# Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update



## JoshuaW (Feb 2, 2015)

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Interesting. Four hives is a rather small number to do a competent study with. I wonder what a more competent beekeeper could have done to prevent swarming. Old methods from the pre WWI days when bees where less Italian and more German might be usefull.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Noting that Roland is older than dirt if he remembers beekeeping from before 1914.

Beekeepers exploited swarms to the maximum back then often doubling or tripling colony counts in a good year. This was the time period when swarm control methods were developed with Demaree and others publishing methods to prevent or manage swarming.

I wonder if Walt Wright's comb management methods would have helped? I expect they could have benefited from obtaining queens that were known to have mite resistance instead of starting with commercial queens that definitely do not.

A colony that swarms repeatedly and excessively will have low mite counts. Prevent that colony from swarming and you will usually get a very high mite count by fall.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The study makes replicates of 4 hives (in each of the 3 managements) at many, many locations. So the total hive count is about 90 in each management, (though current survival is only 42 in the Treatment Free cohort). 

We don't know (and likely won't until publication) how much variation there is among the locations. The study recruited among experienced beekeepers already running one of the three managements, and we don't know if prior experience influences the survival (and likely will need to wait for publication).

Any "n" number greater than 30 (per treatment). will yield good statistical confidence.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> I expect they could have benefited from obtaining queens that were known to have mite resistance instead of starting with commercial queens that definitely do not.


 All hives in all treatments were requeened with queens produced by Devon Paderewski from a breeder queen in Jim Thorpe, PA in July and August, 2018. The breeder origin were wild bees in a house soffit for 4 years, removed and kept treatment free for 3 years. In a 7 year history, these bees have likely requeened multiple times, and hence are "feral". The apiary producing the queens advertises itself as treatment free (and its scale is backyard). 

The queens conform to the current "talking point" in the TF religion that bees must be "local and feral" in origin. I think that is nonsense, but the origin of the queens did not affect the Conventional and Organic survival, only huge mortality in the "Chemical Free". 

I maintain the differential survival of the "talking point" origin bees points to the utter vacuity of the "local and feral" obsession.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> current "talking point" in the TF religion that bees must be "local and feral" in origin


 IMO, this is not relevant. Bees may exhibit a range of mite resistance traits. Brood breaks are one of the traits. Swarming repetitively creates brood breaks. The two most effective mite resistance traits are VSH and mite mauling combined with allogrooming. I see no reason to expect that a colony that swarms repeatedly will do anything other than produce offspring that swarms repetitively.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

No, my memory does not extend back to pre WWI, our records date back to at least the late 1930s. We departed from Demaree to our present brood management system. I highly doubt that Walt's methods come close to what we can accomplish by moving brood around. We track our queens and hive population levels and see no significant level of swarming..

Crazy, and not quite old as dirt, Roland


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

JWChesnut said:


> , but the origin of the queens did not affect the Conventional and Organic survival


I don't see how one can draw that conclusion with out a test group of a different origin, 
From your link "After winter losses of 62.3% in the chemical free (CF) management system, 13.0% in the conventional (CON) management system, and 14.7% in the organic (ORG) management system"
The BIB 5 year Average losses for Penn sideliners was 37.9% and commercial was 35.0% The comb bees had significantly better survival. 



JWChesnut said:


> only huge mortality in the "Chemical Free".


You can't throw a supposedly resistant queen in to colony in the fall and reasonably expect her genetics to turn the tide when they start emerging a mouth later. This years results should be enlightening, perhaps not much different, but a full year in the hive gives the genetics a fair shot and a clearer view
as of now all we can say(with out fall mite numbers) is putting bees on small cell foundation didn't realy shift the losses VS the states 5 year Average for TF Sideliner losses of 60.9.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Don't worry Roland. If FP remembers -



Fusion_power said:


> Beekeepers exploited swarms to the maximum back then often doubling or tripling colony counts in a good year.


Then HE would be older than dirt.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> The two most effective mite resistance traits are VSH and mite mauling combined with allogrooming.


I trust that this part of your post is also just your opinion. Or do you have some sort of citation to support it?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> Then HE would be older than dirt.


 I'm 60 which is getting on up there a bit, but not good enough to go back to the early 1900's.

beemandan, I'll challenge you the other way. What do you think are the most important mite resistance traits? You don't even need citations, just a good well educated opinion.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

LOL FP, I expected better from a man of science like yourself. 

You cannot make a claim, then demand anyone else has to prove / disprove it. It is over to the person making the claim, to prove it. 

I am sure, deep down, you know that.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> beemandan, I'll challenge you the other way. What do you think are the most important mite resistance traits? You don't even need citations, just a good well educated opinion.


The one thing I can say with confidence is that the vsh trait doesn’t confer ‘treatment free’ ability. There is a place for vsh but it doesn’t alone suppress mite reproduction sufficiently to keep colonies from collapse…in my experience. 
In fact, if you think about it, vsh is a biologically expensive varroa reducing trait. By the time the behavior is triggered the colony has already invested all of the resources to produce a worker bee and then the pupa is typically tossed out the door. If the mite population is allowed to grow unchecked….as it will….the vsh behavior can actually speed up the demise of the colony. 
If there were a combination of treatment free traits….and I said ‘if’….their behaviors would have to be triggered developmentally much earlier than the vsh trait. 
In my limited experience any of the actual mite suppressing traits are recessive and only exist in highly inbred bees. 
All….just my opinion.
Also…at age 69…there are days I feel like I’m 35 and others that I’m older than dirt.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Szabo's bees of 8 years ago would show fierce allogrooming and cell uncapping when mite counts were up. Still I had one new colony that started to dwindle till I got over the idea of _not needing treatment for first year nucs_ They also were totally not interested in robbing. This behavior in itself may help colonies keep mite counts down. I had a very easy time controlling mites but I was also very isolated from other bees, kept or feral so no prediction of how they would fare in tougher exposure conditions.

I dont give them much opportunity to show how resistant they could be if I weren't keeping the hammer on the mites!


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Thank you beemandan. I agree with you that the biological cost of VSH is very high. My experience with high VSH bees is that they never build up to a strong enough colony to make a good crop of honey. It is a trait that can be used, but it is just one of the traits needed. You did not mention allogrooming and mite mauling. IME, these are far more useful traits because the adult bees directly attack the mites.

Alastair, beemandan and I have gone at this before. I might agree with you re precedence, but we have a more civil discussion if beemandan puts his cards on the table.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Guess saying that is one way to avoid answering his question, ha ha.

I would have just been straight up and said i didn't have any citations.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> Thank you beemandan. I agree with you that the biological cost of VSH is very high. My experience with high VSH bees is that they never build up to a strong enough colony to make a good crop of honey


When I ran my paired TF vs. Treated experiment (I stopped in frustration in 2018), I used VSH F1 queens from a VP Queens II VSH breeder. I think VP Queens is about as pure, direct from Baton Rouge, as can be commercially purchased.

My experience with VSH on the coast of California is they got mites and died just like any other bee.


----------



## elmer_fud (Apr 21, 2018)

JWChesnut said:


> I find it important to note that these new queens swarmed prodigiously in 2019. "Despite our best efforts, only 11 PA colonies did not swarm. That means that only about 10% of the colonies made it through the season without a brood break."
> 
> My comment: Feral bees have "reverted" to wild type, and swarm at the drop of a hat. This confers "fitness", swarming making up for the huge losses suffered by mite-ridden bees. It, however, complicates domestic management.


I am wondering how the results will change over the next year when the genetics from the "feral, TF survivors" queens get "watered" down due to swarming and new queens mating with the "random" drones already in the test apiaries. I suspect the CF hives will start dwindling down even worse. 

I am also wondering what the mite counts and treatment regiments for all of the other hives in the area of these test hives are. I suspect this will have a drastic affect on the outcome of the experiment. 

I am also thinking they have to many different variables in this study. Looking at the management systems table in addition to changing treatments, they are also changing comb size, bottom board type, winter cover type, and winter feeding method. For a good experiment you should limit/only change one variable at a time.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The test apiaries are colocated with pre-existing private apiaries, and the participants are drawn from the three treatment groups. Until the results are published (and perhaps not even then) we likely will not know if the participants dominant management mode affected the test hives located with their apiary.

I've heard a lot of criticism of the "mixed variable" issue. I believe the investigator is interested in testing the "best practices" for each group as specified in roundtable meetings by the participants. I do know Penn State went to great lengths to accomodate every demand to the "Chemical Free" group. (Why 4.9 foundationless was used in those hives, and why the "local feral" queens were given to all participating colonies.). At one point the reason for the "canvas covers" was explained, but I cannot recall that now.

I worry about "mite bombs" spreading from the 4 CF hives into the other hives in the replication groups, and obscuring the effect of managing the mites in those hives. Of course, in typical "Up is Down" TF denialism, they claim it is because chemically treated hives "cannot resist" mites, it is the chemical hives fault the CF hives got mites.

You can guess that if the investigators had not accommodated the Chemical Free "experts", we would be hearing criticism "the hives died cause you didn't use local feral survivors" "You didn't use small cell comb", etc etc.


I posted this the Facebook group I admin, and a "treatment free partisan" said the "Hives died because the commercial packages contaminated the colonies, (even after 12 full months)".


What I find is the "TF partisans" always have a ready excuse to deny that TF bees die because of TF management, despite volumes of evidence that is precisely what happens.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> I worry about "mite bombs" spreading from the 4 CF hives into the other hives in the replication groups, and obscuring the effect of managing the mites in those hives.


Should not be a worry if the treating beekeepers are any good. They should anticipate and factor into their treatment schedule, just like i do when I get a truckload of dinks not worth putting on manuka dumped right next to me. Just got to have enough treatment in the hives to catch any invaders before they do any damage.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> You did not mention allogrooming and mite mauling. IME, these are far more useful traits because the adult bees directly attack the mites.


Actually, I did, without mentioning them by name when I stated ‘*In my limited experience any of the actual mite suppressing traits are recessive and only exist in highly inbred bees.’*






Fusion_power said:


> we have a more civil discussion if beemandan puts his cards on the table.


I have no idea what this statement means.
I believe our differences stem from the times that you express your opinions as though they are absolute facts. People often get the two mixed up and ordinarily it doesn’t matter. But on message boards like this those sorts of statements can mislead many less experienced beekeepers and the next thing you know another beekeeping myth has started that will bedevil us for years.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> What I find is the "TF partisans" always have a ready excuse to deny that TF bees die because of TF management, despite volumes of evidence that is precisely what happens.


 It is more accurate to say that bees heavily infested with mites die. Period. Bees that are consistently treated will live but never develop mite resistance. Mite bombs still destroy too many colonies and that includes bees that otherwise are capable of keeping mites under control. Arbitrarily picking some bees and saying they are feral and therefore good bees to keep treatment free is just as bad IMO as getting a bunch of commercial packages in early spring and refusing to treat them on the false hope they will somehow survive. That said, it is far more likely that feral bees will have mite tolerance traits.

beemandan, whatever I state has to be in context of what I personally have experienced. My experience is that mite resistant bees are a very real option if a beekeeper is willing to put in the time to get good queens. Remember that Weaver only had 9 survivors out of 1000 colonies when they first decided to go treatment free.

Alastair, I did not answer the question because it is very simple for anyone to search the internet for relevant documents. beemandan is just as capable of digging them out as I am. I have posted them before. Look up the work done by Kefuss, Arista, Harbo, and others. You will also find an abundance of research showing that mite treatments ultimately fail as the mites become resistant. At some predictable point in the future, we will have to rely on mite resistant bees. The only caveat is that organic acids seem to attack mites in a way that will not be easy to overcome.

Here is one that is worth a few minutes to read. It covers almost all of the mite resistance traits identified so far. https://aristabeeresearch.org/varroa-resistance/


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> Bees that are consistently treated will live but never develop mite resistance.


This statement irritates me. Bees are outcrossing and "homogenize" very, very quickly. This is the "sine qua non" of their success as a species. Marla Spivak has studied this process and published papers on the rapid "extinction" of her Minn Hygenic traits in outyard apiairies.

In order to maintain recessive traits in an obligatory outcrossing species, one has to maintain a very high culling level **ad infinitum**. The "popular" story is, "I killed thousands of hives, and now the survivors are resistant". This not how genetics works, you have to kill hives year after year, long into the infinite future.

Kirk Webster claims a version of the popular story, but the nearby observers tell a different one. He continues to have periodic devastating crashes. That is what genetics predicts, and that is what (appears) to be happening on the ground when the "Triumphalism" is stripped away.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> All hives in all treatments were requeened with queens produced by Devon Paderewski from a breeder queen in Jim Thorpe, PA in July and August, 2018. The breeder origin were wild bees in a house soffit for 4 years, removed and kept treatment free for 3 years. In a 7 year history, these bees have likely requeened multiple times, and hence are "feral".


It is right here this experiment goes on wrong tracks. Free mated bees are kept 4 years and again free mated in a hobby beekeepers yard...


As Margarita Lopez-U says on Twitter "these bees are not varroa resistant"

I´m not saying that there are better TF bees in US, but for sure, I have been in the belief that there should be.



P.S.

VSH trait is not recessive. It is additive, F1 has half of what parents did. Lots of miss leading discussion about recessive traits in varroa resistance. If the major factors in varroa resistance would be recessive, nobody could have had any progress so far. 100% VSH bees have been bred many times in Europe, and now in Havaji too, not a single mite making offspring.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> Alastair, I did not answer the question because it is very simple for anyone to search the internet for relevant documents.


Personally though, i would still have answered the question. It's not like i just answer something one time, and that's it, for posterity.

Something we see from time to time that i consider anti - science, is somebody makes a statement, sometimes a bold one. Somebody else says something like "got a reference?", and the other person responds, "yeah, the internet. Go search".

To properly progress an argument and arrive at a credible conclusion, the maker of the bold statement if asked for evidence, should either provide the evidence, or, be honest and say he doesn't have any, but the statement was his opinion, observation, or whatever. This will allow any other readers, to make an informed assessment as to wether the statement is true, or possibly true.

Not talking about what you said in particular, but the method of arguing.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

beemandan is one of the very few I would use that method of arguing with.

Did you read the Arista page?




> you have to kill hives year after year, long into the infinite future.


 How then do you explain what happened in South Africa?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Juhani Lunden said:


> VSH trait is not recessive. It is additive, F1 has half of what parents did.


This is likely true, More than 20 alleles have been identified (I believe the number is 48 in the latest genomic studies). 

The likelihood of a heterozygous queen's offspring of duplicating 48 alleles is vanishingly small, this randomization means genetics are always a very rough approximation of the parent. Why you must reselect continually in an obligate outcrossing polyandrous insect. It is not a "once and done" breeding cycle.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> How then do you explain what happened in South Africa?


Off topic, but since you asked, my explanation would be 2 words. African bees.

It worked in Africa, it worked for Dee, and it worked for Bee Weaver.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

That is an incorrect reading of a question that was actually addressed to JWChestnut. South African beekeepers had very little choice. Instead of continually propping up their bees with mite treatments, they let nature take its course. There is an excellent doctoral thesis written about this sequence of events. Within a few years, the bees remaining were all mite resistant. Nobody treats for mites in South Africa. I grant that mite resistant traits are less prevalent in European bees, but the traits are there and untreated populations have developed in a few cases, Primorsky bees being a good example. The consistent reason we do not all have mite resistant bees is because beekeepers continue to treat their bees propagating mite susceptible bees in massive numbers. I realize this is a dinged if you do dinged if you don't situation, but in the end, we can choose to address the problem or we can continue to use prophylaxis. You are either part of the solution, or you are the problem. If I took JWChestnut's position, I would be treating my bees right now.

Those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The "triumphalism" of beating mites in South Africa by a "Bond let die" approach is not borne out by more recent surveys in South Africa. 

The 2009-11 survey (done years after the Allsop claim that mites were not an issue) show that Varroa mite was cited as the cause of loss very frequently, second only to SHB, in about 30% of the respondents cases. (and loss rates were high).









I think it is clear that there is pure magical thinking or outright fraud in the "triumphalist" claims of so-called TF successes. The claims in South Africa don't stand up to scrutiny.

We should note that AFB has emerged as a devastating threat in the Cape Province in the last few years, as well.

Cite: A survey of managed honey bee colony losses in the Republic of South Africa -2009 to 2011Christian W W Pirk1*, Hannelie Human1, Robin M Crewe1 and Dennis vanEngelsdor

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...09_to_2011/links/5405bdf30cf23d9765a72ca8.pdf


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

I don't see how you you could feel sub 5% varroa losses for non migratory keepers as "high"


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

MSL, Shh, he has a drum to beat. 



> Strauss et al. (2013) also confirmed the presence of varroa mites in migratory and non-migratory colonies, but they were not implicated as being causative factors for the loss of honey bee colonies.


 I won't quote more of the article, but will note that chalkbrood and Capensis takeover were highly rated reasons for colony loss. The problems with hive beetles were primarily attributed to colonies that absconded, then hive beetles destroyed the combs. One item JWC did not address is that they asked what diseases were treated which only got a response from 2 beekeepers. Would you care to speculate that beekeepers in SA do not treat for diseases including varroa?


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> MSL, Shh, he has a drum to beat.


well I agree on most of what he posts, just think he triped him self up here.. it happens, to all of us. 
I agree with his position, Internet TF is a crock. 
Either you take the "loses" threw hive death, pinching and re queening with select stock, or you live in an area where the feral do it for you and you befit from that pool's losses

let them die and split what lives is a dead end belief system that after decades has not produced results (vs grafting and re queening sub par stock )
true kefuss bond can and has worked, but thats propagating the top 2% left alive and requeening the bottom. When his son took over and let up on the selection pressure the stock tanked, 70% losses ensued, and treatments were needed, and still are 

Alive doesn't = breeding stock
at 50% loses and a normal bell curve, 68% of what lives is the same as 68% of what dies, so if you propagate them, you get no better(well in theroy 14% better per year, but that takes 100% heradory on the trait, drone control etc) then what died
not to mention 40% of the splits(walk aways) will have drone fathers that had no effect on the hive trates muck you up, fast 

in nature 80% of the queens that overwinter are culled and don't see the next spring (based on seeley 2017 numbers), that is what it take in nature to hold steady... the loss of 78% of your splits.... improvement will take a higher loss rate
in nature the swarm queens are layed by the queen and not chosen by the workers elimating the criptic effect https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199124
I suggest the TF "split" culture and"easy beekeeping" has been a mad grab for member ship, which has osterize those who could actually intact change.


I am no friend to the TF BS preached by many, that doesn't mean I don't see genetic resistance as the future, it is ! No other choice, history has shown this. 
but that doesn't mean we flush scientific method down the tubes
the long and short here is we know what it takes to move a trait in bees, have so for decades if not centuries


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Did you ever feel like you were running a race with a ball and chain tied to your leg? That is effectively what bees are doing so long as we continue to prop up susceptible genetics. Extreme polyandrous mating guarantees a queen will carry huge levels of genetic diversity, but also means that alleles with low prevalence in the population will only come to the forefront when something takes the rest of the genetics out of the mating pool. What happens when the entire mating pool is composed of mite resistant bees?

MSL, the sad thing is that you can see where we need to go, but it does not sound like you are actively trying to get there.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

When the main reason for existing of near 90% of the colonies in the US is mass pollination; perhaps the present bee characteristics and supply system is filling the need. That system has a huge momentum. That type of bee is not at all what the small or stationary beekeeper needs but trying to overcome those genetics with the result of isolated breeding experiments is a bit like pithing against the wind. Bees breeding habits work against us.

Many people are wringing their hands about it but until they come up with a *doable* method of derailing the mass production bees I dont think it will happen.

I have seen this discussion come up quite a few times and when confronted with how it *reasonably might be accomplished*, we seem to come up empty. I think that manipulating and reprogramming peoples motivations may be a different skill set than bee breeding.

Maybe we need another Edward Bernays!

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_the_Consumer_Mind_The_Century_of_the_Self


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> Extreme polyandrous mating guarantees a queen will carry huge levels of genetic diversity, but also means that alleles with low prevalence in the population will only come to the forefront when something takes the rest of the genetics out of the mating poo


bingo, if people would pinch 80%+of the survived queens and replace them with better ones we could weed out the week and improve Resistance with improved queens, and more importantly improved drones . My suggestion is "death" has not proved strong enough negative pressure, too many "poor" drones for the "lucky" remain, even in the TF pool (standard bell curve stuff) 



> MSL, the sad thing is that you can see where we need to go, but it does not sound like you are actively trying to get there.


what makes you say that? I am just asking the TF message to meet reailty 1/2 way... that same message I give the OAV "vape heads" and there 20 tx a year "success" 

the death cult model used by some to predict stock improvement from losses and splits would also predict stock improvement from treated loses and splits at the scale they are taking(40+%), but neither move forward with splits 
. and yes I use JWC's language for this "death cult" misinformation . I don't mean TF, I don't mean true bond were you clear a path for further selection and propagation. I mean the split what lives. 
long and short of it is TF or TX there are those who can see what needs to be done, and those that don't.... the problem is no one wants to pay $$

cards on the table...
a true TF breeder queen, A queen that's offspring could rival the 5% mite loses of SA, would be worth $2-4K maybe more, sell 200 of them .
...
I would buy her now, graft 10,000 cells sell them at $10 each and change the world and make a 100X return :lpf:
sell me that queen with a garenteen on performance and your argument ends, sell those 200 to people like me and we have changed the US bee genetics. 
but
Such a (EHB) bee dose not exist. And will not even come close till people are wiling to pay a premium for those queens 



> something takes the rest of the genetics out of the mating pool


my response is simple, it maters not what dies, it matters not what lives  it maters what takes its place.  

yes crofter is right, we need a culture shift.
Its time to rethink the issue
We know from the late 1800s Italian craze what it takes to shift a stock. Requening every year or 2 with "pure" for many years.
Start of the 1860s langstroth was selling queens for $20 ($620 in todays money!!!), 20 years later the trade papers were full of adds for "dollar queens" (about $25). 

At the moment resistant queens don't fetch a premium price, indicating that the market doesn't value them, and their lies the problem. 
My area Nucs are all ready preselling at $195+ and Packages $140 

The hobiest market, rather then demanding a bee more suited to thier needs( and getting it!) Is grabing up what ever is available, now, before there is none left.

no incentive for producers to change. And the TF message of "do it your self" stops people from supporting those who have resistant genetics for sale.....

The 1st and foremost step to enacting change is BYBK's keeping there bees alive and overwintering a spare nuc per hive in case they or some one near them loses one. 
Once there is not a desperate yearly rush to import replacements, people will be willing to be picky, and demand better queens, and or be willing to wait till later in the season for better/local queens to be available. 
then you can start to shift an areas genetics, and as the DNA work on the Arnot forest bees shows, you don't have to have a massive aria to set up a genetic island... a town/city/county would work.
The problem as aways is distribution of improved genetics(it maters not what dies, it matters not what lives  it maters what takes its place.  ). I feel that 48 hour cells are a good choice and am working to that end 
Yes I am out there working for change, about this time last year I realized no progress was ever going to happen on a forum 
So I turned my sites locally, pushing for change with my club
Teaching, writing a biweekly queen rearing column fro the club news letter and proofing some nontraditional methods that are suited to the BYBK at a club level.

Sadly I found out I wasn't a big enough producer to qualified for the SARE grant app I had been working on, so the grand scheme has been throttled back to a personalty funded club level test run for this year 
The gole of witch is to develop a culture/market of using 48/ripe cells/virgins along with increasing the number of self made cells 
Once there is a market and I am pumping 100 or so in to the local club at maby $5 a piece for 48s the purchase of a II breeder becomes a reality. 
once that happens its far easer to market to other clubs, selling 48s by the bar for them to take home, finish, and distribute to thier members. at an up charge of course... they buy the 48s for $5, member get the cells for $10 or so... $$ makes the world go round... and member get cheap queens that will throw pure trait drones. Now rotate the breeder queen traits yearly (VSH,MBB, Russtian, etc) This is how you take back the DCAs, one club at a time.
Easy peizy to graft 3 bars on Friday night and have 40+ 48 hour cells ready for pick up on Sunday afternoon. With an 8 week season that's 320 cells X $5 = $1600, and that's just one person with one strong hive. Imagine one or 2 people like this per club! 

I suggest the problem in most areas is NOT the big commercial operations, Its the BYBK! its the little guy. I truly feel the finger is being pointed in the wrong direction. WE as beekeepers are at fault, not "them" 

WE can take back many/most of our DCAs, WE are just choosing not to. 
It just takes the understanding that for most of us, we can buy much better bees then we can select for given our small size, and we need to do that on a semi regulator basis till an areas traits are shifted and the drone stock has been improved. Then as a group select high performance local queens as breeders
WE can do this cheaply and easy with 48s, so we should.
but that sounds like work and beekeeping.... something that the " TF Gurus" and "OAVape Heads" push back against in an attempt to gain membership 

Middle ground,elbow grease, future that is


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Crazy as this may sound, it is my belief that mites are the effect, and not the cause of our problems. Pesticides cause our bees to bee stressed, and mites with the associated viruses are the effect. Like Pneumonia, they are a secondary infection. People do not get pneumonia and die, they are weakened and pneumonia finishes them off.

We had the fortune of acquiring a significant quantity of drawn comb that was not laden with pesticides The results where staggering. The scale hive on dead out comb made 12 lbs surplus. Many of the hives on clean comb made 12 lbs surplus, with no spotty brood. 


Crazy Roland


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

msl said:


> bingo, if people would pinch 80%+of the survived queens and replace them with better ones.......


*How exactly *do you select the 80% of the survivors to be pinched (which ones are the "better ones")?

Mite counts?
Well, John Kefuss indicated that the mite counts are not a sole, reliable parameter to base your decisions on (the ultimate survival still is).

IF I ONLY have two promising survivor queens, how exactly do I implement the proposed 80% elimination out of the two?

No, I am not going to run hundreds and hundreds of hives and nucs.
20 units - absolute practical max during the high season.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Pesticides cause our bees to bee stressed...

I would agree that pesticides are the biggest problem. And they keep changing them which means the bees never really build up a resistance. Every time they come out with a new one it's a new problem...


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The COMB study tested side by side management. The "untreated" hives died in huge numbers, the treated hives survived. Yet we have the TF folks hijacking the thread with all sorts of completely demonstrated "theories" why hives die. 

In the study in question: the untreated hives had foundationless frames and "pure" wax from Lusby hives and this did not contribute to survival. The pesticide "theory" is not supported by the observations. Why do we permit the TF advocates tell "stories", when the evidence contradicts them on every count.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Why do we permit the TF advocates tell "stories", when the evidence contradicts them on every count.

Permit?! I've never suggested that anyone should not be permitted to give their experience. Apparently you do. I'm very glad you are not in charge or we would never get to hear much of anything from anyone.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael,
Your business model is "talking story" to guillible newbees that lap up the triumphalist accounts. 

Perhaps this no where better illustrated than in the "COMB" study where the field researcher attended the Lusby conference, and appeared in several videos with you and Mr. "Let 'em die", as you influenced her decisions on the "CF" portion of the side-by-side trials. So you are an interested party in the success (not achieved) of the CF trial, and perhaps that explains why throwing out "wookies" to highjack the update report is so important to you.


For years I have advocated doing side-by-side trials to "proof" the. claims. You have resisted this at every step, while providing evasive and incomplete answers on the "Triumphalist" success. What is it 200 colonies (as was the tag line in the 2014 period, or 40 when someone pointed out that wasn't true, or 14 (which were the overwinter number in 2017 by your own post.

Bees are easy to breed in the spring, and you can rapidly expand numbers. Where "TF" falls apart is the devastating autumn mortality. You by being evasize and incomplete has forfeited your credibility.

The COMB trial (the CF portion) is. largely your "intellectual" design. The CF cohort died in the fall and winter. Deal with it === honestly.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> How exactly do you select the 80% of the survivors to be pinched (which ones are the "better ones")?
> 
> Mite counts?
> Well, John Kefuss indicated that the mite counts are not a parameter to base on your decisions on (the ultimate survival is).


Not the case at *ALL* and is an out right internet falsehood perpetuated by TF partisans! 
the Kefuss bees were highly selected post survival .. Mite washes, Freeze killed brood hygienic assy, brood mite counts etc. less then 1% of the survivors became breeder queens on a yearly bases 


> Genetic material was exchanged back and forth between these two independent test populations on an irregular basis by requeening with queen cells and virgin queens from the best 1–5 colonies in each group throughout the field test. Low mite levels and general colony performance such as the ability to rear high-quality queens and honey production determined selection of the breeding material.


Selection for resistance to Varroa destructor under commercial beekeeping conditions

John Kefuss, Jacques Vanpoucke, Maria Bolt & Cyril Kefuss

Journal of Apicultural Research

Volume 54, 2015 - Issue 5
Received 08 Jun 2015, Accepted 24 Feb 2016, Published online: 02 Jun 2016
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...9.2016.1160709

What I am suggesting is strait out of the Kefuss play book! 
I just wish more would read it, they read "let them die" and put the book down and walk away, missing all the hard work, selection, grafting, re queening, etc that enacted change . Then they will turn around and say "Well, John Kefuss indicated that " it cracks me up... but it is also sad, very sad indeed



> IF I ONLY have two promising survivor queens, how exactly do I implement the proposed 80% elimination out of the two?


 pick the best and make 75% of your increase form her well as I said in my last post 


> It just takes the understanding that for most of us, we can buy much better bees then we can select for given our small size


What do you mean by "survivor"... one winter isn't a survivor, chances are its just lucky, 2 years is better..Meghan Milbrath's breeders are all 2 queens that have spent 2 years TF , but her stock still needs treatments... 
in your case you haven't had a hive overwinter 2x so its going to be a crap shoot.. 
on top of that your not going to cell build so 40% of your queens will be of "cryptic" lines and not resistant 
Your going pull a queen and then cut/ split cells in to nucs leaving leaving you with 70-80% poor queens (based on Sam Comforts Tarpy lab results)
At that point its going to be very hard to sort anything. 
you can't change the genetics at your scale, but maby you could change the conditions 

I relay think that's the subtle under current in Darwinian beekeeping, Change the hive type and you don't have to shift the genetics very much, maybe not at all. If you cant change the gentnices to suit your beekeeping, Maby its time to change the equipment 

Alpines or nuc triple stacks, maby fitted with a polish style swarm keeper









Now your making your increase from swarms and swarm cells... this removes the problem of E cell splits + give the hives a brood break+ removes mites away in the swam. Your selection has been simplified as the strongest (as in the ones to reach swarm strength 1st) get propagated, the middle provide a frame or 2 of brood for a queen cell, and the weak are requened. This way you make the most out of your best, then your 2nd best etc till you run out of equipment and the outhers don't get splits made of them and or ar requened 
this is very much what happens in nature were the carying copaisty is limited by nest sites, 1st to swarm, 1st to find a home 
It would take a good number of hives, but is doable, it feels up your ally should be a little better then split what lives



> In the study in question: the untreated hives had foundationless frames and "pure" wax from Lusby hives and this did not contribute to survival


hun? why would fondationless frames need lusby wax? 



> . Why do we permit the TF advocates tell "stories", when the evidence contradicts them on every count.


you have become as partisan as those you challenge, and it makes me sad... bring back the cold calculating JW, anger/frustration doesn't look good on you and is causeing you to make mistakes 

IIRR it was small cell foundation, but the only way they could get it was in single piece plastic frames.. but you cant have plastic in CF hives so they cut out the foundation and mounted it in wood frames and coated that in lusby wax. The CF study group felt (based on robins early work, she had found foundationles IS slower then foundation ) that foundation less would be be too much of a set back in honey production and "they" might "lose" because of it.
as you note She jumped threw a great many hoops to sastifie the "stake holders"


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

msl said:


> Not the case at *ALL* and is an out right internet falsehood perpetuated by TF partisans!
> the Kefuss bees were highly selected post survival .. Mite washes, Freeze killed brood hygienic assy, brood mite counts etc. less then 1% of the survivors became breeder queens on a yearly bases
> ..........
> you can't change the genetics at your scale, but maby you could change the conditions
> ...


OK, I will not argue who said what (Kefuss, etc).
I am not capable or willing go into the "breeding" business anyway.

However, the proper hive ergonomy for the bees (which improves viability of small bee colonies) combined with pseudo-natural management - should provide *enough *sustainability for a small-scale operator (different from "save-them-at-all-cost" - an unsustainable approach).
This general solution should really be agnostic to treat/no-treat arguments.
At that rate, save the extra hassle/costs of treating as mostly irrelevant.
(costs of treating - in wider scope, not just trivial $$$ spent).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

msl said:


> ......
> Now your making your increase from swarms and swarm cells... this removes the problem of E cell splits + give the hives a brood break+ removes mites away in the swam. Your selection has been simplified as the strongest (as in the ones to reach swarm strength 1st) get propagated, the middle provide a frame or 2 of brood for a queen cell, and the weak are requened. * This way you make the most out of your best, then your 2nd best etc till you run out of equipment* and the outhers don't get splits made of them and or ar requened
> this is very much what happens in nature were the carying copaisty is limited by nest sites, 1st to swarm, 1st to find a home
> It would take a good number of hives, but is doable, it feels up your ally should be a little better then split what lives....


And what do you know?
That is exactly what I did from those units that *did live.*
The current proportions in my holdings are (from the best to the worst/unknown) are:
7 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Your business model is "talking story" to guillible newbees that lap up the triumphalist accounts.

My business model is to go to work everyday and program computers which makes a lot more money than beekeeping.

>Perhaps this no where better illustrated than in the "COMB" study where the field researcher attended the Lusby conference, and appeared in several videos with you and Mr. "Let 'em die", as you influenced her decisions on the "CF" portion of the side-by-side trials. So you are an interested party in the success (not achieved) of the CF trial, and perhaps that explains why throwing out "wookies" to highjack the update report is so important to you.

I'm afraid you'll have to define your terms. I don't know what a "wookie" is. It's not important to me to hijack anything. Whatever results anyone has is what they have. I get emails and reports from hundreds of people every year who are doing treatment free and small cell with great success. You apparently have the opposite experience. Probably people tend to tell their stories to people who will commiserate so you hear the opposite of what I do. Because I never hear those opposite stories.

>For years I have advocated doing side-by-side trials to "proof" the. claims. You have resisted this at every step

I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't have time nor the bees to lose to bees to prove something you won't believe anyway.

>..while providing evasive and incomplete answers on the "Triumphalist" success.

Perhaps you can show some examples of "evasive". I simple say what I've experienced and what I have had time to observe. My beekeeping doesn't' center around providing you with evidence or testimony.

> What is it 200 colonies (as was the tag line in the 2014 period, or 40 when someone pointed out that wasn't true, or 14 (which were the overwinter number in 2017 by your own post.

Numbers change all the time.

>The COMB trial (the CF portion) is. largely your "intellectual" design. The CF cohort died in the fall and winter. Deal with it === honestly.

I have no serious complaints about their method. I did not come up with it but it is mostly modeled off of Dee Lusby's methods. We discussed some of the issues that you can't really even out. For instance having all of them have the same genetics was an attempt to isolate cultural methods from genetics, but it also lent advantages to the treatment groups. There is no perfect experiment with something as complex as a superorganism that is interacting with other colonies as well as the 8,000 acres around them.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> And what do you know?


As it operation specific I will place my response in your thread :thumbsup:

I realy wish I could respond to antagonists in MB's calm metered tone... Its a skill I lack lol


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

msl said:


> I realy wish I could respond to antagonists in MB's calm metered tone... Its a skill I lack lol


Ha, that's interesting. 
You view the responses as calm & metered, and from my view they scream passive aggressiveness.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

It is almost funny to read threads like this one and see the interplay between different philosophies. JWC started the thread as a way to pooh-pooh treatment free methods. Posts then accumulate dissecting the methods used in the referenced study. JWC comes back complaining about lack of proof that TF works or can ever work. Claims beget counterclaims and in the end nobody learns anything new. Sometimes it is not worth the time expended reading and responding.


My experience with not treating bees is that sometimes it is better to treat. That said, I have not treated my bees in 15 years and they are clearly expressing mite resistance traits in some colonies. The trope about pesticides being a major problem for beekeepers and particularly that wax contaminated with pesticides causes issues is IMO the second largest threat beekeeping faces today.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> pesticides being a major problem for beekeepers and particularly that wax contaminated with pesticides causes issues is IMO the second largest threat beekeeping faces today.


Yes, bees have 99 problems, but in this one study, that ain't one of them. 12 hives were set up side by side in about two dozen apiaries. 4 hives in each set were treated with "Apivar and Organics", four were treated with Organics, and four were left to dwindle and die using the "Bush" protocol. 

Guess what, the cohorts of 8 that were treated survived well. The cohorts of four that were blessed with "good thoughts" died wholesale. 

Same foraging zone, with all the same insults. The untreated hives were given magic wax from Arizona, because despite the fact that Amitraz vanishes from the hive in six hours, the charlatans have stampeded people into believing that Amitraz must contaminate wax.

This study does not have the problem that the study size is too small, or location specific. The survival differences between the two treated protocols and the "untreated" one is multiple standard deviations apart. The confidence in the result is "medical grade".


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>... and four were left to dwindle and die using the "Bush" protocol.

I did not write the protocol nor was it identical to what I'm doing. Yes, it's close. I merely gave my opinion of the protocol that had already been put together.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> Here is one that is worth a few minutes to read. It covers almost all of the mite resistance traits identified so far. https://aristabeeresearch.org/varroa-resistance/


Lunden Apiaries mentioned. :banana:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Apivar used according to label does not contaminate beeswax. Oddly enough, that seems to bother some people, probably the same folks that have been impatiently waiting for 2 decades or so for varroa to begin showing an amitraz resistance.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Fusion Power wrote:

The trope about pesticides being a major problem for beekeepers and particularly that wax contaminated with pesticides causes issues is IMO the second largest threat beekeeping faces today.

C'mon guys(and Gals), Mites are not that hard to control with NON CHEMICAL methods, of which there are many. If it where hard , yes they would be the biggest threat.

It has been 30 years since they where first found. Thirty years and you have not learned how to think like a mite yet to beat them?


Crazy Roland


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Sometimes reading TF debates is like listening to the impeachment debates. Every bodies talking, nobodies listening.

"Ain't no good guys, ain't no bad guys, there's just just you and me and we just disagree." 

Hows my rusty memory on the lyrics?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The TF debate is actually an interesting study of human nature. 

A person will only accept the facts, if it fits their world view.

The results of every study done on the subject have been the same. Yet they all get debunked.

Just a few days ago I watched a video by a famous TF practitioner and was stunned when he said outright, that his losses are 5 to 10 percent per annum. He said this with absolute belief. Yet the facts are that he has been making splits by his "expansion model beekeeping", and collecting swarms in good numbers, but has less hives than he did 10 years ago. The maths doesn't work. If his losses were truly 5 or 10 percent, his hive numbers would have grown exponentially.

We believe what we want, i guess.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

There is a study on pesticides in beeswax that is worth reading. It is hard to argue with chemicals proven by gas chromatography. The focus in this thread seems to be on miticides in beeswax, not on the broader statement regarding pesticides. When the Bell operation was sold a few years ago, they had a real problem with contaminated combs. Bees pick up pesticides in the environment which wind up incorporated into comb. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118310893 It is worth paying attention to the role of contaminated beeswax and the particular contaminants found.

Oldtimer, we humans are a strange bunch. We rarely let facts get in the way of what we believe. Heaven forbid that we actually dig around on the net to find something that counters our belief.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

True enough FP. 

Re the insecticides, I don't think anyone is in denial that they can harm bees. They do after all kill insects, and bees are insects.

But the point was made by JWC that in relation to the study, the effect of any possible insecticides is factored in. By virtue that all hives are exposed in equal measure.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I think this discussion is quite interesting. I think this study has some decent merits but it's also flawed in a few areas. Starting with a single stock was an interesting choice. When you think about it statistically, it makes sense, but practically I don't think it's the best choice. On the comb issue, I think there's something, but whether or not it's pesticide residue etc... I can't really say. I will say this, one thing I've noticed since starting to do removals... the prevalence of EFB was much higher in older comb, even in the same hive, where new comb probably showed a 20-30% reduction in occurrence.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

I love the discussion of so many heavyweights in the ring. This thread is a fun read, and it reminds of something my dad once said.

"I went to see a fight and a hockey match broke out!"

From a retired poker player's ("Know when to walk away, know when to run..") viewpoint, somewhat versed in statistics, genetics, lower division mathematics (3rd semester calculus completed, differential calculus started but not completed, although I tutored that, physics, chemistry, and many other subjects for 15+ years) my bets are that mite mauling is the single best trait to promote. Add a brood break - they usually survive. Add allogrooming - they usually survive. Delve deeply into the *WHY* of heavy honey production and analyzing one's own methods, and you are probably breeding bees that serve your purposes.

CHANGE YOUR METHODS TO 5.1 mm CELL SIZE COMBINED WITH NARROW (1.240 INCH WIDE) FRAMES to take better advantage of the main Spring nectar / pollen flow, and you likely one of the bigger beekeepers in the neighborhood.

Until any of us can prove we are right and that God does or does not exist, we may cite some *****in' studies, but we are, like it or not, are a bunch of agnostics. All I have are opinions, backed up with 17% more turbo charged loadabunk than JWC, msl, Bigfoot, or Oldtimer, so there!


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

LOL
About the only worth wile thing so far in this study is was (at lest for me) the final death nail in small cell as a mite fighting measure... but it is of note the SC hives made more honey per hive 
adaquitily tested on a large enough scale with enough hives



> my bets are that mite mauling is the single best trait to promote. Add a brood break - they usually survive. Add allogrooming - they usually survive.


As exciting as it is... MB/MM bees have the limitation of like many TX only going after photic mites, the mites could counter with a shorter period, there are TF groups that claim this has already happened in response to chemical treatments, but I haven't seen any real data.....doses make you wonder about the people saying they need 20 OAVs a year thow.....




> You view the responses as calm & metered, and from my view they scream passive aggressiveness.


and another might view my post as thinly veiled sarcasm...
the bigest issue with coumputer screesn is you view it with your own reflection in the back ground


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

Oldtimer said:


> The The maths doesn't work. If his losses were truly 5 or 10 percent, his hive numbers would have grown exponentially.


Oldtimer, I wonder if he was selling bees? But I don’t dispute your point. More bees die if you don’t treat than do if you treat wisely. But after several generations without treatment, the surviving bees’ resistance and tolerance of mites improves. Shorter pupation periods reduce the adverse effects of mites. I doubt that smaller cell sizes help. I agree that mite mauling traits help. It’s all very interesting. Living in an area with a strong feral population and relatively little migratory colonies affects my outlook. What we see affects what we say.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

What I understand is that over the years he has sold a handful of nucs, my personal belief is this has been so he can say he is selling bees, and thereby fudge losses. I also know that for extended periods of time he has told anyone who inquires that he is not selling bees at the moment.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> What I understand is that over the years he has sold a handful of nucs, my personal belief is this has been so he can say he is selling bees, and thereby fudge losses. I also know that for extended periods of time he has told anyone who inquires that he is not selling bees at the moment.


I made a rare foray into the tf Facebook page recently and tried to digest Mr. “view from a points” statistical argument that there is almost no statistical evidence that treatments reduce losses. It made me remember the ole “there are liars, ****ed liars and statisticians” joke. The whole issue of losses is so I’ll defined that I’ve boycotted the surveys in recent years. I’m not at all annoyed by folks honestly practicing tf beekeeping as it may well lead to some genetic advancements. I’m only annoyed at those who are opaque about the realities of what they are doing. In addition I feel that many fail to accept the realities we commercials encounter trying to scale up and make a living doing what they do. 
But, hey, that’s just my view from my point. &#55357;&#56833;


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Fusion_power said:


> It is almost funny to read threads like this one and see the interplay between different philosophies. JWC started the thread as a way to pooh-pooh treatment free methods. Posts then accumulate dissecting the methods used in the referenced study. JWC comes back complaining about lack of proof that TF works or can ever work. Claims beget counterclaims and in the end nobody learns anything new. Sometimes it is not worth the time expended reading and responding.
> 
> 
> My experience with not treating bees is that sometimes it is better to treat. That said, I have not treated my bees in 15 years and they are clearly expressing mite resistance traits in some colonies. The trope about pesticides being a major problem for beekeepers and particularly that wax contaminated with pesticides causes issues is IMO the second largest threat beekeeping faces today.


Relating to the Pesticide issue. So This is my opinion, there I do not now need to look this up for everyone. Some pesticides are in the seed and ground these end up in pollen and nectar. there are many studies about this to look for. Wax is very able to absorb these chems. From many sources, and my opinion, these Chems are affecting the hormones and Pheromone production of Queens. this is contributing to "poorer" health of queens (early failure) and shorter lifespan of bees. this subtle chem exposure then has bees "less than optimal" in health. like previously mentioned with Pneumonia, the bees with poor health are more susceptible to the virus vectored by mites. I have had several Apiary sites, I know for a fact in my Queen raising that certain times of the summer and in certain places I have poor success and in others I have good success. Using empiric evidence and observations. My best results in queen rearing come from Yards with little or no crop land or golf courses, or places where wal mart shoppers dump chems on their yards to beautify them. Some of these TF "places" are likely more healthy for the bees at the habitat level. this is how I understand some of the Moving TF bees and they are TF no more issues, or How some Keepers can be TF and some cannot. I have said before I think Apiary selection for sites is important. Early queen failure of My raised Queens is another bad mark for a yard. Michael mention the 8000 Acres as a issue not necessary repeatable, I concur with that. IF Mites are a Symptom then all of this repeat-ability, and different results, seem to make sense. I agree that no one thing will be the cure all, but with TF and non TF are we not focusing on one thing. An interesting study to me would be to sample all the pollen and nectar from places where TF "works" and then sample all the pollen and Nectar from places where TF does not work. I am of the belief the habitat differences relating to what chems are used or not used is a bigger piece to the puzzle than the genetics. I also believe there are "places" where treatment of the sick bees is the only way to have bees on that site. At this point my places to not keep my bees are near Orchards, large corn or soy raising farms, lakes where the association treats the water, Golf Course within 4 miles. counties that spray ditches. This is not that hard to grasp. Chems go in the soil, seed or on plants, the plants pick "some" of it or its by products up . the pollen and nectar have it . carried to the hive , feed to brood and bees. Weak bees , Mites, treatment needed. Related,, many of the problems for Man can be reduced or eliminated by proper , and clean diet. find or create an 8000 acre chem reduced or chem free environment, for your bees. many of the problems will decrease. so the idea that every yard or back yard is equal to me is not accepting reality. Instead laying blame at the back yard keepers feet some blame needs to go the neighbors who "need" the perfect lawn, or the communities that spray for mosquito or the need for blemish free fruit. Most of the so called studies almost ignore the environment. So I take them with a grain of Glyphosate.
GG


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>But the point was made by JWC that in relation to the study, the effect of any possible insecticides is factored in. By virtue that all hives are exposed in equal measure.

I did not say anything contrary to that. I was agreeing that pesticides are what I consider my biggest problem in beekeeping. Unfortunately pesticide issues are hard to avoid and inconsistent in effect depending on what is blooming at the time. Especially when the soybeans are blooming and they decide to spray them for aphids. Otherwise with round-up ready soybeans there is nothing else blooming in those fields.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't know if folks are being willfully dense.

The strength of a replicated side-by-side experimental design is that it "controls" for all the hypothesized influences.

A replicate is 12 hives managed under three philosophies (4 colonies each). The design was replicated at the home yards of participating beekeepers from one end to the other of eastern Pennsylvania (and nearby states).

This controls for environmental impacts from "pesticides" as all the hives in a replicate are foraging on the same territory. Wax contamination was given special consideration (and the TF hives were given special "pure wax" imported from Lusby hives in Arizona.

The public has not been apprised of the coefficient of variation among the many replicates (ie the diverse home yards). That would be interesting information, as will a "repeated measures" analysis -- do individual replicates behave over time in the same manner or differently. 

One can blather all one desires about how "this or that influence" is more important, however, by running side by side trials and replicating in multiple independent settings, you are controlling for that. It is inconsequential to the study design.

The message board format seems designed for the few lonely folks still active to ignore the content, and get up on their hobby horse about their particular obsession.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I don't know if folks are being willfully dense.

Are you being willfully dense? I didn't see ANYONE claiming, and I certainly am not claiming, that pesticides skewed any results in this study. I am just saying it's my biggest beekeeping problem.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

So you will conclude that TF hives died in abundance in 2018-2019, and mite counts in the remaining TF hives are "high" in the autumn of 2019, while treated hives had low overwinter mortality and low Autumn 2019 mite counts.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

The message board format seems designed for the few lonely folks still active to ignore the content, and get up on their hobby horse about their particular obsession.

???Not sure here,,JWC are you offering you are lonely and have a hobby horse, or attempting to add personal insult by calling this trait on the folks who disagree with you here. I am Ok with , discussion, opinion, observation, showing results of studies, and such. Not sure of the need to impune others. This is still a free country, I believe we all have the right to state what we think or believe. Stopping the free speech, is the first step down the trail to fascism, Bullying others to agree with you is not really going to be effective. I am confident you feel you are right, but I feel you are resistant to allow others that same belief. My personal experience with bees,, very little is inconsequential. How many folks here on this forum have 1/3 of their hives TF. 1/3 Organic treated, and 1/3 Chem treatment?? my quess almost zero, so this test is somewhat a new/unique setup that may have new features, and likely could, favor one of the 1/3s. I can appreciate being committed to a philosophy, I do not think denigrating folks for their belief is warranted.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I ran a paired TF vs Treated apiary test for many years (2002-2018). Collapse in the TF portion was 60-80% year after year. The Treated portion hovered around 20%. (One wiggle feature, I took TF colonies off the test and attempted to recover them in later years). 

This same 60-80% mortality has been reported on many (non-paired) tests of TF. Yes, you can outrun TF mortality if you make many young hives, capture urban swarms, or are gifted packages and queens.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Michael Bush said:


> >But the point was made by JWC that in relation to the study, the effect of any possible insecticides is factored in. By virtue that all hives are exposed in equal measure.
> 
> I did not say anything contrary to that. I was agreeing that pesticides are what I consider my biggest problem in beekeeping. Unfortunately pesticide issues are hard to avoid and inconsistent in effect depending on what is blooming at the time. Especially when the soybeans are blooming and they decide to spray them for aphids. Otherwise with round-up ready soybeans there is nothing else blooming in those fields.


Michael, right for that site the pesticides are Equal, However what if all sites in this study had some contamination, and the contamination is the "cause" and the Mites are the "symptom". I may be suggesting that TF works best in a pure clean environment, but how many places still are like that. I may also be suggesting that some places today will need "treatment" until the Chems we use are changed, or washed out of the system. I am not sure, but studies are good and insightful, and we should do more. trying to set in stone from the results of a study the best way is potentially omitting some very useful data, yet to be understood.
GG


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

ok thanks , good information.
your site in this slice of time worked best Treated, would you concur?
IMO other sites and other time slices may or may not behave the same.
GG


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Yes, my paired experiment used two apiaries on the same mountain about a mile apart. I reversed the apiaries from time to time to avoided a "particular" site effect. Reversing the apiaries did not change the outcome. I used paired apiaries rather than side-by-side, as I view apiaries as super-organisms and sickness will spread. (One of the reasons, other than the cost of the econmic loss, that I attempted to "recover" mite sickened hives in the later years).

I have no idea how real the "triumphalist" accounts from around the country are. In my own personal experience in California, most of the "TF" apiaries I visited were "varroa bombs" by young beeks in "denial" or deliberately misleading by folks attempting to sell a "branding". If you make up your apiary from "rescues", and overflow all available boxes by mid -summer, the numbers of colonies that die every winter doesn't matter, and no one actually knows the outcome.

The farther up the "guru selling inspirational talks to gullible newbee" ladder you climb, the more "atmospheric", vague, and completely absent" any verifiable information becomes. In the absence of any numbers, we are left with the COMB reports where a "Bush-light" protocol was implemented. These are the numbers we have.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWChesnut said:


> Yes, my paired experiment used two apiaries on the same mountain about a mile apart. I reversed the apiaries from time to time to avoided a "particular" site effect. Reversing the apiaries did not change the outcome. I used paired apiaries rather than side-by-side, as I view apiaries as super-organisms and sickness will spread. (One of the reasons, other than the cost of the econmic loss, that I attempted to "recover" mite sickened hives in the later years).
> 
> I have no idea how real the "triumphalist" accounts from around the country are. In my own personal experience in California, most of the "TF" apiaries I visited were "varroa bombs" by young beeks in "denial" or deliberately misleading by folks attempting to sell a "branding". If you make up your apiary from "rescues", and overflow all available boxes by mid -summer, the numbers of colonies that die every winter doesn't matter, and no one actually knows the outcome.
> 
> The farther up the "guru selling inspirational talks to gullible newbee" ladder you climb, the more "atmospheric", vague, and completely absent" any verifiable information becomes. In the absence of any numbers, we are left with the COMB reports where a "Bush-light" protocol was implemented. These are the numbers we have.


Ok JWChesnut, In California, would you not agree with all the Almonds and other crops, needing pollination out there and the 1.4 million or however many hives are trucked in to the state every year, every bee ailment know to bees is present there? So in this environment you may only be able to make it by treating. And further more if you tried TF and it did not work, then for your place Treatment is necessary. I agree and would do the same. But consider the lonely valley in Utah or Colorado where no one farms or lives. No Roads, no pollution. bees may or may not need treating there. The best way in that location is perhaps different. Time slice matters,, in the 80s and 90s I did not treat and had low losses. I hope by 2050 we are there again. I have TF yards in low population places that do ok, for me that is < 25% loss per year . I also have some in my back yard that likely would be wiped out in 3 years as TF. So IMO Place is a factor. I think each person needs to do what they have to to maintain the Apairy with in the confine of the law. I am somewhat jealous of those who can "not treat". IMO environment has as much to do as Genetics . If you move TF bees to your yard and they "need" treatment then I see that a proof that Genes are less important then location. I do not see it as TF does not work. IMO the reason we do not have places to buy TF queens yet is they ship a few that suddenly loose the TF ability and that line never really gets traction. To Me this is a wake up call for the environment, Canary in the coal mine effect. I see this as "Some places cannot support Honey Bees with out treatment" I.E. the bees are weak/sick in that location. Also Agree on the selling food chain, unfortunately Money still has the influence in how things progress. I no longer spray my lawn, my fruit trees, my food plots, my Garden. When the masses wake up, this will either be fixed or too late. 
GG


----------



## unstunghero (May 16, 2016)

My history. I started with one nuc in April, in late July I had lots of mite and DWVirus, I treated. The next spring my colony swarmed, I caught it, now I have two colonies. July comes, I see some DWV and quite a few mites and I treat. The next spring my colonies swarmed, now I have four colonies. I saw very few mites, but one of the new colonies needed treating, and I treated it. The next spring two swarmed, I kept one and gave one away, I now have five colonies. I saw very few mites, and sometimes I would go two or three weeks and hardly see any, I didn't treat. The next spring(2019) Two of my hives swarmed, I gave one away and sold one. I was seeing very few mites and I haven't needed to treat those five hives. June 9, 2019 I received a New World Carniolan queen, split one of my hives and introduced this queen into the split. As the year went on I was seeing an increasing number of mites in the nwc split, and by late August they had filled one 10-frame deep(not great). By the end of October I was seeing DWV and 20-30 mites a week, I treated. My original bees came from a second generation beekeeper who told me that they had introduced every type of new queen that came along, and selected for honey, health, and gentleness in that order. I believe the bees themselves are the answer, the few mites that I find in my original colonies are missing legs, and when I inspect them they just appear to be lifeless hulls. The mites I inspected from the nwc colony had their legs, and many were alive. The mites I inspect come from pans in an enclosed,screened bottom board with diatomaceous earth. Not treatment free, just don't need to treat.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

unstunghero said:


> My history. I started with one nuc in April, in late July I had lots of mite and DWVirus, I treated. The next spring my colony swarmed, I caught it, now I have two colonies. July comes, I see some DWV and quite a few mites and I treat. The next spring my colonies swarmed, now I have four colonies. I saw very few mites, but one of the new colonies needed treating, and I treated it. The next spring two swarmed, I kept one and gave one away, I now have five colonies. I saw very few mites, and sometimes I would go two or three weeks and hardly see any, I didn't treat. The next spring(2019) Two of my hives swarmed, I gave one away and sold one. I was seeing very few mites and I haven't needed to treat those five hives. June 9, 2019 I received a New World Carniolan queen, split one of my hives and introduced this queen into the split. As the year went on I was seeing an increasing number of mites in the nwc split, and by late August they had filled one 10-frame deep(not great). By the end of October I was seeing DWV and 20-30 mites a week, I treated. My original bees came from a second generation beekeeper who told me that they had introduced every type of new queen that came along, and selected for honey, health, and gentleness in that order. I believe the bees themselves are the answer, the few mites that I find in my original colonies are missing legs, and when I inspect them they just appear to be lifeless hulls. The mites I inspected from the nwc colony had their legs, and many were alive. The mites I inspect come from pans in an enclosed,screened bottom board with diatomaceous earth. Not treatment free, just don't need to treat.


Interesting history Unstunghero, sounds like the source for your bees, was a diverse population. Are you still close in proximity to the place you got the first hive from? Are you aware of any other local stock? your new queens must be mating with drones with the characteristics you need. If it is working I am not sure I would "bring in" other bees/Queens, I am thinking of "if it broke don't fix it" Sounds like you have an angle , good luck
GG


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Fusion Power - good citation of a paper. How do we get a copy?

Grey Goose. I agree with your cite selection criteria. You have identified the sources of trouble.

We are actually looking at 2-4d as being a major component of our problems. Look for a paper by Howard L. Morton and Joseph O. Moffett from the ARS USDA Tucson "Ovicidal and Larvicidal Effects of certain herbicides on Honeybees"

It appears to me that Ag chemicals build up to significant levels in less than half a year, and that a spring chemical synergizes with a fall chemical. New Comb in the spring must be changed out by winter. The bees sense of smell seems to be the first thing effected. I would imagine that if bees need to smell a mite before they can remove it, a poor sense of smell from pesticides would reduce their ability deal with mites. Cause and effect.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Roland said:


> I would imagine that if bees need to smell a mite before they can remove it, a poor sense of smell from pesticides would reduce their ability deal with mites. Cause and effect. Crazy Roland


Makes me think of the utube with the bees virtually pouncing on the mite. Never clear if that was a mite from a different hive or the host hive.

A guard bee lets in a loaded forager, not a robber. Some interesting stuff in the difference between the reactions.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> Makes me think of the utube with the bees virtually pouncing on the mite. Never clear if that was a mite from a different hive or the host hive.


That was Purdue MBB stock
SARE grant on them https://projects.sare.org/project-reports/fne15-819/



> The 2015 season was marked regionally with substantial Fall losses due to being overwhelmed by mites; the MBB bees stole the remaining honey from collapsing neighboring hives, and also brought back hitchhiker mites with them, and guard bees groomed them off, killed them, and left them in piles next to the entrance.


The next year follow up found



> Winter survival for the Purdue MBB bees was 50% vs. the Control of 36%, or a mortality rate of 50% vs. 74%. Table 1 SARE-Winter-Survivorship-2017
> While statistically not significant, the differences in weight and mite load at certain times in the Fall is worthy of more exploration


I found it interesting The in the same general area as COMB they took about the same losses with the unslect stock

And we see the same in FNE17-863 https://projects.sare.org/project-reports/fne17-863/


> MBB had 21 out of 30 survive (70%), feral colonies had 10 out of 16 survive (62.5%), and the control had 6 out of 18 survive (33.3% ).


This puts small cell firmly to bed for me

Of note 


> Group 1-MBB colonies, bees that chew mites, were significantly heavier than the Group-3-control group. Also, Group 2-feral bees, were similar to the control group. Statistics proved a positive correlation between MBB and hive weight; the more chewed mites, the higher the weight. The average weights were: Group 1 – 132 pounds, Group 2 – 85 pounds, and Group 3 – 97 pounds.


but a key point here


> We set out over 28 swarm traps, and visited them 516 times, and collected 56 swarms, of which 17 were established in colonies for the study. Note: Most locations captured between 0 and 4, Ohio skews the numbers by reporting 42. Many swarms were destroyed by bears while still in the trap before they could be transferred, and many small ones failed to establish.


Large swarm losses=strong selection pressure on ferals above and beyond overwintering leads to better survival rates


----------



## unstunghero (May 16, 2016)

The location where the nuc came from is about 50 miles north as the bee flies. I had heard a lot of good things about these NWC bees and thought I would try one colony and if nothing else I would have something to compare, which is what I will do. I have no scientific reasons why this is the way it is, just good luck and good bees maybe, but it is what it is. I just thought I would share this story of one fortunate beekeeper, and of course , who knows what the future will bring.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

A line of bee from a closed population breeding program selected for hygienic behavior and low mite counts did well with minimal treatments? Who would have thunk:lookout: 

NWC have been used in lot of mite resistance breeding programs to bring in grooming traits among other things.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

unstunghero said:


> M The next spring(2019) Two of my hives swarmed, I gave one away and sold one. I was seeing very few mites and I haven't needed to treat those five hives.
> 
> June 9, 2019 I received a New World Carniolan queen, split one of my hives and introduced this queen into the split. As the year went on I was seeing an increasing number of mites in the nwc split, and by late August they had filled one 10-frame deep(not great).
> 
> ...





msl said:


> A line of bee from a closed population breeding program selected for hygienic behavior and low mite counts did well with minimal treatments? Who would have thunk:lookout:
> 
> NWC have been used in lot of mite resistance breeding programs to bring in grooming traits among other things.


From the post of unstunghero I understand, opposite to you msl ?, that his original bees were better than nwc bees.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

unstunghero said:


> I believe the bees themselves are the answer, the few mites that I find in my original colonies are missing legs, and when I inspect them they just appear to be lifeless hulls. The mites I inspected from the nwc colony had their legs, and many were alive.


Are you north of Hot Springs and near the forest? I wonder what the feral bee population is in the Ouachita National Forest.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> From the post of unstunghero I understand, opposite to you msl


Good call JL! 
looks, like I miss read post#82 as the NWC being the same stock in the results of his earlier post.. 
Confirmation bias hits us all !!!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Juhani Lunden said:


> From the post of unstunghero I understand, opposite to you msl ?, that his original bees were better than nwc bees.


Yes that's how i saw it.

Seems to me that he had some initial mite issues, but after his hives had swarmed and mated with the locals a bit, they became mite tolerant.

Then when he got the nwc queen she was less tolerant.

Since mating with the locals seems to be working for him, and the nwc queen may have some good points, my suggestion would be breed from it, a generation or two down the track may be a pretty useful bee.


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

Riverderwent said:


> Are you north of Hot Springs and near the forest? I wonder what the feral bee population is in the Ouachita National Forest.


We live on the edge of Quachita National Forest, still within the Quachita Mountains, about 80 miles NW of Hot Springs and about 70 miles due South of Ft. Smith.
When I moved here I could find no Honeybees. The closest apiary that I knew of was about 4 miles away, yet we had no visitors from them. I believe they have since perished. There was a tree with bees in the forest that was known about 10 years ago to have bees. I had been keeping an eye on it before I got bees, but a couple of years later someone had cut out the side of the tree and burned the inside. I don't know if they robbed it or if it was a nuisance as it was near the entrance to a primitive camping spot. Having said all that, I don't know if it had been continually occupied prior to my discovery. I have since not found any more bees in the forest.
I have set out wet supers and cappings at the 4 compass points around my apiary. All bees seem to fly back to mine, although I'll admit sometimes it is hard to tell. I mostly watch to see from which direction the first to arrive and the last to go home.
Since about 2016 each Spring, except 2019, some of my hives have gained weight and started making white wax in late Feb. I am assuming they are robbing dead-outs. As from where these dead-outs originated, I can only guess. Maybe, they are the remnants of escaped swarms from my colonies. I used Snelgrove boards this year to stem the flow of swarms from here. I had one colony that swarmed and built Queen cells non stop it seemed. That Queen failed the hive tool test. I'll be watching mine carefully this Spring for robbing activity. I fear the mites they may be bringing back with them.
There are a lot of large apiaries around the Hot Springs, Pine Bluff, Ozark and Russleville areas. 
I get a few swarm and cut-out calls per year, but I turn them down because I don't want bees from unknown sources. My fear of EFB and AFB outweighs my curiosity.

Alex


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

AHudd said:


> Since about 2016 each Spring, except 2019, some of my hives have gained weight and started making white wax in late Feb. I am assuming they are robbing dead-outs. As from where these dead-outs originated, I can only guess.


Alex, thank you for the information. I wonder if the late February weight gain and wax could be from redbud or maple trees. I see a lot of nectar producing flowering vines and shrubs in the forests and flowering plants along roadsides and forest edges from Glenwood to Jessieville. There's certainly plenty of old hardwoods and vacant farmhouses and outbuildings to provide cavities for feral colonies to inhabit.


----------



## unstunghero (May 16, 2016)

msl said:


> A line of bee from a closed population breeding program selected for hygienic behavior and low mite counts did well with minimal treatments? Who would have thunk:lookout:
> 
> NWC have been used in lot of mite resistance breeding programs to bring in grooming traits among other things.


If this was in reference to my post above, you need to read my initial post that begins with "my history" on page 4.


----------



## unstunghero (May 16, 2016)

Riverderwent said:


> Alex, thank you for the information. I wonder if the late February weight gain and wax could be from redbud or maple trees. I see a lot of nectar producing flowering vines and shrubs in the forests and flowering plants along roadsides and forest edges from Glenwood to Jessieville. There's certainly plenty of old hardwoods and vacant farmhouses and outbuildings to provide cavities for feral colonies to inhabit.


Spring of 2017 was a great year for red maple, I stuck a honey box on my best colony and took 3 quarts of the honey and left them 3, they almost filled the whole Med. 8-frame box. Normally the weather doesn't allow for that type of flow and harvest. Usually in Feb. they get differing amounts from the red maple, with some henbit followed by purple deadnettle, then redbud.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

unstunghero said:


> Usually in Feb. they get differing amounts from the red maple, with some henbit followed by purple deadnettle, then redbud.


That’s helpful and interesting. Do you ever hear of feral bees or colonies that need to be removed in the Hot Springs area?


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> If this was in reference to my post above, you need to read my initial post that begins with "my history" on page 4


That was that the point of post #86
I said oops my bad once all ready when JL pointed out my mistake.
but, by request I will issue a 2nd.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

msl
Thank for the detailed aside.
Two thoughts; It would seem that the difference in mauling is in the initial detection of the mite. " Finding a proper control with no MBB at all is virtually impossible as this trait is likely observed in all honey bee colonies to a certain extent." What was the pass through percentage in the hives that were piling them up at the door? Were some hives just doing a better job at the door? (measured by no uptick in internal mite counts.

Likewise is there a relationship between external detection and internal detection. Is the difference in biter v not a sense of smell and not much else? And yes that does fall right into the pesticide question.

The method of OAV kill. Is it possible the kill does not come from burnt mite feet but from but a change in detection of the mite from the OAV followed by biting? Or does a burnt foot look different than a bit foot? ( Now I sound like a Oak Island announcer.)


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Legs bitten off look quite a bit different from feet burned by oxalic acid.

I speculated a couple of years ago that enhanced sense of smell is a mite tolerance trait expressed by bees that detect and remove mites, either as part of VSH behavior or as part of mite mauling and allogrooming.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> Legs bitten off look quite a bit different from feet burned by oxalic acid.


funny thing.. I see not a single study to support that hypothesis
despite internet rumors, I can't find a single study that shows OAV burns off mite feet , my challenge to you is for to provide a source that supports your claim that 
#1 OAV burns mite feet off, as proven by a microscope study, funny that... I do wonder why we look at mites killed by bees under a scope for "biteing" and not those killed by OAV 
#2 a OAV kill looks different from MBB action 

and ...go !:banana:


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I have read the hypothesis that a mites sticky feet are supplied with fluid through an un sphinctered duct that could transfer acidity to the mites body fluid and alter its Ph. That could affect its body odor and its ability to match hive smell. Result in being easier for the bees to detect them.

Another showed the probiscus apparently having been altered but that may have been a photo enhanced simulation.

Show us some actual photos of mangled mites and some ones exposed to OA. Both vaporized and dribbled 4%.

It is surprising there is not more substantial evidence in these matters since it does not seem like such a formidable mission to accomplish.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Fusion_power said:


> I speculated a couple of years ago that enhanced sense of smell is a mite tolerance trait expressed by bees that detect and remove mites....


The reverse is true. See Ghosts in the Hive. Video from the National Honey Show in 2013


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

It is actually the statement that the grooming at the entrance was triggered in group 3 when a high mite level was reached that got me pondering. 

In a normal "nose blind" scenario the build up in mites should begin to mask the strange mite smell. Is the chemical a bee irritation chemical or a mite chemical that triggers the high count grooming. As it the guard bees grooming it is not the individual bee irritation but it is a awareness triggered in another bee (if it is indeed a bee based chemical). Would be nice to have that chemical in a bottle. Would speculate it closely related to alarm pheromone.

Does the guard bee level of grooming extend to the house bees ? If a matter of strange mite detection then frame swapping of house bees would in theory provide the equivalent of a dosing.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

This one or another?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE4emUMyOWs

Just saw it is 2013 not 2014 as labeled


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Where have I seen that guy in the front row?

Now that is good stuff.


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

David, Around my neck of the woods we don't have many Maples, but we do have a lot of Willow. They could be getting a little from the Willows, but I'm not sure. When the Red Buds bloom, it is dramatic.
The thing that makes me think they are robbing dead-outs is that it is not all hives gain weight. It seems that one or two find something and somehow manage to keep it for themselves. If it was natural forage I think they would all gain. I was going to pay more attention this year, but it didn't occur.

I live in cattle country, so save but the National Forest and the Poteau River, a lot of the land is cleared. Anything that does well in the fence rows is plentiful. The Goldenrod seems to do well, post clearing, especially if not many cows are introduced.

I suspect the swarms that escaped in previous years are what is being robbed. I have much better swarm control in place now, so it should be easier to guess if we have survivors or escapees. If they are able to survive I should be able to find at least one, especially during the Spring flow. I will keep looking.

Good luck on your continued success.
Alex


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Saltybee said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE4emUMyOWs


Great video, thank you for posting Saltybee (and the reference Michael Palmer).

The bit about how a varroa mite can still assume a unique smell signature when dead certainly underscores how formidable a foe they are.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

The tip of the hat belongs to MP, the link to Google.

Did you catch the small cell reference? Maybe the problem with small cell is the goal is still too large.

A. cerana cells are of two sizes: smaller worker cells (diameter of 3.6±4.9 mm, depth of 1.01 mm;
Tingek, 1996 in [1,42,45,46]) and larger drone cells (diameter of 4.7±5.3 mm; [1,42,46]). In
comparison, A. mellifera worker cell sizes were approximately 4.9 mm average [64]. A. cerana drone
cells have a distinctly raised cap with a unique pore at their apex [42,65]. The size difference between
worker cells and drone cells is less pronounced in A. cerana than in A. mellifera [1]. Queen cells are
large conical cells built on the lower edge of the combs [42]. However, just as body size varies
geographically, so does worker cell size. Worker cells are larger in colder regions (e.g., Japan: 4.7±4.8 mm,
High Himalaya: 4.9 mm, Central India: 4.5 mm, Southern India: 4.3 mm, Phillippines: 3.6±4.0 mm;
Crane, 1993 in [1,42]. 
from https://www.mdpi.com › pdf

What is the general view of; https://www.geneticsmr.org/articles...arasitic-mite-varroa-destructor-in-africa.pdf


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> The reverse is true. See Ghosts in the Hive.


 Mites mimic the odor of the hive to camouflage their presence. Mite resistant bees seem able to overcome this. I don't have any proof other than that the bees somehow detect the mites and control their numbers. It is speculation, but I think we will find out eventually that enhanced sense of smell plays a part.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Yes that one. The presentation was 10/2013. Published the following March.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

More than simply masking scent. Following the life cycle of the bee by lipid make up. Imagine being able to mimic the "ready to cap" signal and sending the mite into a cell too early. Don't know what that would do to the bee though.

Or using the lipid film as a vehicle to direct disruption or death of the mite. 

What does OA do to the lipid film?

Fascinating basic science beyond my ability to do more than watch.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Oddly, when I tested some daughter queens from Purdue stock, they were the worst when looking at mite susceptibility..... but perhaps it was the supplier as acceptance was poor and the ones that did make it, the bees tried to supercede immediately which I was able to stop by knocking out cells for two weeks but again, they mited out pretty quickly. Tim Ives had an II breeder from the program as well and reported fairly poor survivability in daughter queens as well.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Michael Palmer said:


> The reverse is true. See Ghosts in the Hive. Video from the National Honey Show in 2013


How do the VSH bees detect mites making offspring in cells, if it were not odor?

"Removal of mite-infested brood is probably triggered by unusual odors that penetrate the cell cap to the outside where hygienic bees patrol the comb surface. "

https://bee-health.extension.org/varroa-sensitive-hygiene-and-mite-reproduction/



https://phys.org/news/2006-10-honey-bee-chemoreceptors.html

"Honey bees (Apis millifera) have 170 odorant receptors, the researchers found, compared with 62 in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) and 79 in mosquitoes (Anopheles gramblae).

The enhanced number of odorant receptors underlies the honey bee's remarkable olfactory abilities, including perception of pheromones, kin recognition signals, and social communication within the hive."


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

I think we are talking about two sides of the same coin. Bees use scent to find mites, mites use scent to hide. Word phrasing depends upon looking at it from the bee side or the mite side. Not an actual disagreement on biology .


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Saltybee said:


> I think we are talking about two sides of the same coin. Bees use scent to find mites, mites use scent to hide. Word phrasing depends upon looking at it from the bee side or the mite side. Not an actual disagreement on biology .


How do the VSH bees detect mites making offspring in cells, if it were not odor?

According to the YouTube "Ghosts in the Hive." She suggested, that the odor being detected is the "sick" pupae , as the mites absorb or pick up the scent, from the host , so likely would not smell much different from the bee. As the mites bite/feed on the young bee the odor of the bee changes to that of a "sick" bee


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

Not necessarily odd, between the 2 SAREs https://projects.sare.org/project-reports/fne16-836/



> Overall, our results show that Purdue stocks selected for mite biting behavior (MBB) damage a larger percentage of the mites within the colony as shown by the rate of biting behavior in the sticky board tests. This difference between the MBB colonies and Controls seems to persist through the Fall. Colony weight and overall mite population (inferred from daily drop rates), do not significantly differ between the Purdue Stock and the Controls.
> 
> The erratic data can also be attributed to the vast differences of test dates, 8/18/17 to 11/15/17 between the 7 bee yards, and the interpretation of a ‘chewed mite’ on the sticky boards by the 7 different technicians.
> 
> ...


one also has to remember the II program is different then most... Producers bring there own local virgins to be IIed with MBB semen so there can be a good bit of variability (thats the point) From this local MBB cross you select those with the best traits (40%+ bitten mites and local adaption) and use them as breeders.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Saltybee said:


> I think we are talking about two sides of the same coin. Bees use scent to find mites, mites use scent to hide. Word phrasing depends upon looking at it from the bee side or the mite side. Not an actual disagreement on biology .


???? I don´t understand your comment.


These two were writing about bees ability to detect mites by sense of smell. 




Fusion_power said:


> I speculated a couple of years ago that enhanced sense of smell is a mite tolerance trait expressed by bees that detect and remove mites,


which Michael Palmer denied saying:


Michael Palmer said:


> The reverse is true. See Ghosts in the Hive. Video from the National Honey Show in 2013




Mites hiding(by changing odor) in bees does not remove the fact that the bees most probably find mites inside cells with good sense of smell.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

"Mites hiding(by changing odor) in bees does not remove the fact that the bees most probably find mites inside cells with good sense of smell." 

I agree totally. The fact that mites are so well adapted to matching the hosts scent is strong indication that it is crucial.

If I got MP's point correctly he was simply pointing out that scent is also the mites method of preventing detection. So what comes after that step?

What the further method of detection/ removal is used after the 3 hour window of scent matching, I do not know.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Saltybee said:


> "Mites hiding(by changing odor) in bees does not remove the fact that the bees most probably find mites inside cells with good sense of smell."
> 
> I agree totally. The fact that mites are so well adapted to matching the hosts scent is strong indication that it is crucial.
> 
> ...


Again , in the Q&A of the "Ghosts in the hive" a question was asked how do the bees find the mites sealed in the cells if the Mites are "masquerading the same scent as the bee" The answer given was the bees were detecting the scent of a "Sick" pupae, not the mites inside the cell. Once the Mite bites the Pupae it had a different smell due to the stress of the bite or the non Heath "sick" smell. I.E. pupae bitten smell different than healthy ones.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Gray Goose said:


> The answer given was the bees were detecting the scent of a "Sick" pupae, not the mites inside the cell.


VSH bees remove only the mites which make offspring (=new mites).

If the bees are reacting to sick pupa, how is this possible?


Good sense of smell is the answer, most probably.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

If it is the stress of the larva that is detected, then the mite matching that scent does not help it to hide.

It is possible that a similar sequence happens in adult bees. Particularly in the case of bees which only react to a high mite load, the stress scent might not be restricted/contained in the lipid layer. Hence cloaking does not work.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> If the bees are reacting to sick pupa, how is this possible?


foundress feeding wound?


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Juhani Lunden said:


> VSH bees remove only the mites which make offspring (=new mites).
> 
> If the bees are reacting to sick pupa, how is this possible?
> 
> ...


the lecture stated the Adult (female) that hopped in the cell older brown hard shelled. Bites the Pupae and makes a hole then the babies (smaller) with soft shell, clime to the hole and start feeding. that Bite/hole causes stress in the pupae, if caring virus also infects the pupae. it then has a different smell, stressed and maybe sick VRS happy and healthy. the nurse bees can smell the difference. So in reality the "smell stressed Pupae" is not a new genetic emergence it is a different pathogen being found in a similar manner to the old pathogens. 
watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE4emUMyOWs


----------



## JoshuaW (Feb 2, 2015)

Hi JRG13,

I just spent a day with someone who very closely follows the Purdue program, and uses a lot of their stock. I won't mention his name, for his sake.

He reported that Purdue's stock got watered down so much they had to get stock from a participant breeder to maintain the line.


----------



## JoshuaW (Feb 2, 2015)

Also, fwiw, this friend also told me that the COMB Project was started with purportedly mite-resistant stock from Tennessee and Pennsylvania.

Again, I'd rather not name names for the sake of maintaining anonymity.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

> told me that the COMB Project was started with purportedly mite-resistant stock


The source has been named for the start bolth by comb and the 1st post of this thread the problem is they weren't "started" with the stock, it was plugged in the fall




> He reported that Purdue's stock got watered down so much they had to get stock from a participant breeder to maintain the line.


That is the way of bees, and the point of a cooperative breeding program


----------



## JoshuaW (Feb 2, 2015)

Still, the stock is involved. And it's dying.

If genetics get watered down and that is the way of bees, what's the point of all this discussion?


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

msl said:


> foundress feeding wound?


And the foundress not making offspring does not make a wound? I think all mites must eat. 

Better explanation is that when making successfully offspring mites create some pheromone so that bees open these cells and remove just these mites.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

sure, but there is something going on with the ones the don't make offspring as that number is much higher in a VSH hive... recapping perhaps


----------



## rinkevichjm (Feb 14, 2018)

JWChesnut said:


> The COMB project colocates 12 hives, 4 each in a "Conventional", "Organic Acid" and "Chemical Free" management strategy, at the apiaries of participating beekeepers.
> 
> The COMB project's researcher Dr. Robyn Underwood has posted a (rather skeletal) update.
> 
> ...


The problem with this study is that it treats chemical free as a single entity. We already know the Asian bees keep their brood nest temperature higher than European bees do, so the genetic work must include selecting for higher brooding temperatures. One chemical free segment uses this to increase the hive temperatures to above 40C for 2.5 hours thereby killing or rendering infertile all the hive mites. This group is not included in the study, which is unfortunate.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

msl said:


> sure, but there is something going on with the ones the don't make offspring as that number is much higher in a VSH hive... recapping perhaps


OK, 

This is interesting.

There are several possibilities:
VSH bees open all cells containing mites (detected by sense of smell, sick bee odor, or whatever) and then they after opening the cell discover, again by their sense of smell ("reproducing mite smell is missing!"), that this mite is not reproducing, so the bees close the cell and leave the mite and pupa alone. 

Or just as well VSH could do it this way: 
- they open all cells with mites (sick bee odor)
- if the hive is a 100% VSH bee then just opening the cell influences the mites(some chemical coming from the bees) in such a way they don´t make offspring
- 50% VSH bee can do this trick to half of the mites


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

"if the hive is a 100% VSH bee then just opening the cell influences the mites(some chemical coming from the bees) in such a way they don´t make offspring"

Not really as far out there as my first take impression. In the history of insect chemical warfare it is unlikely the honeybee has not encountered other mites. A hold over ability to sterilize your enemy makes total sense.


----------



## Spur9 (Sep 13, 2016)

JoshuaW said:


> mite-resistant stock from Tennessee


We all brag about that down here. Right along with "Hey, hold my beer!"


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> Purdue's stock got watered down so much they had to get stock from a participant breeder to maintain the line.


 Which highlights that mating process is both boon and bane of breeding honeybees. The advantages of multiple mating with a diverse group of drones is easily shown. The disadvantage is that concentrating small effect genes is very difficult.




> hold my beer!


 Asking a ******* to "hold my beer!" is right up there with saying "hey ya'll, watch this!"

To explain for international readers, "hey ya'll, watch this!" usually precedes some idiot doing something to edit themselves out of the gene pool.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

"To explain for international readers, "hey ya'll, watch this!" usually precedes some idiot doing something to edit themselves out of the gene pool."

Your just doing it wrong. Can get you into the gene pool too. 
Even a northerner does not think ******** are going to die out anytime soon.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

msl said:


> LOL
> About the only worth wile thing so far in this study is was (at lest for me) the final death nail in small cell as a mite fighting measure... but it is of note the SC hives made more honey per hive
> adaquitily tested on a large enough scale with enough hives


I do not propose that small cell and narrow frames are a mite fighting utility other than you'll likely have very strong hive populations that, GIVEN MITE FIGHTING TRAITS, handle mite loads somewhat better than hives with weaker hive populations. 

I DO propose that 5.1 cell size combined with narrow frames brings the hive population up faster, thus taking better advantage of the Spring nectar / pollen flow. This seems to hold *especially true* when it is heavy and/or early nectar and pollen flow, or a short-lived flow due to single or very limited heavy rains in the early Winter followed by little or very light rainfall totals (exactly what I've been experiencing in the last 14 years).



msl said:


> As exciting as it is... MB/MM bees have the limitation of like many TX only going after photic mites, the mites could counter with a shorter period, there are TF groups that claim this has already happened in response to chemical treatments, but I haven't seen any real data.....doses make you wonder about the people saying they need 20 OAVs a year thow.....


Yes, that is why it is effective with a brood break, or combine mite mauling with limited VHS, or with allogrooming, the mites seem to be kept in check a lot better.

My successes are coming with mite biting and drone frame removal (if and only if mites are detected - not a blanket treatment. Drones are necessary to keep hive temperature high at night.)

But, like I say, just my hunch, no scientific study attached, to turbo loadabunk.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

new talk coming








Welcome! You are invited to join a webinar: WAS AGM & Dec Mini-Conference. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the webinar.


Agenda: Topic 1: The COMB Project: Conventional and Organic Management of Bees, Dr Robyn Underwood Topic 2: WAS Annual AGM - Business Meeting Speaker Bio: Dr. Robyn Underwood was born and raised in Pennsylvania. She studied Entomology and Applied Ecology for her BSc from the University of...




us02web.zoom.us


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

msl said:


> new talk coming
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting. Will be interesting to hear what she has to say on the topic. She didn't respond to my query about formic brood brushing as something to be studied even though I know she prefers organic methods of control.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Dr. Underwood updated the COMB research and said the paper written on the project has been submitted which frees her to show more of the data.

1) One (out of an intial 96) "Treatment Free" colonies survived to the third year. (Survival average 27% year over year).
2) Survival of the Amitraz treated colonies and the "Organic" (ie Formic/Oxalic/Thymol) was nearly identical (Survival of >75% year over year with splits allowing rebuilding on colony stocks).
3) Dr. Underwood announced a new four year grant that will intensivive study "organic" Varroa methods (ie Formic/Oxalic/Thymol, Drone brood removal etc) with the intention of updating US "organic" certification guidelines --- and unlocking the economic benefits of certificated "organic" labeling of US honey and beekeeping.

4) Dr Underwood noted that "treatment free" beekeeping will *categorically* fail to be "organically certified" becasue it violates ethical standards for keeping live animals safe from avoidable death.

In short, the "Death Cult" of Treatment free beekeeping cannot and will not ever be considered "organic".


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> Dr. Underwood updated the COMB research and said the paper written on the project has been submitted which frees her to show more of the data.
> 
> 1) One (out of an intial 96) "Treatment Free" colonies survived to the third year. (Survival average 27% year over year).
> 2) Survival of the Amitraz treated colonies and the "Organic" (ie Formic/Oxalic/Thymol) was nearly identical (Survival of >75% year over year with splits allowing rebuilding on colony stocks).
> ...


JWChestnut, I believe you should also show her 3 categories in the study to better define the graphs. All 3 Management types were requeened the first year with mated sister queens from an apiary in NY.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Dr. Underwood's new grant will track foragers with radar, and time enter and exits for foragers using a bar-code technology, as well as other research. This seeks to corroborate previous findings that *given* a suitable forage source, the foraging radius of colonies is about 0.7 kilometers. The implication of the reduced de facto foraging radius is that the "3 mile organic crops only" requirement for organic honey certification is overly restrictive, and apiaries inside small "organic" zones should be able to acquire the coveted "organic" certification.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Dr. Underwood's data on Varroa abundance in her three treatment systems is instructive. It illustrates 1) the relative "halcyon" year that new colonies, whatever their management, experience. 2) Illustrates the likelyhood of "treatment free" mite crashes that follow in the 2nd year.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

well that is an out dated management graphitic, as they did much more treatment is year 2-3 then the package year (presumably do the brood less dribble onthe packages seting the mites back) the JW provided a link to the newer one in the 1st post along with some important information about the queens











JWChesnut said:


> In the fall of 2018 all colonies in the project were requeened with "feral, TF survivors" from a colony cut out of a house soffit in Jim Thorpe, PA. I find it important to note that these new queens swarmed prodigiously in 2019. "Despite our best efforts, only 11 PA colonies did not swarm. That means that only about 10% of the colonies made it through the season without a brood break."


----------



## elmer_fud (Apr 21, 2018)

msl said:


>


This table really bothers me from a scientific standpoint. There are way to many different variables between the hives. Put all 3 sets of hives in the same hive configuration (cover, bottom board). I can sort of see the value of a different comb size, but that is another variable. Also go with the same winter feeding method instead of 2 (or 3) different methods. I am also not sure if treating 3 times a year, with overlapping methods and treatments is masking the effectiveness of a single treatment not working well. Is the spring treatment going really well so the effectiveness of the summer one is hidden, or something similar. When you are running a good science experiment you want to minimize (to ideally 1) variable that you change at a time instead of changing everything at once. 

I did not attend the webinar, or find her paper, but this is what that I am seeing with the above table. 

.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

systems have a lot of variables and this was a system test, not a even playing field of a single item



elmer_fud said:


> am also not sure if treating 3 times a year, with overlapping methods and treatments is masking the effectiveness of a single treatment not working well.


hives were treated when they hit or exceeded 1%

they did a LOT to satisfice the "stake holders" and foucs groups IE they couldn't have plastic in CF...so that's why its a cotton duct cover, they cut the small cell foundation out of single piece plastic frames and put it in wood frame and coated it with TF wax to seal it, as they had studies to show going foundation less would leave the CF at a disadvantage

despite some weird grouping of things(candy boards are conventional?, what commercial operator has time for that, almost none of them run Screened bottoms either, thats a hobiest thing..etc ), in the end it showed us what most of us what all ready felt to be true.
soft cems work if you use them right and if you go CF there is a large chance of massive losses even of you follow the "rules" the gurus set down


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

Video of the webcast has been added to youtube


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

That was not a bad project. Nothing she spoke of was earth shattering, but she did reinforce alot of points that where heretofore questionable. I wonder why she could not make a normal honey crop with packages on foundation the first year???
We do so with consistency.

Crazy Roland.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Only thing she said that I struggled with is she said that EFB is a nutritional disease which can be cured by increasing the ratio of nurse bees to larvae so the larvae will be fed better.
Maybe true, don't know, would be interested to hear others speak to that.

A comment on the comparison between the organic treated hives and the conventional treated hives, because of the fact that both groups were treated as required once mite numbers reached a threshold, logic would dictate there would not be much difference between the 2 groups, and there wasn't. the only difference is the one that wasn't mentioned, the time and expense needed to achieve the result.

One good thing about this study is they followed each hive as an individual and did not make up losses by splitting. Well, they did, but the splits were not included in the study. A more honest and reliable approach than some work been done in the past.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

Oldtimer said:


> Maybe true, don't know, would be interested to hear others speak to that.


my understand that is yes... but only to a point, if you look at how "old" efb was treated
it went away with the flow...ie hive scaled back brood rearing and the nurse to lava ratio increased 
shook swarming on to foundation does the same thing....changes the nurse to brood ratio.. all of a sunder a lot of nurses and little brood 
requeening... again shifts the nurce to brood ratio do to the induced brood break 

I


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I thought about that too, Oldtimer, and wrote it off as just being one of the important factors, not the sole cause. Time will tell as more research is done. It was never a problem here.

Crazy Roland.


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

Fusion_power said:


> I'm 60 which is getting on up there a bit, but not good enough to go back to the early 1900's.
> 
> beemandan, I'll challenge you the other way. What do you think are the most important mite resistance traits? You don't even need citations, just a good well educated opinion.


Swarming more than beekeepers like is my opinion.


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

Fusion Power said



Fusion_power said:


> ... Bees that are consistently treated will live but never develop mite resistance.


I think that is incorrect.

It assumes that bees in hives where the mites are treated - I have never treated bees, only mites - are not under any selection pressure.

This is obviously incorrect, as bees in hives where the mites are treated sometimes succumb to mite infestation. 

I would further assert that those who advocate for treatment free have given no thought to what level of selection pressure will produce the most rapid change in population resistance.

Their preference appears to be the more severe the selection pressure the better. This is foolish to the point of madness. It didn't work for the American Chestnut, and isn't working for the Tasmanian Devil.

Selection pressure on a population ALWAYS results in loss of genetic diversity.

Second Topic

The bees selected for this trial were chosen to fit the current narrative about locally adapted bees.

Those who say they used the wrong bees are strongly encouraged to re run the experiment with the right bees.

As a thought experiment, what sort of outcome would result from choosing the right bees? Perhaps the TF bees would have comparable survival to the treated bees?

I would like to see that experiment. 

As it is, this study only shows that locally adapted bees are pretty good against mites (the TF colonies had better survival than I would have expected, and their sisters in the treated colonies did better than average for PA.)


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I've run my own experiment since 2005. My bees are alive and thriving. Swarms from my bees in the local area are thriving, I catch several per year. But you don't make much honey from a hive that swarms so I guess maybe a good question to ask is how come I produce a crop of honey? It could have something to do with making a spring split from any colonies strong enough to swarm before the flow. That is usually half to 3/4 of my colonies.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

All that split making and swarm collecting masks losses.

That was the good thing about the Pen State Comb Project is they did not do that, they just followed the original hive, which tells the real story. 3 years down the track and only one CF hive still alive.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

True that Oldtimer. Do we know if that one surviving hive still had' it's original Queen? If all of the original queens where sisters from a queen that was treatment free for ???? years (was it 3+ ???), . I would like to know why more did NOT survive. Will we hear the usual, "They requeened with "bad drones", or "mite drift" ???

Crazy Roland


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Roland said:


> True that Oldtimer. Do we know if that one surviving hive still had' it's original Queen? If all of the original queens where sisters from a queen that was treatment free for ???? years (was it 3+ ???), . I would like to know why more did NOT survive. Will we hear the usual, "They requeened with "bad drones", or "mite drift" ???
> 
> Crazy Roland


Keep in mind Roland, that with 18-30 baby daddies the sisters may not have been full sisters, and then the sisters each had 18-30 drones, and they may have had different mixes of patra lines in each hive.
one worked, hard to open mate sisters that are exact copies of each other.
ya one would expect sisters to do similar.

GG


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Roland said:


> Do we know if that one surviving hive still had' it's original Queen?


She said that the hives superseded etc. If that happened it was allowed as part of the "local bees" thing. Most likely few if any of them ended up with the original queen.


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

Gray Goose said:


> Keep in mind Roland, that with 18-30 baby daddies the sisters may not have been full sisters, and then the sisters each had 18-30 drones, and they may have had different mixes of patra lines in each hive.
> one worked, hard to open mate sisters that are exact copies of each other.
> ya one would expect sisters to do similar.
> 
> GG


They did similar. They all died. (well, one didn't, but there are always outliers)

It gives us a snapshot of one Locally Adapted Feral Survival Population going TF in one location.

Some other population of LAFS might have done better, some might have done worse.

Anyone who thinks they have a group of LAFS that would be comparable TF to the same bees run in hives that are treated should pony up. They would be famous.

I know that if you split aggressively you can keep some bees TF in some locations and not have them all die. If you have a good flow you should be able to make honey too.

Until somebody ponies up the magic LAFS, it looks like TF is not yet ready for prime time. If you can't buy bees, and are ideologically opposed to treating, (or if you just like torturing bees) you can make TF work in some locations.


----------

