just go there and search on bip you will get them.
here is one from Randy O. One point made throughout is that most beeks have no clue what there hive died from and sure don't want it to be from PPBK.


LISTSERV - BEE-L Archives - COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM



and one from Jerry Bromenshank(sp)



LISTSERV - BEE-L Archives - COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM



the previous posts are from 2016 and 2018, the only post from 2021 actually show's some changes, interesting



LISTSERV - BEE-L Archives - COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM



now to save this and see if the links work.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

Oldtimer said:


> How does this -
> Square with this -


the 1st is


msl said:


> BIP 4 year averages(2016-2020) for a Colorado BYBK


the 2nd is not
as they are 1750km apart and not tracking the same time frame I would not expect them to jive

one of the most important tings with BIP is you have to be slective... you have to watch the total number of hives and respondants, and you need to use modern data

Dates are important
in one aspect the TF stuff on it is very much like beesource.. 10 years ago there were lots and lots of TF keepers, most new, a great many reporting great sucess (a lot on a 1st year hive) IIRR the BIP numbers for BYBK were 80% or so TF and they were very happy to report to BIP there sucesss like they were here

fast forward all those people are gone its around 20- 30% BYBK are TF (iirr.. I the tool is down so I can't be as precice as I would like), and there losses are much higher.. but if you lump all the years together, much as if you lumped all the BS TF posts, the massive amount of reports of (short term) success skews the true picture..
so I like to look at about a 5 year window to see trends
And then its important to "gut check" what you think you find...
ie "feeding bees honey kills them"





Feeding Honeybees Honey May Increase Mortality – Bee Informed Partnership







beeinformed.org




Does it realy? or do people who have lots of honey to feed just stat with high loses and that's why they have honey to feed... Or is it those who feed honey as its "natural" being less aggressive in mite management 




Oldtimer said:


> The average losses per beekeeper mean they take a 2 hive beekeeper with a 50% loss, and add that to a 50 hive beekeeper with a 20% loss, and come out with an average loss of 35%


that is the reason to toggle the bottom left button from "average loss" to "total loss"


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Thanks for clarifying MSL.

Unfortunately what has been apparent down the years is that people can take from that survey whatever it is that they want to take.


----------

