# caging the queen?



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Darn good question Dave.

Varroa mate in the cells, before the parasitized bee pupa matures and emerges. The female lays one male egg and some number of female eggs. They hatch and mature rapidly. The male mite usually dies shortly after mating. The pregnant female mites emerge with the bee. Breaking the bee's brood cycle has the effect of depriving the pregnant female mites of a place to lay their eggs. That much is obvious.

What isn't obvious is how long a pregnant mite can be phoretic before they have to lay eggs? Clearly, if you could deprive them of the opportunity for them to lay eggs long enough without your hive dwindling to nothing, you'd solve your mite problem...

"In summer, female mites can live for about two months. Later in the year they can live for up to eight months, surviving the winter with clustered bees."

That's from:

http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/vm/facts.txt

George-


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

George.

that clears up a lot
I was wondering why the period of time in winter when brood raising shut's down didn't accomplish the same thing
I guess the mites kinda go dormant
but some types of bee's are known to shutdown brood rearing in a dearth (russians I think?)
wouldn't that do the same thing?
we tend to have a dearth here in mid summer (sure did this year)
perhaps that's what seems to give the russians an edge

Dave

[ October 27, 2005, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

George, did I miss something, or are you saying the male mite always mates with his sisters before the cell is uncapped and they emerge?
I didn't think anything in nature always inbred.
I'm not arguing, just confused.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Iddee, I couldn't make this up if I tried. Check out this site:

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/misc/bees/varroa_mite.htm

You'll find similar descriptions of the varroa life cycle on other sites.

To Defeat the Enemy, you have to Know the Enemy! 

The pregnant female mite enters a cell some time prior to capping and hangs; approximately 60 hours after capping (I think), she first lays (usually) 1 male egg then additional female eggs at intervals of about 1.25 days for a total of 6-8 eggs. Or so. I've read where there are occassionally 2 males and as many as 16 adult varroa have been found in a single cell, but the averages are 6-8 mites, one of which is male.

It takes 6-8 days for the eggs to hatch and the mites to reach sexual maturity, where upon they mate. Brother and sister, living together, having sex, while the mother watches. Deplorable!

Since all this happens in the cell before the bee matures and emerges, timing is critical which is why varroa "prefer" drone larva- drones take longer to emerge which gives the mites more time to mature and mate.

I gather that it takes a mated female something slightly over 2 weeks to become ready to lay eggs. I also gather that mated females can go much longer than that without having to lay their eggs since they can survive "routine" disruptions in brood rearing as occur regularly in early winter, and sporadically at other times of the year.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>but some types of bee's are known to shutdown brood rearing in a dearth (russians I think?)
wouldn't that do the same thing?

I don't know where this is going Dave, but your intitial question was a good one and it's going to be an interesting thread. Frankly, I'd think that if you could rid yourself of varroa by caging your queen for a few weeks every year, why, everyone would be doing it and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It probably isn't that simple. I certainly don't have a handle on this.

Speculating on the effect of a shutdown in brood rearing on the varroa population in a hive is interesting, not to mention the effect such a shutdown would have on the *bee* population. I'll ponder this.

George-


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I could not have explained it any better than you George. The issue with queen caging is the loss of brood and therefor production. To be effective, I think that caging should last 24 days. This could also be accomplish by dequeening/splitting a hive and allowing them to raise the new queen themselves. As I understand it, winter time does have a dramatic effect of mite populations.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I have pondered this. It seems that interrupting the brood rearing cycle forces the mites to become phoretic for the duration but is a waste of time unless you also combine it with an effective treatment against phoretic mites. Then it could be devastatingly effective in one swell foop! Otherwise, you're just halting mite reproduction temporarily- at the expense of your own bee population. At least that's the way it looks to me... I might be missing something.

Many treatments are only effective against phoretic mites and/or are deadly to brood and either need to be repeated at regular intervals (like OA vapor and powdered sugar) to get mites on emerging bees or administered during periods of broodlessness (like OA drip).

If you consider the nature of mite population variation over time you'll see that mite populations generally peak about the same time as bee populations are at their lowest- in late fall and early winter. No wonder mites can be so devastating to over-wintering hives! It's true that mite populations dwindle over winter, but whether this is due to a lack of brood rearing going on or a natural aspect of the mite's life cycle, I don't know.

This site has a nice graph of mite and bee populations over the course of a year in a northern temperate climate:

http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_00124.htm

So, it would seem that you could benefit from forcing a broodless condition in your hive by caging your queen any time during the season and reproducing conditions which typically occur usually only in late fall/early winter- but only if you also treat `em.

AM I missing something?

George-


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>how could breaking the bee's brood cycle have a huge effect on the mites?

The season for rearing new mites is the same as the season for the bees to rear brood. If you skip one brood cycle for the bees you skip one brood cycle for the mites.

>won't the phoretic mites just wait till you uncage the queen and go on with their dirty work?

But they still missed one whole brood rearing cycle.

>George, did I miss something, or are you saying the male mite always mates with his sisters before the cell is uncapped and they emerge?

Not always. Only if one mite invades the cell. If multiple Varroa mites invade the cell before it's capped there will be one male from each of those females and they may mate with offspring from some other mite than their mother.

>I didn't think anything in nature always inbred.

If it did, then there would be no purpose in having two sexes. But it doesn't always inbreed.

The essential thing to caging a queen is TIMING. Timing is everything. If you the bees are broodless during the flow they will gather considerably more honey and raise considerably less Varroa mites.

On the other hand if the hive is queenless early in the spring it won't build up and make much honey at all. If the hive is queenless in the late summer and early fall it may not rear enough young bees to get through the winter. But from about two weeks before the main flow to the end of the flow it will increase the harvest and decrease the mites.

[ October 28, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Michael Bush ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<The essential thing to caging a queen is TIMING. Timing is everything. If you the bees are broodless during the flow they will gather conisderably more honey and raise considerably less varroa mites.>

I strongly agree. I'm trying to work out a system for making a few supers of comb honey during the caged period. Its a lot harder than I anticipated, especially with screwy weather. You really need to time everything precisely in order to make nice sections/comb. I'm not sure it can be done on a fall flow around here (spring works pretty well).


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

In another thread I theorized that the act of swarming caused a break in the brood cycle and loss of the phoretic mites due to the intense, long distance flying of every bee in the swarm most of the mites just can't hang on). So "feral" hives are being naturally selected for frequent swarming. (I think AHB are noted for this trait - is this the mite resistance?)

To proactively simulate this we beeks would need to interrupt the brood cycle (or remove the queen to somewhere else) and simultaneously cause "dropping" of all phoretic mites by treating or dumping the bees a mile away. This would have the added benefit of lossing any unhealthy bees.

I'd be interested in any practical suggestions for achieving this. I like Michaels idea of splitting out the queen and any open brood jsu prior to a major flow, but I don't think this goes far enough.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

PS: I think I'd rather put the queen in a NUC with all open brood. The timing becomes less of an issue and you can re-combine later to egt a good crop of fall bees.

How about this approach (a few days before flow):
1) Put queen and open brood in a NUC/hive and place a mile away. Any foragers return to old hive.
2) After the flow move the old hive a mile away and replace it with a new hive in the old location with all small-cell foundation/comb. By this time there's no brood in the old hive. All of the bees return to the new hive.
3) Now put the queen (without attendants) back into the new hive. Harvest the honey from the old hive and give a super or two to the new hive. 
4) After the NUC becomes broodless, replace all comb, shake out all bees a mile away and either combine it with the new hive or get them a new queen.
I know, not very practicle!


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

WOW!

db, I saw you make that comment in the other thread and didn't quite understand what you were talking about.
now I've put 2 + 2 together and you're talking of kindof a "spring cleaning" for the bee's








sorta like taking all the rugs out of the house and hanging them on the fence and beating em with a stick to shake the mites out.  
boy, I bet you'd have some happy girls when you got done (NOT)

I wonder if any researchers have looked at whether the phoretic mites show a preference for house bee's as opposed to foragers?
if they can hang onto foragers it would suggest your idea wouldn't work
if they prefer house bee's, maybe that indicates your idea is on target

shaking them out a mile away would lose your nurse bee's, but would that be worse than caging the queen for a brood cycle?
maybe not

OH! wait, brain cells are slow but they're kickin in gear
if there are more mites on nurse bee's, that suggests flight shakes em off and the scenario you suggest would lose the nurse bee's
could be a double whammy









interesting thought

Dave


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

By the time the colony is broodless (no open or closed brood) there are no nurse bees. (Not sure about house bees.) Note, after the flow moving the old hive a mile away wouldn't be a shake-out but might have the same effect as a swarm.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>...and simultaneously cause "dropping" of all phoretic mites by treating or dumping the bees a mile away. This would have the added benefit of lossing any unhealthy bees.

You would lose all of the young brood, nurse bees and house bees and get back all of the old field bees. How is this a benefit?

>I like Michaels idea of splitting out the queen and any open brood jsu prior to a major flow

It's an idea I like, but certainly no my idea. It was used by many beekeepers for about a century or more.

> but I don't think this goes far enough.

How far do you want to go?

From my point of view, on small cell, the Varroa aren't a problem anymore for me so maybe I'm not as desperate for something to help.

But why do you want to work so hard and put the bees through so much? Confining the queen, or doing a cutdown split where they rear a new one, will cause the nurse bees to be recruited to forage and increase your production, while damaging the mites. That's a win win. Shaking out a hive a mile away will deprive you of all the young bees (who could be foraging) and totally disrupt the hive. That's a lose lose.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I'm to much of a rookie to understand your terminology.
exactly what is a "shakeout" and why would one do it other than the situation we're talking about?

Dave

[ October 28, 2005, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>But they still missed one whole brood rearing cycle.

Is this in and of itself worth the tradeoff? I thought about this aspect but it just didn't seem like that good a deal. At the end of the brood rearing hiatus, you've got just as many mites but fewer bees and your remaining field force will be tired, and short lived. You might have more honey than you would otherwise but it will take some time for the colony to recover. And you still got mites.

>>Not always. Only if one mite invades the cell. If multiple Varroa mites invade the cell before it's capped there will be one male from each of those females and they may mate with offspring from some other mite than their mother.

Ah, of course







It follows then that there would be more mite inbreeding going on early in the season when there are less mites and more uncapped larvae to choose from, and less inbreeding later when there are more mites.

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>if there are more mites on nurse bee's, that suggests flight shakes em off

Suggests it, but doesn't prove it. It might just mean the mites prefer house bees, which I happen to believe is the case







I've seen more mites on house bees than on foragers, but I have seen them on foragers.

I personally don't think flying shakes off a significant number of mites. A few will fall off. They fall off house bees, probably when transferring from one bee to another, or as a result of grooming.

George-

[ October 28, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: George Fergusson ]


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

About a year ago Jim fischer wrote something about this. I spent an hour trying to find it. It stirred me to write something for our newsletter which I could find. Please forgive me for pasting it in. As you read, remember I was writing for many beginners.

Dick Marron

IPM

By Dick Marron

Thats Integrated Pest Management. It has a lot of wrinkles. I came across this statement on the internet. (From Jim Fischer, of Bee-Quick fame) The push-in queen cage may become the mite reduction tool of the future. How can this be you say? Lets integrate this! A few basics here will help.
A push-in queen cage is a flat piece of screen wire (1/8 hardware cloth) with the edges folded down about 3/8ths of an inch. The size is perhaps 3X3. As youve guessed, this simple contraption is pushed in over the queen confining her and limiting her egg laying. Meanwhile, her bees will feed her through the wire.
At any one time, up to two-thirds of the mites in a hive are in the brood. Thats why you have to leave strips (Apistan, Fluvalinate) in the hive for so long. The brood has to emerge, with its adhering mites, for those mites to be exposed to the treatment. The makers calculate 3 brood cycles are needed.
Where do these pests go when there is no brood? They all become phoretic mites. They are passengers on the adult bees. When the last brood has emerged all of the mites will be available for a brief treatment. Its not necessary to leave stuff in your hive for 6 weeks. Which treatment, is a subject for another day.
If you want to really get into integration, procure some plastic queen excluders. Make a cage of them big enough to hold one frame. In that frame install some drone foundation. Insert the queen into this apparatus and reinstall the whole thing in the hive. Every egg will produce a drone larva. On the 8th day, the mites will be diving into this bonanza. When its a frame of capped brood, remove it and chuckling all the time, place it in a freezer overnight. (You might want to take the bees off)But what about the loss of brood for 2 weeks, you ask. Will I cripple my hive?
Suppose you did this some weeks before the end of the honey flow. You already have the population of bees for the flow. You wont need adolescent bees when it ends. They tend to hang out on the corners and get into trouble anyway. The broodless hive will collect more honey without the need to care for thousands of babies. Then snag the honey off and treat. 
Of course you now need to give them a chance to make healthy winter bees. You may have to feed a little to build them up, but sugar is cheap. These young bees will be a lot healthier when the nursery is not peopled with the evil mites.
Viola! Youve got your honey. Youve gotten rid of all the mites. Youve minimized the exposure to chemicals. Youve got healthy winter bees. You can expect a clean start in the spring. You have also maximized the effect of your treatment because most treatments require a certain minimum temperature to be effective. This cannot occur in this part of the country when the hive is broodless. 
Elegant, No?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>exactly what is a "shakeout" and why would one do it other than the situation we're talking about?

A shake out is when you take the hive somewhere else and shake all the bees off of the combs. I can't see any reason to do it in the situation we are talking about, but I often do it with laying worker hives. Usually I just shake them out in front the other hives, not a mile away.

>Is this in and of itself worth the tradeoff?

The secrect is to realize "there is no trade-off". If the timing is right this is a BIG win/win situation.

>I thought about this aspect but it just didn't seem like that good a deal. At the end of the brood rearing hiatus, you've got just as many mites but fewer bees and your remaining field force will be tired, and short lived.

What you will have is a harvest force that peaks at the harvest, decreases immediately after the harvest, so you have MORE foragers when you need them and LESS foragers when you need them. The bees that would have been tied up rearing brood during the harvest are freed up to bring IN the harvest. The bees that would have been reared on the harvest would have simply EATEN the harvest and had no work to do. I think this is the number one cause of the hives that make big crops as opposed to hives that don't. I think OFTEN a hive requeens itself during this period, unknown to the beekeeper, and the result is a huge harvest and the beekeeper never realizes the cause.

If you DON'T do this, what you get is a population of foragers that is LESS during the harvest because the nurse bees are busy rearing brood, and then more demand for resources AFTER the harvest with lots of idle bees having to be fed. The point is to have the most foragers on the harvest and just a maintenance size force after the harvest. In other words, the right number of bees at the right time.

> You might have more honey than you would otherwise but it will take some time for the colony to recover.

No, it won't take time for them to recover. They don't NEED nor do they WANT a lot of idle workers when there is no flow. They will be a step ahead.

> And you still got mites.

You got at least one less generation of them raised. IF you have a population of mites that is increasing (the norm in a typical hive) then one generation of them NOT increasing is a LOT less mites. And, of course, You could, if you want to treat, harvest the honey at the end of the flow and use something like powdered sugar, sucrocide, Oxalic acid ect. and get by with one treatment (because there are no mites sealed up in the cells) just before you release the queen to rear the young bees you'll need for winter.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>The secrect is to realize "there is no trade-off". If the timing is right this is a BIG win/win situation

OK Michael, thanks. I think you just answered the question "what am I missing?" but it's going to take a lot more pondering before I understand what you just wrote









George-


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

George, I almost understand it and it sounds like something we can make work. I'm estimating about a weeks worth of pondering then you and I need put our heads together over a 2006 calendar and work this out. 

I'm also gonna get me one of those Bush for president stickers. Michael is a wonderment.

Hawk


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

OK. Make a chart of the bee population in a hive. The hive keeps building up until it either swarms (which is it's first intent) or the flow hits and it decides to spend it's energy on that. But during the flow brood rearing continues at that frantic pace that it was just before. So a lot of resources and a lot of bees are used to keep increasing the number of bees during the flow. These bees emerge about the time the flow is over and now they want to eat, so they eat all the stores that were brought in on the flow, but since the flow is over, they aren't of a lot of value.

Now make a chart of the OPTIMAL bee population in a hive. That would be to have the MAXIMUM number of foragers (not just bees but foragers) during the flow but less bees to feed after the flow. If you confine the queen about two weeks before the flow (or even right AT the start of the flow) you will accomplish exactly this.

So if you take into account that no brood frees up a LOT of bees during the flow and not having those bees to feed after the flow (because they wouldn't have emerged soon enough to help with the flow) will mean less use of resources to maintain the hive until the fall flow.

It helps if you can visualize what the ideal is so you can see that you can accomplish that by confining or removing the queen two weeks before the flow. Any earlier would mean less bees for the harvest. Later means more brood to feed and bees tied up doing it.

I wonder how many beekeepers accidently kill the queen two weeks before the flow, don't realize it, get a record harvest and never know why.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Michael said

"I wonder how many beekeepers accidently kill the queen two weeks before the flow, don't realize it, get a record harvest and never know why."

ya know Michael, I've been thinking about what you refer to as a "cut down split"
kindof a different way to accomplish the same thing we're talking about here, interupt the brood cycle
I'd like to try this with my single hive in the spring and I've been worrying a bit about the fact that I have an unmarked queen that I'm not particularly talented at locating and that this might cause me trouble making up a split in late winter
lot of time digging around in hive in less than perfect weather to find her and not transfer her to the split
perhaps it might be a good idea to put her in the split and create this interuption in the brood cycle in the mother hive we're talking about
around here it's certainly an optimum time for them to raise a new queen, we have our best flow in april and may and lot's of pollen to boot
obviously you'd have to leave some eggs in the mother hive 

would this be a bad idea??

Dave

[ October 29, 2005, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Good idea Hawk! If we both ponder and share the results we might even cut that pondering time in half!

Anyways, the initial results of my pondering are in! I'm not done yet, but here's the way it looks from here, so far:

IMHO, this "caging the queen" thing is less about varroa control and more about maximizing honey production and swarm prevention. It is similar in effect to the cut-down split where you create 2 colonies, 1 of which grows bees and the other grows honey, but without the physical split. Instead, we cage the queen to manipulate the bee population for our own ends.

As Michael points out, the timing of this manipulation IS critical, it must coincide with a major honey flow. You want the bees to marshal their troops and jump on a flow and NOT eat up the surplus. This makes it a management technique more appropriate in regions that actually HAVE a major honey flow in the first place, as opposed to areas that are characterized by many smaller, shorter duration flows. I'm still contemplating this distinction but I'm pretty sure it's relevant to the successful use of this technique. If your honey comes in in dribs and drabs over the course of the season, or as some number of short-but-intense flows, you'll be hard pressed to manage your bee population by caging the queen so as to "hit" each flow.

As for caging the queen as a method of mite control, I just don't see it but I must admit, I'm still pondering this aspect and I am not willing to say it's without merit. My thinking is as follows:

Yes, you deprive the mites of a brood cycle. This is a good thing. At the same time, you maximize your field force when you want it maximized and when it's all said and done, you end up with less bees when you want less bees. This is a good thing. You still have the same number (more or less) of mites as you did before, but at a later date so yes, you have less mites than you would had you let brood rearing continue unabated. This too is a good thing.

However, when brood rearing does resume, at a slower pace because there's no significant flow on, the mites are going to make up for lost time. There will be less brood to parasitize. You'll end up with more mites in less cells. As a result, you're going to see significant brood loss and deformed bees, shriveled wings, etc., perhaps (probably) more than if you'd just left the hive alone in the first place. You'll have more honey, but the mites will continue to proliferate- all you've done is postpone things temporarily. You might have staved off colony collapse (maybe) for another season, but it appears that all you've really done is postpone the inevitable.

Is this perspective correct? I dunno! I'm not dis'n caging the queen as a means of maximizing honey production (and swarm control), I'm only questioning the value of the mite-control claims. From where I'm standing, if you don't take advantage of the fact that all your mites are phoretic and whack `em while you have the chance, you're missing a great opportunity.

What AM I missing?

George-


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>would this be a bad idea??

It's all in the timing. I don't know when that is where you are. Here the flow starts about the second week of June. I don't know how well the bees are built up THERE in April. But I try to do a cut down around the last day of May. I only know that works well here. I'm not so sure I can predict the strength of the hive and the timing of the flow where you are.

>IMHO, this "caging the queen" thing is less about varroa control and more about maximizing honey production and swarm prevention.

That was the initial intention, but if the varroa get one less generation of reproduction in at a time that is most beneficial to the bees and the beekeeper then there are less mites simply becaue of this. If you use powdered sugar or whatever in addition then you get the advantage of all the mites being exposed and not in the cells.

> It is similar in effect to the cut-down split where you create 2 colonies, 1 of which grows bees and the other grows honey, but without the physical split. Instead, we cage the queen to manipulate the bee population for our own ends.

Precisely the same concept. But in one case you get another hive and more production and less mites. In the other case you just get more production and less mites.

>As Michael points out, the timing of this manipulation IS critical, it must coincide with a major honey flow. You want the bees to marshal their troops and jump on a flow and NOT eat up the surplus. This makes it a management technique more appropriate in regions that actually HAVE a major honey flow in the first place, as opposed to areas that are characterized by many smaller, shorter duration flows.

Precisely.

>I'm still contemplating this distinction but I'm pretty sure it's relevant to the successful use of this technique. If your honey comes in in dribs and drabs over the course of the season, or as some number of short-but-intense flows, you'll be hard pressed to manage your bee population by caging the queen so as to "hit" each flow.

But you could cage your queen to end up with less bees to feed in a time that usually doesn't have a flow. Like the middle of the heat of summer. I've never been anywhere where there wasn't a lot of little flows but also a main flow and usually, somewhere in the heat of summer a dearth.

>As for caging the queen as a method of mite control, I just don't see it

If you are in the habit of breeding your mare every year and you skip a year will you get less horses?

>You still have the same number (more or less) of mites as you did before

Probably not, but let's assume you do. You STILL have less mites than you WOULD have had.

>There will be less brood to parasitize. You'll end up with more mites in less cells. As a result, you're going to see significant brood loss and deformed bees, shriveled wings, etc., perhaps (probably) more than if you'd just left the hive alone in the first place.

I have not seen this.

>You'll have more honey, but the mites will continue to proliferate- all you've done is postpone things temporarily. You might have staved off colony collapse (maybe) for another season, but it appears that all you've really done is postpone the inevitable.

>Is this perspective correct?

No.

>What AM I missing?

First, the mites die at some given rate. That rate seems to be faster when they are out of the cells than in the cells. Second the bees are grooming the mites off so some of them are dying that way. The mites are vulnerable, at least to some extent, when they are out of the cells. The bees are most vulnerable and unable to groom the mites off when the mites are in the cell. More mites will die when they are all out of the cells. No mites can reproduce when there is no brood. The end result is less mites.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

Instead of caging queens, I make splits 1 brood, 2 frames of population and queen cell. I treated 2 times will liquid formic acid during mating. Next season I'll try liquid oxalic. Most mites are exposed and are very vulnerable while the queen is being mated. Any treatment at this time will be very effective.These hives were also treated with formic in the late summer early fall. They now have very low levels of varroa. These bees are for next season.

Jean-Marc


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Well I got a couple of precisely's, several sideways glances, and at least one "how many fingers am I holding up" question:

>>If you are in the habit of breeding your mare every year and you skip a year will you get less horses?

I know this one! Yes. you will get less horses.

Michael has infinite patience, does he not?

George-


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I came across this statement on the internet.

Never believe anything you read on the internet
any more than you would believe what you would
overhear at a ****tail party.

> (From Jim Fischer, of Bee-Quick fame)

"Fame" and "beekeeping" are mutually exclusive
concepts, aren't they?









> The push-in queen cage may become the mite 
> reduction tool of the future.

Yep, I've said it more than once. 
While there is no single accepted "cure" for
mites under all conditions, if you think
about it, all the various treatments and
approaches work much better and quicker on
external mites than on mites in sealed brood.

There is nothing wrong with managing your bee
population, and it seems a waste to wear out
your queen and your bees on raising brood that
are nothing but "extra mouths to feed", in that
they simply cannot provide a tangible "profit"
to the colony or to the beekeeper.

Its all about timing. Its all about knowing when
your blooms will appear, and managing the colonies
to be as productive as possible for your local
environment. Its also about making overt choices,
rather than letting the bees choose for you.

Like everything else, push-in queen cages are
not a "silver bullet" solution to any problem
on their own, but they are part of a "healthy
breakfast".


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

This thread has grown to include the use of splitting to control mites and replentish losses. I was just wondering if I could get some opinions on a particular type of side by side splitting in order to reduce mites. The idea is that you place the queen and drawn comb in the in the original location, perhaps with a few frames of pollen and sealed brood. This queenright colony is then fed heavily. The majority of brood is placeed in a new, nearby local with eggs or (preferably) a swarmcell. This idea is not my own, but was proposed by CC miller and others (for the purpose of building new colonies).


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>Its all about timing. Its all about knowing when your blooms will appear, and managing the colonies to be as productive as possible for your local environment. Its also about making overt choices, rather than letting the bees choose for you.

Could be Zen and the Art of Beekeeping, but it sounds like micro-management







There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it's contrary to the "normal" advice us newbees get which is more along the lines of "leave your hives alone" and "you're new, you're going to bother your bees more than necessary" and "experienced beekeepers only open their hives up once a year" and similar stuff along the same vein. The basic message we newbees get is "the bees know best."

Now we're getting the idea that the bees don't necessarily know best afterall- they know what's best for them maybe, but not what's best for their benevolent but honey-hungry keepers. The bees and the beekeepers interests are not necessarily the same it turns out! This is a level of beekeeping well above the normal level of beginners. The air is thin up there.

George-


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

I'm guessing you haven't killed off all the phoretics just to have the mites come back with the next brood hatch. It's what made me really sit up and take notice here. If there is no mites in the next brood hatch you're putting them back to square one.

Of course you would kill them off. OA, powdered sugar, coumaphos, anything. I like sugar. then release the queen. No. Release her after the flow??? Well, at least in time to build up for the fall flow. Assuming a fall flow. When do you split in this system?

Have you noted the number of stories about great overwintering that end with "and then they swarmed on March first?"

I've almost decided on early splits. Is that gonna hurt the queen caging or help it? Is it gonna hurt the honey or help it?

I have more questions now than I started with. what a great thread. I just know I'm gonna learn something before it's over.

Hawk


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Hawk,

I kinda started this tangent about splits because of what I read Michael post here

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002994#000000

I think caging the queen just before the flow accomplishes about the same thing as a cut down split so far as interupting the brood cycle and freeing up workers to forage except with the split you get free bee's

(which is a good thing)









I guess with the caging thing you can control it better, but the free box of bee's sounds pretty good

Dave


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Instead of caging her I'm thinking of a two frame mating nuc. I guess a month in that would bee stretching things. Hmmmm. If I made it a 5frame she could continue to lay. More free bees.

Hawk


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I believe a month in a nuc would bee

A split









Dave

[ October 30, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Ahh. A wise guy, huh?









Hawk


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I'm trying


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

Aspera:

You've got the right idea. It is essentially what I do. As the brood hatches during the period that the queen is getting mated the varroa mites are vulnerable. This is a very good time to treat. That's what I did this season and last. Works well on the increase for mite control.

Jean-Marc


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>I have more questions now than I started with. what a great thread.

Aye, it's a good thread. I said way back at the beginning of it when I started flapping my gums that I didn't know where this was going... but I'm glad to be along for the ride.

I've been thinking split too.. and requeening. Or both. What an opportunity, whether you want to make increase, make honey, make queens, or all 3, or any combination. In any case, it appears TIMING is everything. Unfortunately, I really don't have a handle on what to expect when. Yet anyways.

It occurs to me that through better understanding the dynamics of bee populations and brood rearing, the bees natural desire to reproduce (swarm) and our mutual desire for honey and good queens, we can make management decisions that actually take advantage of the natural events that are going to occur anyways. Rather than just let stuff happen when it happens, we can encourage things to happen when we want them to happen, to meet our goals and the bees needs too. We get what we want and they get what they want.

What a concept.

George-


----------



## Konrad (Oct 7, 2004)

This makes me thinking.....

How come, up here in the North [very cold] no laying queen in dead of the Winter, Varroa mites can be a huge problem early spring??

Konrad


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

I don't know specifically for y'all, but it sure looks like varroa get blamed/credit for an awful lot of damage that they couldn't possibly do.

Hawk


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

If bees go into winter with a high varroa load then the varroa feed of the bees all winter, kinda sucking the vitality out of them. When the queen starts to egg lay again and the bees try to raise that brood then the first new generation gets damaged from the varroa. The winter bees are old and tired and quickly dying off. This is a good recipe for big time disaster.

Jean-Marc


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

It seems like varroa has several allies in the hive that make things a whole lot worse. I'm thinking that they aren't the only mite on the block, just the most visible. All this stuff I hear about viruses also makes me wonder if the effects of varroa (winter time train-wrecks) actually outlast the mites themselves.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Hawk, I think varroa are responsible for everything blamed on them, and a lot of things they're not blamed for, like rising unemployment among beekeepers and the state of the economy









Varroa are new parasites on AM and they haven't figured out how to parasitize them without killing them. Learning to Live together is a something that typically takes oh, a few thousand years or so. Eventually, they'll learn to coexist. In the meantime, they'll kill their host and if they don't kill them directly, they'll be vectors for other problems and they'll weaken them making them more susceptable to other bee diseases. One way or the other, they're bad news.

>>How come, up here in the North [very cold] no laying queen in dead of the Winter, Varroa mites can be a huge problem early spring??

I think Jean-Marc answered that pretty well, though I don't believe varroa "kill" hives come spring. If they've been weakened by varroa the previous season and are severely parasitized during the winter, then when spring arrives, the bees just don't have what it takes to get up and go. The hives can't build up and dwindle. The damage has already been done. Varroa don't kill healthy hives in the spring.

A LOT of mites die off during the winter, but some survive, feeding on bees and reproducing as best they can in worker brood. Bee colonies are only totally broodless for a relatively short period in late fall and early winter and varroa brood cycles are tied to the bees brood cycles. Limited brood rearing usually occurs throughout the winter to some extent and some races raise more brood than others. The issue is, winter brood is *worker* brood and varroa don't proliferate in worker brood- in fact, it is all they can do to maintain their population when all they have is worker brood to parasitize. According to one source I've read (Marion Ellis), only 1 to 1.7 varroa emerge from a parasitized worker cell. This is barely enough to maintain the varroa population. This fact, combined with natural attrition typically causes the varroa population to decline significantly over the winter.

In the spring, the bees start to raise drones. Varroa can typically raise 2 to 3 mature mated female varroa in a drone cell i.e., they can double if not triple their numbers every brood cycle. At this rate, varroa populations can increase dramatically in the spring and early summer. If a hive is already weak come spring, as many of them are due to varroa, tracheal mites, dysentary, etc., it won't take long before the varroa have the upper hand.

The fact is, mites typically kill off hives in the late summer/early fall when bee populations are dropping and mite populations are peaking, having built up their numbers over the spring and summer. I refer to this graph so often, I thought I'd pirate it:

http://www.sweettimeapiary.com/pics/bee_and_varroa_population_graph.gif

There is less brood for the mites to parasitize so you have more mites invading less cells. This condition persists into fall until brood rearing stops. This period is when you're likely to see more physical symptoms of mite infestation- I sure did. Hives that have been struggling with mites for a season or two just may not make it to winter and if they do, they likely won't make it to spring.

So, what does this all have to do with caging the queen and forager population management for increased honey production? Well, the more I learn about mites the more I'm coming to understand and accept Michael's claim that breaking the bees brood rearing cycle can significantly impact the mite infestation, I've just had to sort it out for myself. I think, like everything else, it's all in the timing.

One thing I can say for sure- whether or not I get around to caging my queens next season, I'll sure be culling drone comb









George-


----------



## Konrad (Oct 7, 2004)

Thank you all!
Still have allot to learn!
Konrad


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Well George,

there ya go on another fine tangent








culling drone comb
I've been thinking that it would be smart to keep one of those cappings scratches with you and just uncap all the drone comb you see
not to difficult
kill's lot's of varroa
but somewhere I've seen it suggested that you need to actually pull all the larva out and feed em to the chickens to kill the mites
this would be WAY more trouble
the idea was that otherwise you'd simply kill the drones not the mites
I would think it would kill the imature mites by taking away their food source
how bout the mother, can she lay more than one time, or is she spent after she lay's once??

thought's?
Dave

[ October 31, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## mwjohnson (Nov 19, 2004)

O.K.I remembered this topic discussed last year,and had some questions then that I still need your help with,'cause I give up.
Beside the push in type,anyone sell "framecages"? 
Failing that can anyone offer advice on what they do to construct a "frame cage"?
Like do you respect bee space around the caged frame?
Or construction details of end/ear holes,I think along the lines of galvanized sheet metal and cutting a metal excluder,soldering because that,s how I think,but the plastic would be cheaper...
Or ,IF a "2 frame cage" might offer an advantage,seeing that we're considering a 24day confinement?
And ,IF the above assumption is true,I also thought that instead of drone frames in the cage,that I could use worker comb,and then remove those (2)frames,treat,and use for other things,like a queen mating nuc,building up weak hives etc. 
Or would(asI suspect)the bees,realizing the peril their queen was in,move some eggs to build some queen cells?
Thanks for the great topic for pondern',sure would beat doing drone frame removal all summer!
Mark


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Mark, read Dave Robbins' remark above. He's right. Putting the queen in a nuc for a month is a split. and I wouldn't use a two frame simply because they require too much supervision/administration. I'd use a 5 frame nuc and you're right, by then the hive will re-queen. 

Dave, pulling out the imature Drones will not kill the varroa. That's why everyone says to freeze the entire frame overnight. That'll get em.

Hawk


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>there ya go on another fine tangent. Culling drone comb

Sorry. My bad









Hey it's really not a tangent. Remember this thread started off with "caging the queen" as a means of varroa control so really, "caging the queen" for increased honey production is the tangent. Technically









You see, I knew all along that varroa preferred drone brood because the longer time to emergence gives the mites more time to grow and mate. What I didn't know was that given attrition, natural fall, and grooming behavior, varroa can barely maintain their population, let alone proliferate, given only worker brood to breed in. It will take them a long time to build up their numbers to the point where they're a big problem. It's generally accepted that varroa populations drop off considerably during the winter and I speculate it's because in large part, they're forced to reproduce in worker brood, and not much of that.

If a mite enters a worker cell to breed and only one, sometimes two mated females emerge, it's going to take them a while to build up their numbers. But if one varroa can enter a drone cell and routinely 2 and sometimes 3 mated females or more emerge.. that's huge.

I still think there's a piece of the puzzle missing.

>>but somewhere I've seen it suggested that you need to actually pull all the larva out and feed em to the chickens to kill the mites

Dave, there's a lot I don't know about drone culling. Frankly I think if you yank `em outa the frame, that pretty much does in the mites but I could be wrong. I've been planning on getting some of that drone foundation and doing the freezing thing to kill the mites and then let the bees clean it out. Haven't put any more thought into it than that. I've heard that you can uncap the frames and *shake* the pupae out, wash the mites off and sell the brood as an ethnic delicacy









George-


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Every push in queen cage that I've tried (store bought and homemade) has "failed" after a few days. The bees burrow under the edges (even if pushed deep into the comb). I think they were designed for queen introduction but not longer term caging. Might work on plastic foundation.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

>...and simultaneously cause "dropping" of all phoretic mites by treating or dumping the bees a mile away. This would have the added benefit of lossing any unhealthy bees.

MB: "You would lose all of the young brood, nurse bees and house bees and get back all of the old field bees. How is this a benefit?"

Since there is no brood tere won't be any young bees or nurse bees to lose. The nurse bees and most of the house bees have long since been recruited as foragers (just like a cutdown split). I also said you could treat the bees. The benefit of dumping a mile (btw, this is an arbitrary distance) away is that you lose any sick bees and possibily lose the varroa mites on the bees and certainly lose all of the mites still in the hive. You could also move the hive some distance and let the bees (any that can) fly back to their new hive at the old location.

>I like Michaels idea of splitting out the queen and any open brood jsu prior to a major flow

MB: "It's an idea I like, but certainly no my idea. It was used by many beekeepers for about a century or more."

I meant only in the context of this thread. I like Bush's idea of tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but he didn't invent it.

> but I don't think this goes far enough.

MB: "How far do you want to go?"

Well, my goal is to eliminate 99.9% of the varroa mites. I don't think a traditional cutdown split can achieve this.

MB "From my point of view, on small cell, the Varroa aren't a problem anymore for me so maybe I'm not as desperate for something to help."

I'm moving to small cell and all of my hives are "feral". I actually don't have a serious mite problem, but like looking for other natural mite control techniques.

MB: "But why do you want to work so hard and put the bees through so much? Confining the queen, or doing a cutdown split where they rear a new one, will cause the nurse bees to be recruited to forage and increase your production, while damaging the mites. That's a win win. Shaking out a hive a mile away will deprive you of all the young bees (who could be foraging) and totally disrupt the hive. That's a lose lose."

What's so hard? It's a cutdown split with a treatment and/or an optional hive move AFTER the flow. In a cutdown split all open brood is removed so the bees in the hive are at least 3 or 4 weeks old. Not sure, but I think young bees take their orientation flight about 2 weeks after emerging. So I would expect 99% of all bees to return to their old location. I probably would not shake out the hive, but would split it apart, harvest the honey and get it ready for the next colony.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>Beside the push in type, anyone sell "framecages"? Failing that can anyone offer advice on what they do to construct a "frame cage"? Like do you respect bee space around the caged frame?

Good question Mark. I've never seen any for sale but maybe in some obscure esoteric beekeeping supply catalog they lurk, gathering dust..

So you're probably stuck with building your own. I don't see how you can maintain perfect bee space completely if you enclose a standard frame in cage built out of queen excluders- either between frames or on the ends, and top and bottom. I think you'd want to, as best you can but it's a temporary situation. At worst, you'll get some propolis build up. Perhaps a special frame, somewhat shorter and thinner would work.

>>Or construction details of end/ear holes, I think along the lines of galvanized sheet metal and cutting a metal excluder,soldering because that,s how I think,but the plastic would be cheaper...

I like the idea of sheet metal and metal excluders. Really, the concept here is confining the queen to a single frame. That might be a lot simpler to do with just two follower boards (excluders, one on either side of the frame). You might have to remove a frame (brood even, to bolster another hive or nuc) to make room.

>>Or ,IF a "2 frame cage" might offer an advantage,seeing that we're considering a 24day confinement?

I think you reach a point of diminishing returns. A queen confined to a 2 frame space within a hive isn't really "confined". It wouldn't be worth it IMHO unless the frames were all drone comb. She'd still be able to lay and the bees (about 8000 of `em) would raise the brood. The goal is for the hive to be broodless for a while so the house bees are recruited for foraging.... unless all you're interested in is trapping varroa, then I'd just put 2 frames of drone comb in the hive and forget the cage.

The idea of confining her to a whole frame has merit as I see it only if it's a frame of drone comb. Then most (not all) of your house bees are recruited for foraging and when the drone brood is capped, you can yank it along with all the mites.

I'll be pondering this frame cage "problem" and will share what I come up with.

George-


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>MB: "You would lose all of the young brood, nurse bees and house bees and get back all of the old field bees. How is this a benefit?"

>Since there is no brood tere won't be any young bees or nurse bees to lose. The nurse bees and most of the house bees have long since been recruited as foragers

If there is a flow, most of them, but not all of them probably would.

>(just like a cutdown split). I also said you could treat the bees.

Which seems a more useful thing.

>The benefit of dumping a mile (btw, this is an arbitrary distance) away is that you lose any sick bees and possibily lose the varroa mites on the bees and certainly lose all of the mites still in the hive.

Well, I haven't tried it with a hive that has had the queen confined for the last 28 days, but I would still expect some of them to be house bees and attendants to the queen and those will still be the youngest and those will still be lost. Even if there are a lot less of them.

>>MB: "It's an idea I like, but certainly no my idea. It was used by many beekeepers for about a century or more."

>I meant only in the context of this thread. I like Bush's idea of tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but he didn't invent it.

I'm just trying to make sure I'm not being credited with something that is not mine, although I like the idea.

>Well, my goal is to eliminate 99.9% of the varroa mites. I don't think a traditional cutdown split can achieve this.

Nor do I. But it will make less mites and it will make more honey.

> I would expect 99% of all bees to return to their old location.

Maybe they will. Let me know how it works.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

unless I missed the answer, I still have a question hanging out there

after the female mite raises her young in a cell and they emerge, can she enter another cell and do it again??

Dave


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

drobbins . . .

Yes. Original female AND her mature young can enter other cells and reproduce.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Rat's

Thanks Dave
Dave


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>Yes. Original female AND her mature young can enter other cells and reproduce.

Dave- nothing about varroa surprises me, so this doesn't but I never run across this bit of information about them before. Got a source for it?

George-


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Hi George, I was just scrolling through some of the messages and came across this. I know Dave doesn't need a mouthpiece, but since I've got a reference handy:

"Female mites can go through more than one reproductive cycle. As many as seven cycles, producing up to 30 eggs, have been demonstrated by artificially transferring mites........[researchers] found that 13 percent of introduced mother mites reproduced at least three times."

page 288, 'Honey Bee Pests, Predators, & Diseases'


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Woof. Thanks Dick, good info. And Dave, I wasn't doubting you, I'm just trying to build up references so I can accumulate facts, as opposed to opinions. Some unsubstantiated statements go down easily, others need corroboration.

Oh my god, I've been reading BEE-L too long. I'm morphing!!! It's affected my brain!!!

George-


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

George . . .

Sorry, Im slow to respond. 
This info is "everywhere".
I have more sources if you need them









Dick . . .
Thanks for the help!


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Because I love you guys, I spent two hours unearthing this site. I'd read it some time ago.
It fits here.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~jtemp/dronemethod.html

Dick Marron


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>This info is "everywhere".

I wouldn't call it "everywhere" but when you're specifically looking for it, you can find it. I did, eventually.

FYI, my general rule of thumb is not to take anything as fact if I can't verify it from 2 other sources. I might not discount it totally.. but there's so much mis-information "out there" it just makes sense to verify what you can before you rely on it.

Dickm, thanks for that site. I used to play Quake on that server..

George-


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

So it appears that varroa DO prefer nurse bees as hosts for their phoretic episode- not exclusively, but there seems to be a distinct preference for them.

One reason could be convenience- they're more likely to encounter nurse bees when emerging from a cell. Another reason could be the mites just don't like going for rides on the backs of foragers.

Caging the queen and forcing all your nurse/house bees to grow up and go forage could be another reason this management technique has an impact on the mite population- more mites get lost.

George-


----------



## Man O' War (Jul 11, 2005)

Sounds like an awful lot of trouble for the average hive minder like me.
(all the digital stuff in my house flashes 12:00):lol:
I think I'll stick to rotating my drone frames through the freezer.
I like the fact that drone population can be
manipulated a bit without much damage/interference
to the "natural" cycles in the hive.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

George Fergusson . . .

>FYI, my general rule of thumb is not to take anything as fact if I can't verify it from 2 other sources.

You are VERY wise!!!

I think PART of what you said is BEST, "not to take anything as fact if I (you) can't verify". If YOU personally can't verify, what would stop 2 "mis-informed" souls from leading you down the wrong path? 

The more you try to verify (about beekeeping), the less you'll know for sure


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>>I think PART of what you said is BEST, "not to take anything as fact if I (you) can't verify". If YOU personally can't verify, what would stop 2 "mis-informed" souls from leading you down the wrong path?

Good question Dave. My father taught me this principle of research and it went something like "Don't accept as fact anything you haven't independently verified from 2 other reputable sources."

So I guess the operative terms are "independently verified" and "reputable sources". It's not fool proof, but if you add the straight-faced test and use some plain old common sense, you won't go too far wrong. Always reserve the right to change your mind!

It also helps to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion. No amount of verification is going to turn someone's opinion into fact. You can agree with it or accept it, or not. That seems to apply to beekeeping particularly well


----------

