# Looking for Treatment-Free Study



## philip.devos (Aug 10, 2013)

Sorry I can't help you, but I wanted to ask if you remember the reason (or guess) for the bees rebounding, i.e. did they develop a resistance to the virus that varroa carry?


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

"Survival of mite infested honey bee colonies in a Nordic climate" by Fries.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

They did not study the mechanism, just what happened. But it was obviously a case of survival of the fittest bees and mites. 

ARBeek, I think that is it, but Googling that title does not get me to an article. Any ideas how I can locate the article?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Gee Neil, maybe the problem is you used Bing or Yahoo search engines instead of Google? :scratch: :lookout: 

Try this link ... http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2006/05/m6039.pdf


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

"Honey bee colonies that have survived Varroa Destructor" Apidologie vol. 38 may interest you also.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

That's the one!!! 

I used Google, but it took me to a gigantic list and to articles written in some Nordic-looking language.


----------



## xphoney (Nov 7, 2014)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. 

If I am reading it correctly, the author suggests that natural evolutionary mite controls can exist if the population can be kept mostly isolated. .....And if it does not kill them outright. LOL

This is probably what we see in operations like Michael Bush and Tim Ives. In fact I think both have said as much.

Andrew


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This is probably what we see in operations like Michael Bush and Tim Ives. In fact I think both have said as much.

Here's what I have said:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Folks such as I have had great success using "treatment free" bees developed by some of the breeders. My guess is some of those breeders did not do any studies per se, they just kept breeding survivors until they got the survival rate up to a very acceptable level. FWIW, my losses this year were only 13%

Regards,
Steven


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> Here's what I have said:
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm


I love this quote Michael, thank you:

""Bees that combine genuine hardiness, mite-resistance and productivity can only be maintained in the long run by having many hundreds of colonies constantly exposed to mites—and all the other known and unknown stresses in the real world, commercial beekeeping environment. This is the only way the bees can be tested for all the characteristics they need in order to thrive. And this testing and selection must continue year after year—to keep building up their resilience, and help the bees adapt to a changing world."—Kirk Webster"

Your piece seems to me to be slightly unclear about the difference - or not - between forced small cell and natural cell. Sometime you speak as if they are interchangable. Is this because you believe that forcing large bees to regress is necessary - or distinctly advantageous - if you have large bees top begin with; but if you already have smallish bees that make smallish cells, and continue being small, then there's no advantage to small cell plastic frames? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Your piece seems to me to be slightly unclear about the difference - or not - between forced small cell and natural cell. Sometime you speak as if they are interchangable. Is this because you believe that forcing large bees to regress is necessary - or distinctly advantageous - if you have large bees top begin with; but if you already have smallish bees that make smallish cells, and continue being small, then there's no advantage to small cell plastic frames? 

The concept is smaller (more natural sized) cells. Both have smaller cells. In that respect they are interchangeable as far as cause and effect. I put the bees on both small cell and foundationless in about 2001 and 2002. I did the natural cell to see what they would build because I did not know what that was and whether or not 4.9mm was in the range of what they would build. Since after two turnovers of comb, what they built was well in the range of 4.9mm (much was 4.6mm) I decided either was an acceptable way to get to smaller cells. I have smaller cells either way. I see the same effect on the Varroa either way. My natural comb in the core of the brood nest is smaller than the 4.9mm. So if I'm "forcing" them to do anything by using small cell it's that I'm forcing them to build BIGGER cells in the core of the brood nest. I have never "forced" the bees on small cell anymore than anyone has ever "forced" the bees on large cell. I would probably be running all natural cell if I had the time to make all the frames, but the Mann Lake PF120s at the time I bought them were less than $1 each in bulk and I didn't have time to make all those frames. So I bought 3,000 of the PF120s. Frames that I can pull out of the box and put in the hive and solve my Varroa issues is a huge advantage when I have very little time.


----------

