# Kirk Webster January 2016: FERAL AND MANAGED COLONIES



## FlowerPlanter

Good information, see much truth there. 

And some real solutions.


----------



## Stonefly7

It is nice to see he is writing again. He has been absent for some time. Sounds like he is re-energized. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Bob J

Good stuff! Thanks for posting!


----------



## JWChesnut

Kirk Webster posted his "collapse and recovery" essay early in 2011. He now further says 2011 and 2013 were horrible years. This implies he has had at least 3 serious crashes in the 10 years since 2006 and perhaps more. 

Three wipeouts in 10 years, or one on average every three years. I believe this is the* repeated crash scenario* to be expected when Varroa are not managed. Solomon Parker also reports repeated wipeouts, on roughly the same recurrence interval. Parker attributes his (without any evidence) to moving to new locations -- an action that millions of other hives survive easily.


----------



## jim lyon

We also had bees in SD in the summer of 2006. Yes, it was hot, matter of fact all time record heat. 124 degrees hot? Well Ft. Pierre in central South Dakota and about 70 miles from many of our locations recorded the all time state record reading that day at 120.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
http://www.wunderground.com/history....zip=57543&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999&MR=1
The nearest official reporting station to Belvidere was in Philip,SD about 30 miles north and west of there where they reported 116 that day, the same reading reported at our nearest official weather station in Winner, SD which is about 20 miles west of a number of our locations. So based on this historical record I'm going to assume that the Baldwin bees werent in any more extreme heat than our bees or many thousands of others in central and western South Dakota on the day when Chris was claiming he lost more than 1,000 hives to the heat. I'm going to assume that the heat might have cost us a few here and there and my records are showing our 2006 production was about average (I remember the record heat finishing off the clover but setting up a mid summer alfalfa flow) and our numbers held up pretty well based on what my shipping/bee yard records are showing.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

JWChesnut said:


> Kirk Webster posted his "collapse and recovery" essay early in 2011. He now further says 2011 and 2013 were horrible years.


My first thought was the same, but upon rereading I am less sure. He says:

"But the best testimonial to the success of this apiary is probably its continued strength and resilience during the years since 2005, when *conditions for bees *have been much less favorable, and included the two *disastrous seasons *of 2011 and 2013---by far the worst I've seen in my whole career. During all this time I still had bees for sale every year and also produced honey crops above the local colony average."

His use of the word "conditions" here leads me to believe he is referring, not to his apiaries, but more generally to the floral season in his area - although I am not sure about this.

John


----------



## Michael Bush

>"...and included the two disastrous seasons of 2011 and 2013---by far the worst I've seen in my whole career. _During all this time I still had bees for sale every year and also produced honey crops above the local colony average._"

And still he gets accused of failure:

>"Three wipeouts in 10 years, or one on average every three years. I believe this is the repeated crash scenario to be expected when Varroa are not managed."

Be careful what you put out there on the internet as it will always be taken out of context. In this case the context was _in the same sentence!_


----------



## Juhani Lunden

I think JWChesnut has a point. There are similarities in these TF beekeepers reports of success. This kind of subjective reports by individuals are always somewhat vague, no matter how honest person in question.


----------



## Michael Bush

Kirk's point in the above sentence is that in his WORST years he still had honey to sell and bees to sell and his crops were above the local average. JWChestnut is drawing the opposite conclusion.


----------



## sqkcrk

Doesn't seem like that would be difficult to do. Being above average selling bees and honey in VT. Just think of all of those below average beekeepers there must be. Who is collecting and disseminating the data on colony counts and production? Or is it all a matter of word of mouth?


----------



## Delta Bay

Michael Bush said:


> Kirk's point in the above sentence is that in his WORST years he still had honey to sell and bees to sell and his crops were above the local average. JWChestnut is drawing the opposite conclusion.


And quite a conclusion at that!


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

Michael Bush said:


> Kirk's point in the above sentence is that in his WORST years he still had honey to sell and bees to sell and his crops were above the local average.


In my opinion, he is not even saying that these years are _his _worst years, but rather the _worst years for beekeeping in his area_. _He is not referring to a crash in his apiaries at all. _He is referring to wider climactic and floral conditions. This is confirmed by a comment he makes later:

"For both Chris and myself, the mites have sunk way down on the list of potential beekeeping problems. Weather and environmental problems are now at the top."

I understand what Juhani Lunden means about the vagueness in the reports of many treatment-free beekeepers, for I have seen the same. But I have not found this to be true of Kirk Webster's writings. (Nor, for that matter, of Mr. Lunden's!)

John


----------



## Michael Bush

>In my opinion, he is not even saying that these years are his worst years, but rather the worst years for beekeeping in his area

Rereading it, I agree. It seems he is talking about bad years in general, not necessarily HIS bad years.


----------



## Fusion_power

The seed does not land very far from the tree. In this case, when Kirk Webster describes "bad years" he most likely means they were bad for him personally as well as possibly for the entire area.


----------



## sqkcrk

"The seed does not land very far from the tree." Well, that just isn't so. Plenty of tree seeds fly far from their parent tree.

Why don't we simply take Kirk's words at face value instead of trying to interpret them?


----------



## Duncan151

sqkcrk said:


> " Why don't we simply take Kirk's words at face value instead of trying to interpret them?


Why not just ask Kirk for clarification?


----------



## Michael Palmer

Just write him an email....


----------



## Snowhitsky

The relevant point of the article is a summary of the method he uses to make his apiary successful. Shouldn't we be analysing and discussing his method rather than nit-picking about why two years were bad?

From my limited knowledge and experience, it seems to me that his technique is basically to outbreed varroa. If he he makes up his nucs without any brood (essentially a package), he's leaving behind most of the varroa in the parent hives. That would explain why the nucs do OK during the first winter and why the hives eventually collapse. As long as he's got enough nucs coming online every year to replace his losses, he's OK. The whole time, he's also breeding from the more successful hives to improve his stock.

From my point of view (in Spain with A.M.iberiensis) I'm not convinced I can replicate his method as my queens don't appear to respond to stimulative feeding. Their egg-laying pattern is dictated almost exclusively by the short nectar flows which limits how many nucs I can make from a strong hive. No brood breaks in the winter also gives varroa a significant advantage over the bees in terms of population increase. Lastly, I don't know of a single successful TF beekeeper or queen breeder that uses the local A.M.Iberiensis on mainland Spain and could provide me with varroa resistant bees. And yes, I want to keep using the local bee rather than imported ones.

Having said all the above, my thanks to Mr. Webster for sharing his method.


----------



## RichardsonTX

Snowhitsky..........you have an interesting species of honey bee. Is that the species most beekeepers in Spain have? 

I'm glad Mr. Webster wrote his article and shared his info with us. As for whether he's successful, not successful, in other people's view, I think he could care less and would probably prefer that both sides keep that part of their opinion to themselves. It's great that he takes the time to share his info rather than be in fear of being under the spotlight of criticism. Just in case he'd been a sensitive person, I'm glad Mr. Doolittle wrote his articles/books about his discoveries during a time when the internet wasn't around.


----------



## Snowhitsky

Yes A.M. Iberiensis is the native bee of Spain and Portugal and as far as I know the one overwhelmingly used by iberian beekeepers as it is well adapted to challenging and varying climates of both countries. Basically, it is the A.M.M. black bee crossed with African strains. The further south you go, the more African genes it has. They're mean.

If you check out the bottom of this page: https://webs.um.es/jgalian/miwiki/doku.php?id=proyectos you can see a map with the different lineages with a broad division along a climatic north-south divide. I live on the east coast under the third pie chart starting from the north.


----------



## GBF

Good read. 
The resistance is something like mechanism wich is alive and depend out of circumstances and environment, so the resistance always works as a level of responding to specific circumstances of this or that particular situation.. It means that sometimes there will be seasons with more losses and seasons with less losses. Our managment and our mistakes also have a large role in those circumstances that our bees faced and have to overcome. 

With my respect to Kirk and his job, I would make some remarks. That advice about raising many young queens out of feral untested queen is a bit risque, in my oppinion it would better to test such a queen at least for one season. There are many reasons for it, your neighbors their dogs etc.. 

And that his statement when his friend rear queens from one breeder queen for aprox. 1000 hives.. I count such a thing as a managment mistake - big mistake. I am not blaming, not judging - just sharing my oppinion. The next generations of bees could really suffer from such a step..

Anyhow the article is filled with the spirit of old school beekeeping. Nice read. Thanks.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

Snowhitsky said:


> The relevant point of the article is a summary of the method he uses to make his apiary successful. Shouldn't we be analysing and discussing his method rather than nit-picking about why two years were bad?


Amen to that.

As regards the article presently under discussion, Mr. Webster points to feral colonies as a potential source of resistant bees. Do you think there might be any such possibility where you live, Snowhitsky? Is there any such thing as a feral population of A.M.iberiensis that might harbor resistant qualities?

John


----------



## sqkcrk

Resistance to what? Varroa destructor? If that's what we should be searching for in feral populations of bees then shouldn't we be looking in an area where European honeybees, aka apis mellifera, have had varroa mites the longest?


----------



## Beentown

sqkcrk said:


> Resistance to what? Varroa destructor? If that's what we should be searching for in feral populations of bees then shouldn't we be looking in an area where European honeybees, aka apis mellifera, have had varroa mites the longest?


Or, perhaps, we should be, since they've survived with them the longest. I don't know- that's pure conjecture. I'm just thinking after so long, natural selection could have promoted a tolerant or combative species against mites.


----------



## sqkcrk

Natural selection has only been at it 30 or 40 years. Do you really think that's long enough to produce a honeybee that can handle varroa mites?


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

sqkcrk said:


> Resistance to what? Varroa destructor? If that's what we should be searching for in feral populations of bees then shouldn't we be looking in an area where European honeybees, aka apis mellifera, have had varroa mites the longest?


You are quite right, sqkcrk, my question was vague. I did indeed mean resistance to Varroa destructor. I was asking in particular about A.M.iberiensis, since Snowhitsky stated he would like to use local bees only. A matter of curiosity. From what I have seen, feral bees are given more attention in the United States than they are at least here in Sardinia. I wanted to know how they are regarded in other parts of Europe. I hardly have any intention of importing Spanish bees to Sardinia.

John


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

sqkcrk said:


> Natural selection has only been at it 30 or 40 years. Do you really think that's long enough to produce a honeybee that can handle varroa mites?


That is a valid, and pressing, question. I suppose the response would be - do we _know _that it's not? It seems a worthwhile point of investigation, particularly in areas where such a possibility has been neglected.

John


----------



## Beentown

sqkcrk said:


> Natural selection has only been at it 30 or 40 years. Do you really think that's long enough to produce a honeybee that can handle varroa mites?


I'm not saying either way. I certainly wouldn't discount it without some solid research. Who knows, maybe there's a genetic line somewhere in Europe that can handle them. I'd at least give them a shot since they're still there and alive. I don't confess to be an expert in the field; however, I wouldn't discount that it could be a possibility. The 3-4 year lifecycle of a hive certainly might lend itself to an accelerated natural selection process. What do you think?


----------



## deknow

Mark, what are you treating tracheal mites with these days? How come?


----------



## sqkcrk

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> You are quite right, sqkcrk, my question was vague. I did indeed mean resistance to Varroa destructor. I was asking in particular about A.M.iberiensis, since Snowhitsky stated he would like to use local bees only. A matter of curiosity. From what I have seen, feral bees are given more attention in the United States than they are at least here in Sardinia. I wanted to know how they are regarded in other parts of Europe. I hardly have any intention of importing Spanish bees to Sardinia.
> 
> John


Thanks for clearing that up. That makes more sense.


----------



## sqkcrk

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> That is a valid, and pressing, question. I suppose the response would be - do we _know _that it's not? It seems a worthwhile point of investigation, particularly in areas where such a possibility has been neglected.
> 
> John


Someone should investigate that. But belief and speculation are easier and cheaper.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

sqkcrk said:


> Someone should investigate that. But belief and speculation are easier and cheaper.


Alas! but this has the ring of hard truth to it. And not just for beekeeping, I fear...

John


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Mark, what are you treating tracheal mites with these days? How come?


I'm not. "How come?" I don't see a need to. Tracheal mites are not a factor in my hives, as far as I can tell.

What are you suggesting?


----------



## sqkcrk

Beentown said:


> The 3-4 year lifecycle of a hive certainly might lend itself to an accelerated natural selection process. What do you think?


I'm not sure what to think. 3-4 year life cycle? I'm note sure what you mean. Do you have queens that last that long? Or hives that you manage to keep alive that long w/out them dying?


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> I'm not. "How come?" I don't see a need to. Tracheal mites are not a factor in my hives, as far as I can tell.
> 
> What are you suggesting?


....that resistance to tracheal mites has been achieved broadly (to your satisfaction) in a short period of time.


----------



## Riverderwent

Michael Palmer said:


> Just write him an email....


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ....that resistance to tracheal mites has been achieved broadly (to your satisfaction) in a short period of time.


I'm just as flumoxed as to why tracheal mites disappeared as I am why and how they showed up. I do not know enough about genetics or the genetic manipulation of honeybees to believe that breeding was the only reason t.mites are not a problem anymore.

Can anyone tell me why we saw tracheal mites one year and then, bamm, varroa mites showed up soon thereafter? 

Could it be that tracheal mites were displaced by varroa and that's why we don't see them or their impact? That one will not find them both in the same colonies? Or are they found in the same colonies?


----------



## Snowhitsky

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> Amen to that.
> 
> As regards the article presently under discussion, Mr. Webster points to feral colonies as a potential source of resistant bees. Do you think there might be any such possibility where you live, Snowhitsky? Is there any such thing as a feral population of A.M.iberiensis that might harbor resistant qualities?
> 
> John


I have no doubt feral bees are around but I am not aware of any that have been studied and declared to be true survivors. Most swarms around me are from managed hives and not survivors. Looking for true survivors in the mountains isn't really an option for me due to time issues. There is also the legal issue of taking feral bees out of a natural park. It's a no-no.


----------



## Beentown

sqkcrk said:


> I'm not sure what to think. 3-4 year life cycle? I'm note sure what you mean. Do you have queens that last that long? Or hives that you manage to keep alive that long w/out them dying?


I guess that's what I'm getting at. They don't. Hence why the natural selection cycle is a lot shorter for honebees as compared to humans, in my opinion. Not that we're necessarily genetically stronger, but you have 10+ genetic iterations in a 30-40 year cycle with honeybees as compared to <1 with humans, by example.


----------



## JWChesnut

sqkcrk said:


> Can anyone tell me why we saw tracheal mites one year and then, bamm, varroa mites showed up soon thereafter?
> 
> Could it be that tracheal mites were displaced by varroa and that's why we don't see them or their impact? That one will not find them both in the same colonies? Or are they found in the same colonies?


Same reason AFB incidence was virtually absent in 90's-2000's, Tracheal mites (like AFB) are a relatively slow disease, expressing in the late fall. Varroa kills the hives with its rapid acting virus loads long before the slow diseases kill. There is likely a addititive effect, but overall the Varroa has "cleansed" the system of slow infection foci. 

The rebound of semi-tolerant bee strains has meant that AFB has come roaring back, and I lost hives to Tracheal this year as well. 

Unfortunately, the hard learned lessons of the "pre-Varroa" beekeepers in regards to strict AFB sanitary measures have been forgotten. Instead, we have poseurs promoting the hair-brained schemes of deliberately introducing AFB in order to promote "accelerated Bond Testing" in the little 3-hive genetic testing backyards.


----------



## jim lyon

Jwc. Interesting and well thought out perspective. How did you diagnose your tracheal losses?


----------



## JWChesnut

jim lyon said:


> Jwc. Interesting and well thought out perspective. How did you diagnose your tracheal losses?


40x binocular scope dissection of bee thorax -- live bee/alcohol kill. I compared to bees from healthy hives. 
Essentially following the techniques of Jamie Ellis as per: 
History 20 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wy2PG_MB4Y 
Symptomology and Dissection -- 8 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdu0ael1vaU


----------



## jim lyon

JWChesnut said:


> 40x binocular scope dissection of bee thorax -- live bee/alcohol kill. I compared to bees from healthy hives.
> Essentially following the techniques of Jamie Ellis as per:
> History 20 minutes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wy2PG_MB4Y
> Symptomology and Dissection -- 8 minutes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdu0ael1vaU


What percentages of the dissections were positive and what percentage do you feel is fatal to a hive.


----------



## JWChesnut

I did 20 bees per hive. 
I counted left and right Trachea separately. 
I didn't attempt to score the severity of infection within the trachea. However, there was a lot of "Holy S_/_" when I observed some of the bees.

I had 8-17 "positive" bees per 20 collected from symptomatic hives -- symptom was weak K-wing crawlers randomly wandering on bare sand in front of my colonies.

I had apparently healthy hives from the same yard with 4-6 "hits"

My healthy yard used for comparison had 0-1 detections in 3 colonies.

My analysis was TM are epidemic -- an infection focal point will spread into other nearby colonies, whatever the resistant mechanisms in the neighbor bees.

I added Thymol grease patties and broke up the yard into well separated independent colonies. Treated with OA dribble in early December.

Lost 5 of 20 colonies in November prior to intervention.

Lost 2 of 15 in the period since I broke the aggregation up and treated with Thymol. Temps have been very low in December (well low for Coastal Ca, 45 F highs), so I think the Thymol may not have had any vaporization. Current temps are 65-70 F, and build-up is popping. I expect the remaining hives will outgrow the infection. When temps get consistently warmer, I may hit them with thymol again.


----------



## lharder

sqkcrk said:


> Natural selection has only been at it 30 or 40 years. Do you really think that's long enough to produce a honeybee that can handle varroa mites?


In case of fast adaptation, populations take advantage of tools already in the genetic toolbox at the population level. Natural selection brings them to the fore. Lots of examples of this in pests adapting to pesticides where a given biochemical pathway is enhanced.


----------



## Riverderwent

JWChesnut said:


> The rebound of semi-tolerant bee strains has meant that AFB has come roaring back, ... .


What do you mean?


----------



## JWChesnut

Riverderwent said:


> What do you mean? (rebound of AFB)


In my two county area, I have heard of 5 separate AFB occurences in 2015, all among backyard "hobby" types.

Semi-wild bees appear to have much greater survivability to mites than in year 1995, some may persist untreated for 2 to 3 years. In my region, this appears to be associated with the introgression of African genes. 

The AFB cases that I have tracked involve 1) the rescue of comb and bees from feral colonies, 2) a beekeeper who fell victim to a hoarding mental illness and stacked his property with unmanaged dead-out comb with volunteer colonies inhabiting the unmanaged stacks. In one case (just outside my region), the beekeeper distributed the diseased comb from the initial infection to other hobby beeks.

I believe what is happening is naive hobby keepers are "rescuing" bees, primarily Africanized. The "rescued" bees have previously persisted in locations with high likelihood of inadvertent contamination with foul brood. 

The hobbyists either *do not* recognize foul brood, or are part of the cult that believes foul brood is just a natural hic-cup and if the beek "believes" strongly enough the foul brood will be cleaned away by hygienic bees.


----------



## Terry C

Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut 
The rebound of semi-tolerant bee strains has meant that AFB has come roaring back, ... .

What do you mean?

David

What he means is that now that mites aren't killing those colonies they have time to develop other diseases .


----------



## Riverderwent

JWC and Terry, thank you for explaining what JWC meant.


----------



## sqkcrk

Roaring back? You heard about 5 cases of AFB in one year and call that roaring back? That's just like the problem I have with describing one case or a yard with more than one case as an outbreak. "Roaring back" and "outbreak" are fear inflating language.

Five cases in a county of how many apiaries? How many hive?

I have maintained for 5 or 10 years that we aren't hearing about AFB as much as we once were because varroa mites are killing colonies before AFB has a chance to show itself. But that is just speculation. Because along with the rising impact of varroa and the rising numbers of new beekeepers inspired to "save the bees" we also have the decline in apiary inspection services whose, perhaps, greatest accomplishment was data generation. 

Apiary Inspection likes to justify its existence by claiming an impact on the control of AFB. Maybe it does have some impact, but I would maintain that if for every dollar spent inspecting beehives if another dollar was spent educating people on diseases and pests the incidences of diseases would go down and the mites dealt with.


----------



## johno

According to Brother Adam the british black bee AMM was susceptible to tracheal mites and never became resistant to that mite and totally died out. Some of his Italian crosses were resistant and they survived perhaps due to the size of the breeds spherical entrances. I think the tracheal mite became pandemic at that time but has diminished as time went on although there have been reports of losses from time to time which have been blamed on varoa. I have read of samples sent to labs coming back positive to tracheal mites. Now the varoa story, does the bee become resistant to the mite or have to become resistant to the many virus vectored by the mites. Do these viruses change from time to time like the influenza viruses if they do then we have another problem. Just a few thoughts to throw into the mix.
Johno


----------



## Michael Palmer

johno said:


> According to Brother Adam the british black bee AMM was susceptible to tracheal mites and never became resistant to that mite and totally died out.



Maybe not totally. This one is very much alive and living in Portadown, Northern Ireland. At least she was last February.


----------



## SRatcliff

Aren't some people trying to repopulate A.m.m.? Like the folks at http://bibba.com/articles/ ?


----------



## Fusion_power

> Natural selection has only been at it 30 or 40 years. Do you really think that's long enough to produce a honeybee that can handle varroa mites?


Mark, 1 year is enough if the selection pressure is intense enough. Think of it this way. If a disease is 100% effective at killing a given organism and if there are a very small number of resistant individuals, then the disease will kill 100% of the susceptible and the only remaining members of that population will be resistant. Varroa comes very very close to meeting this set of parameters in that they killed 99.99 percent of all honeybees between 1987 and present. But there was a very very tiny number of resistant colonies, somewhere between 1/1,000 and 1/10,000 survived.

There are different genetic traits present in some of the survivors. Some of them remove infested larvae. Some chew on the mites. Combine these minor traits into a single line of bees and the varroa tolerance behaves more in an exponential than additive fashion.

Tracheal mites absolutely fit this paradigm. They were highly effective at killing susceptible bees. But with tracheal mites, far more of the population of bees were resistant to start with. Recovery took only a few years. But with varroa, the number of resistant colonies was extremely small. We are now 30 years into the varroa invasion and the number of resistant colonies is increasing each year. Unfortunately, treating bees for mites slows down development of resistance by keeping susceptible bees alive. This does not mean you should drop everything and stop treating your bees for mites. It does suggest that bringing some mite tolerant genetics into your operation could save you some money.


BTW, the likely reason tracheal mites were so quickly overcome is that Buckfast bees brought tolerance genetics into the U.S. bee population. We had Buckfast bees for about 25 years before tracheal mites made it to the U.S.


----------



## rkereid

SRatcliff said:


> Aren't some people trying to repopulate A.m.m.? Like the folks at http://bibba.com/articles/ ?


Here is a link through Google Translate (hopefully it works) about a beekeeper that is a member of Nordbi, a group that is working only with the Northern Brown Bee in Sweden. It is AMM, very similar to the native dark bee found from the British Isles, northern Europe and over to Russia. He has about 100 colonies for honey and queen production. Their mating station is on an island on a large lake. I visited briefly with him last August when they were working a really good heather flow. We opened colonies unprotected and the bees were very calm. He treats varroa with formic. He didn't talk about tracheal mites so I don't know if it's a problem. There is also a group in Norway where several counties have a ban on all beekeeping except for the native brown bee. There was mention of him in the Jan ABJ

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://bibladet.se/content/nordbi&prev=search

Look under Worth Reading > Nordic Bees in Bengtsfors


----------



## Juhani Lunden

http://www.nordbi.se/


----------



## northernborder

After reading this essay something just seemed to me as missing. Where are the specific NUMBERS to back up Mr. Webster's conclusions?

What are his specific number of losses now versus prior to when he treated his hives? If a hive dies now does he even count it as a loss to varroa or does he blame the weather or something else? When he compares his losses to other local bee keepers, does he compare himself to a local Vermont commercial beekeeper like Mike Palmer (who treats) or does he compare himself to the local first year hobby beekeeper? How many more nucs does he have to create to recover from his losses? What is his average honey production per hive now versus when he treated? We don't know because his source data and / or specific numbers are missing. Is there a reason for this data omission? 

What I would like to see is a treatment free proponent show me how I can raise bees without treatments, produce as much honey I do now and save money (no more treatments) with real numbers to back it up. I haven't seen that yet and so far just have to take everything on faith and except it as fact.


----------



## squarepeg

northernborder said:


> What I would like to see is a treatment free proponent show me how I can raise bees without treatments, produce as much honey I do now and save money (no more treatments) with real numbers to back it up. I haven't seen that yet and so far just have to take everything on faith and except it as fact.


care to share your numbers?

what is your average % winter colony loss?
what is your average lbs. honey yield per hive? 
do you sell splits?
what is your average $ income per hive?

here's how my 2015 went:

1. went into last winter with 18 colonies.
2. lost 3 over the winter leaving 15 (16.7% loss)
3. increased to 26, sold 5, leaving 21 going into this winter
4. harvested and sold 876 lbs. of honey, left about 800 lbs. of honey for the bees
5. got 19 more medium supers of foundation drawn out.
6. realized just shy of $450 income per overwintered hive

more details available here:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?306377-squarepeg-2015-treatment-free-experience

hoping to do better in 2016!


----------



## jadebees

I see a lot of similarity to my observations around here. A lot of feral bees, but they have been forced by mites to behave differently. His methods of making many splits/nucs, is what I adopted as a way to make a brood break in spring. Not so much for breeding. But, minimal treatment was started, due to a few years of 90-100% losses. Not all the daughters are viable. I can get ferals, but, raising them the "usual way" gives the mites an advantage. Also, it's not always the hive you'd think, that makes it untreated. The bees that do best are behaving like Apis Cerana. Im trying to research differences in the keeping of A. Cerana , to apply to local ferals, rather that change the bees traits. I suppose... I'M adapting.


----------



## SRatcliff

No one can speak for Kirk, except Kirk. I've read all of Kirk's stuff on that website, and it appears to me that Kirk is not the kind of person who reduces everything to dollars or quantity.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> care to share your numbers?
> 
> what is your average % winter colony loss?
> what is your average lbs. honey yield per hive?
> do you sell splits?
> what is your average $ income per hive?
> 
> here's how my 2015 went:
> 
> 1. went into last winter with 18 colonies.
> 2. lost 3 over the winter leaving 15 (16.7% loss)
> 3. increased to 26, sold 5, leaving 21 going into this winter
> 4. harvested and sold 876 lbs. of honey, left about 800 lbs. of honey for the bees
> 5. got 19 more medium supers of foundation drawn out.
> 6. realized just shy of $450 income per overwintered hive
> 
> more details available here:
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?306377-squarepeg-2015-treatment-free-experience
> 
> hoping to do better in 2016!


Averages over how many years? Remember, one years worth of data doesn't count as an average.


----------



## sqkcrk

northernborder said:


> What I would like to see is a treatment free proponent show me how I can raise bees without treatments, produce as much honey I do now and save money (no more treatments) with real numbers to back it up. I haven't seen that yet and so far just have to take everything on faith and except it as fact.


Treatment free may be a goal in itself. Honey production another. Treatment free honey production may not yield as high an amount of honey and nonTF honey production, simply because less of a harvest per hive may be part of the management of a TF hive.


----------



## northernborder

I'm a happy hobby beekeeper. I don't write books, give presentations or have a website or youtube channel. I'm not the one professing the next direction of beekeeping by not treating or using small cell or just going foundationless.

My numbers or your numbers don't mean anything to credit or discredit Mr. Webster's writing. I think his writing would be more convincing if he provided real numbers and source data. Don't you expect real numbers and source data on this kind of subject? Or do you just accept it on faith? Any real commercial beekeeper I have been around here in Vermont keeps track of data. It's their income and loss.

Just if you're wondering...in 2014-2015 I overwintered 8 Honey production hives. For 2 straight years I averaged 200 lbs of honey surplus per hive. Each hive goes into winter weighing over 150 #s. I think I'm lucky to have great bee genetics (Mike Palmer and Mike Willard queens) and bee forage surrounding my apiaries. Hopefully my limited beekeeping management skills have also helped the girls with their success and survival.

I also strongly buy into overwintered double nuc colonies like Kirk Webster and Mike Palmer promote so I overwintered 8 during 2014-2015.

All my hives lived through one of the coldest winters here in Vermont (multiple -30 days) last year. I treated with MAQS with zero loss.

Going into this winter I have a bunch more double nucs and happy with my honey totals.


----------



## squarepeg

sqkcrk said:


> Averages over how many years? Remember, one years worth of data doesn't count as an average.


good point mark. the only thing i kept close track of until last year was % winter loss. that five year average is 14.4%. for the other metrics i guess we'll have see how this and future seasons pan out. i think i can improve on the numbers, but only up to a point.


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks for sharing your results nb. i've been hoping to see some numbers from those who are treating for comparison. congrats on your success. i'm guessing to pull those excellent honey yields you are harvesting all the honey and feeding back syrup? from what i've read bees may actually handle long winters better on sugar syrup as compared to honey.

i don't see too many commercials treating or otherwise making their numbers public, and i don't guess i would be either if beekeeping was my livelihood. 

i probably shouldn't take so much exception when comments are made suggesting one can't keep bees alive or they won't be profitable unless you treat. 

i guess it's a pet peeve with me similar to how jim lyon is quick to rebuff claims that treatment free honey is better than honey that comes from treated bees. it's all good nb, thanks again for sharing.


----------



## Michael Palmer

squarepeg said:


> many thanks for sharing your results nb. i'm guessing to pull those excellent honey yields you are harvesting all the honey and feeding back syrup? from what i've read bees may actually handle long winters better on sugar syrup as compared to honey.


I have to question this SP. I made 27T of honey in 2015, and fed very little. Certainly didn't take all their honey and feed back syrup. In fact, the vast number of colonies got fed zero. I have never taken all the honey and fed back honey, and my winter loss last winter was 10%, and 15% the year before. I haven't had as high as 20% winter loss since tracheal mites devastated our bees.


----------



## northernborder

For the past couple of years I haven't had to feed my bees. Spring has been the only time I have had to feed because of a late spring flow or rain soaked April. My fall flow is strong enough that I can still take off supers during our Vermont Goldenrod/Aster/Knotweed flows.


----------



## sqkcrk

Wait a minute. You haven't had to feed for the last couple of years except when you have had to feed? Sumthin' ain't right there.


----------



## squarepeg

that's really good michael. i'm not sure those kind of yields are possible here due to our long summer dearth. the reported averages around here are nothing like what you are getting. walt was able to get big yields like you but based on my discussions with him it sounds like his winter cluster sizes were twice as large as what mine have been. it may be a difference in strain of bee.

i'm thinking 100 - 150 lb. averages are doable here assuming swarming is prevented, all of the supers have drawn comb, and marginal colonies are boosted with brood from nucs. it's quite possible that the survivor traits are in competition with the production traits. i've been choosing queen mothers from my least swarmy and most productive colonies that have also survived multiple winters off treatments.


----------



## northernborder

To be clear, I haven't fed my hives for the past 2 years. Prior to that, I did during a cold wet spring. Clear?

I would not think it would be a good idea to take all the honey off and feed back syrup but I'm just a hobby beekeeper.


----------



## Sunday Farmer

northernborder said:


> My numbers or your numbers don't mean anything to credit or discredit Mr. Webster's writing. I think his writing would be more convincing if he provided real numbers and source data. Don't you expect real numbers and source data on this kind of subject? Or do you just accept it on faith? Any real commercial beekeeper I have been around here in Vermont keeps track of data. It's their income and loss.


I first came across Kirk’s writings in the Small Farmer’s Journal, a draft powered farmer’s publication out of Oregon. Although Kirk talks about bees, his writings have an underlying riptide that pull to pastoral ideals, and that’s where I think his writing is most powerful; not as a communicative piece of ipm mastery or treatment free study, instead a nostalgia to pre-industrial agriculture and lifestyle. 

I’ve only met Kirk once, shadowing him for a day. I call him once a year and usually send him a Christmas card. He’s a nice guy. He’s fun, funny, smiles a hell lot. I enjoyed making nucs with him for that day. He gave encouragement to what I was doing. At the time that was tantamount. But I don’t refer to his writings for truth in modern day mite management or best practices or how to structure a breeding program, etc etc. If I want studies, data, objective work, SOPs to follow, there’s Dewey, Berry, Oliver, Tarpy and the up and coming grad students and PhD’s coming into their own. (come on, you all know the list, and don’t knit pick the names, that isn’t the purpose)

Kirk’s never going to call and ask me what I think about this article, but if he did I would say it would have been a better article about ideals or change or reaffirming a base than making statements about bees getting better. <NB I agree, why publish a statement without numbers, especially if you can provide observations and/or data since 1990. In which case, publish the data and they will make whatever statement is actually occurring.>

I think his best line was, “The take-home message is:* There's still a place for commercial beekeepers to work and have a nice life outside of the industrial model.” 
That resonates with me. I want to be able to keep bees profitably, to be available for a family, to be present and aware of place, to be within a community. Kirk has a nice f250 he can move nucs around with, and a modern shop to work in. He’s able to enjoy the benefits of some industrialization without getting lost into the hamster wheel of trucking bees, theft in the almond fields, weeks away from family, an endless circle of chemicals and treatments. That is awseome. That is great. We would all like to be there (I hope). No farmer aspires to be in an endless cycle of chemicals, antibiotics, etc. 

What I think is wrong about his writing, and writing like this, is it tries to make proof that isn’t in the pudding. Taking bees off treatments hasn’t proven to select for mite resistant genes nor does using treatments mean that you are plunged into an industrial complex. This last point is important to me. I, like a lot of people on here, split hives and incorporated treatment free techniques into my apiary and touted being treatment free. I had a clean inspection in NC last spring, great looking nucs and hives, and a month after moving saw my first episode of EFB. I had never seen it in my apiary and it freaked me out. I requeened almost every hive, oxytetracycline and started treating for mites. (And hopefully I can fix the few nucs that turned out to be duds for customers.) The treatments, sugar feeding, pollen sub, they are all tools that are available. I laud Kirk’s agricultural nostalgia and ideals; they are invigorating. But it isn’t litany.


----------



## Michael Palmer

sqkcrk said:


> Wait a minute. You haven't had to feed for the last couple of years except when you have had to feed? Sumthin' ain't right there.


Read the guy's post. We're talking about feeding for winter...taking all the honey and feeding back syrup. Something NB said he hasn't had to do while still getting a 200 lb. average for the last two years. He was responding to SPs "guess" that the large average came about because the northern beekeepers take all the honey and feed back syrup.


----------



## squarepeg

those are good averages. assuming you guys are leaving 100 lbs. of honey for overwintering means that your colonies are putting up an average of 300 lbs. for the season. i think for us to see that here the we would have to replace our summer dearth with a second 'main flow' of equal strength to the first. on the other hand 40 lbs. of honey is enough to overwinter a colony here.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Depending on the bees, we need about 80 lbs of honey to get to spring when the first flows begin.


----------



## squarepeg

it's interesting to compare and contrast the differences between locations, i appreciate the replies.

so back to the topic at hand, and to michael and nb, are you guys aware of anyone up there (other than kirk) having success in terms of survival and production who are not treating for mites?


----------



## deknow

Andrew Munkres seems to be doing well. I've known him since probably1984 or 85 when we both took a bicycle repair class over the summer at the local vocational high school.


----------



## lharder

Thank goodness for squarepegs numbers. I think there is some onus to do some tracking when promoting a new practice. I plan on doing that myself in my environment. But to be fair, its not just about what you get out, but what you put in. With a TF model, management in theory should be streamlined. Pest control would be reduced to finding and burning hives with foulbrood as it used to be. Also around here we get a big fall flow about the time treatments are done. I will have those available to me to use as I wish, instead of worrying about contaminating my customers, or altering the taste of the honey. Closing some doors may open others.

One also has to take into account the experience of the beekeeper and the maturity of the apiary. As a rank beginner, I'm going to lose some hives because of lack of experience and incompetence. I lost some nucs this winter because I didn't protect them well enough from weather and pushed the envelope by making some later in the year. Same would be true of new treating keepers. My averages will be low because I don't have much comb and most of my hives start off as overwintered nucs. It will be that way next year as well but not as bad. My genetics aren't near as sorted as squarepegs. They won't be for quite some time. Remember that most treatment free stocks are only beginning to climb the adaptive mountain of varroa and its associated viruses. 

One of the things I learned from one of my favorite science writers (Stephen Jay Gould), is that superficial analysis of data will usually lead in the wrong direction.


----------



## northernborder

Thank you ih. Guys claiming success against conventional science do need to provide data to back it up instead of making us accept it on faith. Isn't this the point of what science is about?

Again back to my whole point about Mr. Webster's essay. Without specific apple to apple data to compare and contrast it just seems like wishful thinking. Just reading the last few years on beesource it seems that this kind of writing quickly turns into fact for everyone who believes in this movement.

In saying this I would expect Mr. Palmer just like Mr. Webster and other true respected beekeepers to defend their conclusions with apple to apple data. I think Mr. Palmer does a great job of this and doesn't expect us to accept it on faith.


----------



## Fusion_power

> Guys claiming success against conventional science do need to provide data to back it up instead of making us accept it on faith.


Conventional science says that you have to load bees up with chemicals to keep them alive and productive. The fact that my bees are alive and thriving after 11 years with no treatment provides compelling data to back up the claim that this particular science has exceptions. Science still can't explain why we are glued to the face of this rock called earth. Once they figure out how gravity works, this may change.


----------



## clyderoad

northernborder said:


> need to provide data to back it up instead of making us accept it on faith...... .


Yes, but also verifiable data and verifiable methods under controlled conditions or it is immediately suspect and discounted.


----------



## northernborder

Totally agree.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

clyderoad said:


> Yes, but also verifiable data and verifiable methods under controlled conditions or it is immediately suspect and discounted.


clyderoad, I am not sure how to read your tone here - whether you believe this should be the case, or whether you are suggesting that this is an excessive demand. To my view it _is_ excessive, and indeed deleterious, for the following reasons.

It is my considered opinion that a colony of bees cannot be put under controlled conditions, because the inner conditions of a beehive are regulated by a force that is precisely _out _of our control, and one moreover that we understand but imperfectly: namely, the inner life of the hive. To compare several colonies of bees in a way that is scientifically valid, we must be able to isolate the characteristic that we would study (say, a trait that might contribute to honey production or to resistance to Varroa). This can in many cases be done. But more than that, we must be able to control the _other _characteristics of the colony. This means that we must be able to furnish many colonies for our experiment, which are similar to each other as possible in _all _ways, but for the single characteristic we would study. Only in this case are we really comparing “apples to apples.” But even if we manage such an arrangement - no easy task, as anyone I think would agree, and one that is bound to be imperfect at best - we have certainly _not _demonstrated that this _same arrangement _could be reached with the beehives of any other beekeeper anywhere else in the world. That is to say, we still have not established a _reproducible _experiment. And reproducibility is one of the staple elements of scientific method, without which it is meaningless to speak of scientifically verifiable data or methods.

I think it clear that in some cases in beekeeping it will be more possible to meet the requirements of scientific method than in others. But I believe it irresponsible of us to demand that science be measure of any beekeeper's success. Science has its place in our discussions, but it should not be the arbiter thereof. 

To be sure, I think it would be useful – up to a modest point – to compare annual hive loss and annual average honey crop per hive, between conventional beekeepers and treatment-free beekeepers in a given area. I think, because treatment-free beekeepers are making the more unusual claims, the onus (as lharder rightly put it) is on _them _to support their claims with such data - _if _they have any interest in convincing others to mimic their practices. But beyond this, I hold that too insistent a preoccupation with scientific method could even be detrimental to our work.

John


----------



## Michael Palmer

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> To be sure, I think it would be useful – up to a modest point – to compare annual hive loss and annual average honey crop per hive, between conventional beekeepers and treatment free beekeepers in a given area. I think, because treatment free beekeepers are making the more unusual claims, the onus (as lharder rightly put it) is on _them _to support their claims with such data - _if _they have any interest in convincing others to mimic their practices.


So let's start there. Easy numbers of simple things to show the productivity of the apiary. % winter loss, # frames of brood at first flow, # of splits/nuclei made during active season, per colony average honey crop, etc. Add whatever else you feel important. It wouldn't be difficult and would be something all beekeepers would be able to keep records about. No scientific method required. 

That's all that's being asked.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

Michael Palmer said:


> So let's start there. Easy numbers of simple things to show the productivity of the apiary. % winter loss, # frames of brood at first flow, # of splits/nuclei made during active season, per colony average honey crop, etc. Add whatever else you feel important. It wouldn't be difficult and would be something all beekeepers would be able to keep records about. No scientific method required.
> 
> That's all that's being asked.


I am agreed completely, Mr. Palmer. The two elements that you added (number of frames of brood at first flow and number of splits or nuclei made during active season) seem to me essential additions. I think this elementary data _might _aid in clarifying the disputes, such as they are, that exist between treating and non-treating beekeepers. At the very least, they might help to concentrate our attention on the fundamental aspects of the choice in question, by demonstrating clearly the priorities that a given beekeeper uses to judge success.

If I read him correctly, lharder has agreed to the importance of this (post #78 above), and I for one, though but an amateur here, am committed to keeping good records insofar as I am able, and, in case anyone should ever be interested, in making them available. Squarepeg, as everyone knows, is exemplary in this, as are you, Mr. Palmer. We who are in our initial years of beekeeping would do well to take after such examples - and I believe that not only this site, but also beekeeping in general, could one day benefit of such practices.

John


----------



## lharder

Fusion_power said:


> Conventional science says that you have to load bees up with chemicals to keep them alive and productive. The fact that my bees are alive and thriving after 11 years with no treatment provides compelling data to back up the claim that this particular science has exceptions. Science still can't explain why we are glued to the face of this rock called earth. Once they figure out how gravity works, this may change.


Take any modern biology class and you should discover evolution and genetics is a core organizing structure. If it doesn't then you are just learning a bunch of details and you should probably find another class. Throw in ecology and you find tf has a much BROADER scientific viewpoint. Subsidizing bees on chemicals in addition to transporting and mixing them willy nilly without regard to long term consequences is only scientific in the narrowest possible terms.


----------



## sqkcrk

Fusion_power said:


> Science still can't explain why we are glued to the face of this rock called earth. Once they figure out how gravity works, this may change.


Excuse me for saying so, Dar, but that is either sarcasm or the dumbest thing I have ever read from an intelligent person such as yourself.


----------



## Fusion_power

Mark, it is neither, it is a statement of fact. The point I made is that genetics is not understood just as gravity is not understood. We don't have to understand gravity to know it is there just as we don't have to understand genetics to understand that it works. We can just as easily use genetics to maintain our bees as we can use chemicals. The science of genetics on the one hand and the science of chemistry and pesticides on the other gives beekeepers two possible paths to maintaining their bees. I chose the path of genetics years ago.


----------



## lharder

I would think most beekeepers would have that data Michael.

I noticed the list proposed was devoid of inputs (time and expense devoted to mite monitoring and control). Also perhaps time and resources devoted to feeding. 

If you grouped the data by size and years experience (and perhaps distance to a large treating apiary in the case of the tf folks) you could have a decent comparison.


----------



## northernborder

Don't we already input a lot of this kind of data in that bip annual survey?


----------



## Huntingstoneboy

squarepeg said:


> it's interesting to compare and contrast the differences between locations, i appreciate the replies.
> 
> so back to the topic at hand, and to michael and nb, are you guys aware of anyone up there (other than kirk) having success in terms of survival and production who are not treating for mites?


http://www.johnstonshoneybeefarm.com/

Not sure if he is a member here.


----------



## Michael Palmer

>>QUOTE=lharder;1375754]I would think most beekeepers would have that data Michael.<<

I would think so...unless one never looks at the bees.

>>I noticed the list proposed was devoid of inputs (time and expense devoted to mite monitoring and control). Also perhaps time and resources devoted to feeding. <<

Yes, amount of sugar fed should be another one. Time spent? Does that really count? If I was asked how much time I spent caring for my bees, I'd have to say...all of it. 

>>If you grouped the data by size and years experience (and perhaps distance to a large treating apiary in the case of the tf folks) you could have a decent comparison. <<

I guess size and experience is worth noting, but maybe not. Management plan would be better. Distance to tf apiary is another one of those things that might not be known, or matter in only a few instances.

I think it would be better to keep it simple, with figures everyone could come up with through normal bee work.


----------



## sqkcrk

lharder said:


> I would think most beekeepers would have that data Michael.


Like a lot of things requiring faith, there is little evidence that what you think is actually so. I don't always keep track of annual hive loss and annual per hive honey production.


----------



## sqkcrk

Huntingstoneboy said:


> http://www.johnstonshoneybeefarm.com/
> 
> Not sure if he is a member here.


Michael Johnston has been a member here. There is a dry sugar feeding technique that bears his screen name. I haven't seen him participating in many years.


----------



## northernborder

sqkcrk said:


> Like a lot of things requiring faith, there is little evidence that what you think is actually so. I don't always keep track of annual hive loss and annual per hive honey production.


At my local bee meeting that seems to be the 2 most important questions we all compare ourselves against. Treatment vs nontreatment seems to come up more once we talk about bee hives not surviving winter or crashing at the end of the summer here in Vermont but maybe that's just at my local club meetings?

Don't we already input this general data into the bee informed survey annually? They even group it treatment vs nontreatment as you input your annual results?


----------



## Sunday Farmer

Michael Palmer said:


> So let's start there. Easy numbers of simple things to show the productivity of the apiary. % winter loss, # frames of brood at first flow, # of splits/nuclei made during active season, per colony average honey crop, etc. Add whatever else you feel important. It wouldn't be difficult and would be something all beekeepers would be able to keep records about. No scientific method required.
> 
> That's all that's being asked.


That would be awesome. Maybe this should be everyone's new year's resolution. I'm on board.


----------



## rkereid

Michael Palmer said:


> So let's start there. Easy numbers of simple things to show the productivity of the apiary. % winter loss, # frames of brood at first flow, # of splits/nuclei made during active season, per colony average honey crop, etc. Add whatever else you feel important. It wouldn't be difficult and would be something all beekeepers would be able to keep records about. No scientific method required.
> 
> That's all that's being asked.





Sunday Farmer said:


> That would be awesome. Maybe this should be everyone's new year's resolution. I'm on board.


I agree. I keep records on my colonies and yards, but it mostly consists of tracking genetic or source lines, and yearly loss percentages. I know approximately how much honey I produce, but because of expansion every year, I need to keep track of how many colonies are newly established vs established when figuring the number of production colonies. In our area, a newly established colony may produce some excess honey, but only if the weather cooperates and even then not so much. So to me, the first year colonies are not production colonies, but first year, building colonies, hence would not be counted in the honey production. The two new yards that I will start this year will not have any existing production colonies, only nucs to start with, so it would be easy to leave them out of the calculations. Does that make sense?

I'm putting a note in my yard book to keep track of these 4 items for all the production colonies.


----------



## jim lyon

This confusion of production colonies vs. non-production colonies is always where the disagreements begin. Someone gets an incredible average off of a limited number of "production" hives and makes claims based on this limited data. Like many commercials nowadays we make all of our losses up down south in early spring and consider every hive that is queenright when they are brought north and supered as production hives. From that point I think not just in terms of pounds per hive but also pounds per location which to me is more important. If the ultimate goal, though, is self sustainability, and making a living solely off of ones hives then to me thats ultimately all that matters. I only care to the degree that someone isn't disparaging my methods by insinuation.


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> If the ultimate goal, though, is self sustainability, and making a living solely off of ones hives then to me that's ultimately all that matters.


But Jim, people are more at ease talking about their per hive production average than they are their bank account.

The term production hive has always left me unsatisfied. Unsure exactly what is meant and what defines a production hive. Are the hives that Michael Palmer makes into nucs, in his sustainable apiary strategy, not productive? Just because they didn't produce a crop of honey as large as the more productive hives?

I guess a deadout or dink isn't productive, but all of the others are. Just in different ways. In a Dairy there are brood cows and milk cows. The brood cows become milk cows. Two stages of their lives at which they are productive.

Maybe Michael Palmer is running "Honey Hives" and "Brood Hives"?


----------



## SRatcliff

sqkcrk said:


> But Jim, people are more at ease talking about their per hive production average than they are their bank account.
> 
> The term production hive has always left me unsatisfied. Unsure exactly what is meant and what defines a production hive. Are the hives that Michael Palmer makes into nucs, in his sustainable apiary strategy, not productive? Just because they didn't produce a crop of honey as large as the more productive hives?
> 
> I guess a deadout or dink isn't productive, but all of the others are. Just in different ways. In a Dairy there are brood cows and milk cows. The brood cows become milk cows. Two stages of their lives at which they are productive.
> 
> Maybe Michael Palmer is running "Honey Hives" and "Brood Hives"?


I think it's " honey production" most people mean. The colonies at the start of the season dedicated to producing honey. I guess if a hive is broken up into nucs, then it's not counted as a production hive, but the nucs could be next year's production hives.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> But Jim, people are more at ease talking about their per hive production average than they are their bank account.
> 
> The term production hive has always left me unsatisfied. Unsure exactly what is meant and what defines a production hive. Are the hives that Michael Palmer makes into nucs, in his sustainable apiary strategy, not productive? Just because they didn't produce a crop of honey as large as the more productive hives?
> 
> 
> Maybe Michael Palmer is running "Honey Hives" and "Brood Hives"?


No question that his business plan differs from mine. He's selling not just honey but nucs and queens as well and he does it without migratory expenses plus he gets to spend his winters ice fishing or cross country skiing or whatever they do up in Vermont in the winter. . Again, as I stated previously, if your operation is self sustaining and it allows you to live a lifestyle that you are happy with then thats all that really matters in my mind, with one caveat. We've been in a period of record honey and pollination prices that has allowed even poorly run operations to survive. What the future may hold is anyone's guess.


----------



## sqkcrk

He who dies with the most toys wins.


----------

