# Beekeeping with microbes - treatment-free



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

I saw a talk in Philadelphia recently by Laurie Herboldsheimer (Ramona), who with Dean Stiglitz wrote a treatment-free manual for beekeeping, "_The Complete Idiots Guide_." Ramona has been exploring the topic of microbial ecology and how important it is in the natural environment for bees.

So here's a video of her talk: 





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQvzIH016tc​
In another thread in the General Topics section, we've been discussing different ways to use these ideas to change what we do as beekeepers. Part of that conversation is about how bad different treatments are for the microbes. But for many beekeepers, treatments are still part of the plan, and in that thread, we're not necessarily avoiding treatments.

The most beneficial change, obviously, is to avoid treatments of all sorts, so the bees and the microbes can establish a harmonious mutual-aid community that deals with pests, diseases, and other problems most effectively. But for those who are already avoiding treatments, I wonder what else is there to do? Are there other specific ways that people can think of to take advantage of what we know about microbes in the hive?

For example, what about taking bees from healthy hives — can we put them into hives that are doing poorly? If microbes in the donor colony are helpful, is that one way to inoculate and get the good microbes established in the other colony? Somewhere I read that hives will accept nurse bees from another colony, even if they'll fight off foragers. Are there ways to finesse that transfer of bees from one colony to another?

Or is it enough, say, to transfer a frame of brood comb to the weaker hive, which is often done but generally without the nurse bees? There are microbes on the comb, in the cappings as Ramona says in her talk.

And another line of questions... I'm trying to work my own hives towards treatment-free. I won't go into details here, just to say I'm not there yet. In Philadelphia a lot of beekeepers have found the easiest way is to start with commercial packages of bees, with the idea of moving towards more natural methods. Some steps include: requeening from better (local) stock, going foundation-free to avoid chemically-tainted foundation, drone-trapping and sugar dusting to keep mite levels down, not limiting the brood nest with a queen excluder, trying to go small-cell, welcoming queen succession (via splitting or supersedure) as a way to get local genetics from local drones, and selectively breeding from our most well-adapted bees. (A lot of these ideas are explained in the _Idiots Guide_ book.) So the question is, in this transition how can beekeepers foster the microbial communities? Which of these interim methods seem most likely to help or handicap the microbial ecology?

What about smoke? What about ventilation? Location? Shade? Access to diverse vegetation? Etc. What can treatment-free beekeepers do to improve the "balancing act" with bees, mites, molds, fungi, and bacteria?

Thanks for your ideas. I think Ramona's talk is a good starting point for this discussion, and I highly recommend the video for anyone who hasn't really thought about beekeeping with microbes in mind.

.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

You have some interesting questions. I'm watching the video so I may have more to say afterwards, but I've already seen an earlier version of this presentation. Ramona has been giving it for a couple years.

A thought about moving bees to poor performing hives: If the hive is handicapped due to microbial imbalance, then moving microbes will not help because they'll be subject to the same effects as in the hive already is. The best you could expect would be dilution of the treated comb with non-treated combs, but then you're still asking for further imbalance due to the effect still existing. It's not like moving a hive to a new location or an animal to a new cage. Bacteria and fungi live much faster than higher animals and are much more affected by environmental conditions in the short term.

The simple solution to fostering the correct microbial community is to not mess with it by putting gunk in the hive, be it antibiotics, oils, or sugar.

Don't worry about smoke. Ventilation should be adequate as usual, same with location and shade and forage. Again, the best thing you can do to keep the correct balance is just to leave them alone. The perfect balance will naturally be present in a totally un-interfered-with colony.

But this whole issue only applies to microbial diseases and those that ferment pollen. The major issue still in beekeeping today is mites which microbes only affect indirectly. If the hive is weak, it will have more problems with every pest depending on conditions.

So in conclusion, I don't believe you can do any more to help with the microbial issue other than not doing anything to the hive. Treatments will have an effect, sugar will have an effect, and most especially antibiotics will have an effect. Never use antibiotics.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Putting brood, frames, and comb from healthy hives into lagging hives is common management practice. Oddly enough, so is the opposite, culling lagging colonies by combining them with stronger colonies.

But, I've never heard of someone taking frames from a resistant colony and combining them with non-resistant colonies to see if resistance can be transferred that way.

I'd like to make the point that there is a constant flux in the microflora both inside and outside the hive. In fact, many of those microbes make their own antibiotics, and even those microbes can be replaced by microbes producing different antibiotics.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Solomon Parker said:


> A thought about moving bees to poor performing hives: If the hive is handicapped due to microbial imbalance, then moving microbes will not help because they'll be subject to the same effects as in the hive already is.


The concept here, from the video, is that the nurse bees from the other colony are carrying beneficial microbes in their lower intestines. Emerging brood in the receiving hive will get an 'inoculation' of the good bacteria through _proctodeal trophylaxis_ (ingesting poop from the nurse bees). This is documented in studies of termites, so it's a working hypothesis for honeybees.

It's an idea worth trying, but as a newbie beekeeper (3 years and counting) I'm not sure how to get bees from one colony to the other, and make sure their 'contribution' is accepted.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

WLC said:


> I've never heard of someone taking frames from a resistant colony and combining them with non-resistant colonies to see if resistance can be transferred that way.


"Resistant" meaning disease resistance? I was thinking more generally, of transferring bees from a thriving colony to another which is weak for whatever reason, but I think watching specifically for hives that show higher levels of resistance to disease would be a good way to operationalize this sort of experiment. For those of us with only a handful of hives, it would be sort of an act of faith that it helps, not any sort of controlled experiment. So for us, is there any reason _not_ to do it? I.e., would the effects be benign if not actually beneficial?



WLC said:


> I'd like to make the point that there is a constant flux in the microflora both inside and outside the hive. In fact, many of those microbes make their own antibiotics, and even those microbes can be replaced by microbes producing different antibiotics.


I think that's another area to watch for research about, and maybe to experiment with. Are microflora moving between hives in the same apiary? How? Do the "better" microbes tend to spread more easily, to edge out those that are not helping out so much?

In the video, Ramona makes a good point, how there aren't "good" microbes and "bad" microbes. But I think somehow there might be some that are "better," and I guess that's a premise in my questions. So it's not just the "balance" that the microbes achieve given the conditions of the hive, but specific species of bacteria, molds, and yeasts.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

To me, the idea that a colony is a very complex ecosystem seems blindingly obvious.

It's one of the reasons I decided to start out treatment free. It seemed to me that the conventional advice, which is often that a new beekeeper should treat until he figures out the basics of beekeeping, is backwards. If you start out by putting stuff into the hive that damages that ecosystem in ways that can't be easily quantified, how will you know how to diagnose the problem when things go wrong? If you treat, you have introduced a lot of variables. 

This might not be a problem, if treatment were some kind of panacea that guaranteed success, but I keep seeing posts from folks who have lost a lot of hives this winter despite treatment.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"In the video, Ramona makes a good point, how there aren't "good" microbes and "bad" microbes. But I think somehow there might be some that are "better," and I guess that's a premise in my questions. So it's not just the "balance" that the microbes achieve given the conditions of the hive, but specific species of bacteria, molds, and yeasts. "

I know for a fact that there are definitely 'bad' microbes, even when it comes to beekeeping.

Even when you don't disrupt the balance by treating, 'bad' microbes can become a problem because of what's occurring in the local environment. It's one of the reasons why probiotics, and even prebiotics, are terms that are starting to enter the beekeeper's lexicon.

I'll advocate for exploring the possibilities and practical applications of both probiotics and prebiotics in beekeeping.

But, in terms of probiotics, I'm starting to think that LAB are just bit players. I've got a good mind to add some potassium metabisulfite to one of my ferments one of these days.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

What about the fact that microbes are _already_ being transferred between neighboring hives through drifting?

I find it impossible to conclude that the microbes in _this_ hive aren't already in _that_ hive unless _that_ hive has been treated with antibiotics or antifungals in which case it won't do any good to put them there.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

How different would beneficial probiotics and prebiotics be between vertibrates and insects?


----------



## Phoebee (Jan 29, 2014)

heaflaw said:


> How different would beneficial probiotics and prebiotics be between vertibrates and insects?


Probiotics and prebiotics would differ greatly between insects and insects, and between vertebrates and vertebrates. Between insects and vertebrates, the difference would be enormous.

There is a long quote from Robert Heinlein describing the diverse talents that a human being should have. It ends, "Specialization is for insects."

A huge part of that specialization is in the microbial flora carried by insects, and how the insects have adapted to support their needed partners. A simple adaptation to support one microbe versus another can separate otherwise closely-related species. An example can be found in Jewel Wasps:

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6146/667.figures-only

In this case, the two closely-related species of wasps have different flora. A hybrid between them can't survive ... the flora are fatal to the second generation males of the hybrid. So even in species that close, if you made a probiotic preparation (live organisms) to support one species, it might kill the other. And likewise, to support that specific flora, a species probably needs to seek specific nutrients the microbes need (marketing guys would call this prebiotics ... wasps would call this feeding on what they need).

There might be some microbes in common between insects and vertebrates if they shared a food source. I would not be surprised to find that bees and hummingbirds share a few microbes related to nectar. Cows and termites have some generally similar types of cellulose-digesting organisms in their digestive systems. But generally, species are usually tied to a very specific niche, which in large part is based on their food, and that food preference will be tied to the kinds of micro-organisms on which the species depends.

A little word on "probiotics" may be in order. Humans have their own microbial flora, typically messed up by our use of antibiotics these days. While it is true enough that the health of our gut microbes influences us, and that we can take in things like lactobacteria from yoghurt, much of what you hear about probiotics is marketing hype. I say that as a user of probiotics. I can tell a difference in my intestinal ... uh ... comfort if I use some brands, but it is also quite clear to me that whatever benefit I get from using them goes away in a few days after I stop taking them. In other words, while you can get a temporary benefit from forcing your intestinal flora to change, the organisms thus introduced from commercial capsules of probiotic don't persist. They don't "fix" the problem. The manufacturers have no desire at all to introduce something in a $0.10 capsule that will cure you. They want you to have to keep popping a couple of those a day for as long as they can con you into it. It is possible to transplant healthy intestinal organisms from person to person, although the details are a bit gross and it would be hard to sell as oral caplets.

Bees, on the other hand, have exactly one way to carry and exchange nectar, and the whole hive gets in to the act. Transmission of the organisms they need is assured (also the organisms they _don't_ need). I'm skeptical of any idea that we could market a "probiotic" to promote healthy flora of bees. Bees are equipped to do this themselves, if we don't mess up the process.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Solomon Parker said:


> What about the fact that microbes are _already_ being transferred between neighboring hives through drifting?
> I find it impossible to conclude that the microbes in _this_ hive aren't already in _that_ hive unless _that_ hive has been treated with antibiotics or antifungals in which case it won't do any good to put them there.


It all has to do with how the bees get inoculated.

Larva do not have a sterile gut, but shed the entire lining of the alimentary canal (and contents) just before they pupate...the adult, emerging bee does have a sterile gut.

The route of inoculation is different even between the 8 core species of gut bacteria. At first, like the pollen, there seems to be a plethora of (probably some kind of opurtunistic) microbes, which are gradually replaced by the core set. Some of this research is ongoing and not yet published, but suffice to say that the bees acquire the core set in their first few days of life, which gradually grows to fill the gut over the next bunch of days. I think it's unlikely that any of the core set gets displaced after it is well established. Nosema could be an exception, but I can't think of another microbial bee disease that infects and attacks adult bees.

I think there is a 'kettle' of sorts back at the hive where the microbial community is fostered. It _may_ be that a frame of emerging bees, nurse bees, comb, etc can influence another hive in a way that drifters can't...for instance, do drifting bees have direct contact with young house/nurse bees?

deknow


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Thanks Phoebee. Very informative for someone like me with no background knowledge.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Kofu said:


> It's an idea worth trying, but as a newbie beekeeper (3 years and counting) I'm not sure how to get bees from one colony to the other, and make sure their 'contribution' is accepted.


That isn't clear to anyone. Ramona's comments are based upon the common manipulation of 'boosting' a hive with a frame of emerging brood and adhereing bees. There is more going on than simply a boost in population...what the commonly observed positive effects from doing this is actually due to we don't really know.

On the other hand, look at the common advice...boost a weak colony from a strong colony....combine a weak colony with a strong colony. 

Note that you are not advised to bust up a weak colony and spread the frames to stronger colonies (presumably because they may have a disease like foulbrood, nosema, chalkbrood ,etc). What are these diseases but 'microbial imbalances' that we are afraid might influence our strong colonies if frames are transferred.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

deknow said:


> It _may_ be that a frame of emerging bees, nurse bees, comb, etc can influence another hive in a way that drifters can't...for instance, do drifting bees have direct contact with young house/nurse bees?
> 
> deknow


good stuff dean. is it known to what degree that incoming nectar and water are passed around from the foragers to the house bees?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

heaflaw said:


> How different would beneficial probiotics and prebiotics be between vertibrates and insects?


It's clear that they would form different communities, although they would have many genera in common.

I've inoculated milk with honey and pollen (from bees) and probiotics (for humans) and I initially saw the milk gelling (like in yogurt and some cheeses). I haven't seen this with other milk cultures with individual inoculants.

So, there is something to be learned from the mix between insect derived microflora and LAB (meant for humans).

I am seeing indications of some milk protein breakdown (hydrolysis) in the cultures, as an aside.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Solomon Parker said:


> But this whole issue only applies to microbial diseases and those that ferment pollen. The major issue still in beekeeping today is mites which microbes only affect indirectly. If the hive is weak, it will have more problems with every pest depending on conditions.


It is well within the realm of possibility that issues with the microbes affect how the bees are able to assimilate nutrients. If the 'correct' microbial balance nurtures both the microbial community _and_ the host, what can we expect from a damaged microbial community/balance?

Another NPR show I heard (it was from 2009, but I read the transcript the other day after listening to it briefly) was a guy talking about how difficult it was to measure how much nutrition is assimilated when we eat it. The problem being that some proteins don't digest easily, and end up as food for bacteria in the lower gut...which feeds the bacteria, but doesn't assimlate the energy into the person...it's like feeding a pet.

The old way to try and measure this was to eat something known, and measure what comes out the other end...with something like eggs, the proteins are near 100% broken down by the time it comes out.

But (or butt), if you look at people with cholostomy bags, you can see what is actually broken down in the digestive system (where it does you some good). Raw eggs were only about 65% broken down...cooked eggs near 100%.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This might not be a problem, if treatment were some kind of panacea that guaranteed success, but I keep seeing posts from folks who have lost a lot of hives this winter despite treatment. 

Yes. Everyone loses hives. Some winters are worse than others. But if you are a treater, the other treaters just say, "you did what you could". If you are not a treater, the other treaters say "see, if only you had treated...". And of course the inverse as well happens. I am also baffled by the advice that you should try convential beekeeping first and get the hang of that before going treatment free. What is it that is easier about treating? What is easier about large cell foundation? What is easier about disrupting the ecology and later trying to repair it?


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >What is easier about disrupting the ecology and later trying to repair it?


This question is on-topic for this thread, rather than the general question about whether or not to "treat." (What a funny word. "Hello, girls. Here's a 'treat' for you!")

My questions come from experience in the last year. My package of allegedly small-cell, treatment-free bees in 2012 had died a miserable death in the fall, with clear signs of DWV and PMS, and I wasn't sure I wanted to go on. But early last year a friend asked to apprentice/help out, if I was doing it again, so "Once more into the breach, dear friends..." 

We drove up to a county outside Philadelphia for a 3# package. I emailed back and forth with the local beekeeper who was bringing up a load of packages. It turns out he was getting them from Georgia, where they were "building up on the blueberries." He didn't know the breed of bees, except that the queens were from commercial breeders. When we got to his place, on a sunny day at the end of March, the roads all around were packed with cars parked on the side of the road. And looking through the crowd, it seemed like nearly every beekeeper I knew from the local Phila association was up there for one or more packages. He was selling 100s. (How many packages can you get onto a trailer, maybe 15'x10'x8' or so?)

Now — and this is the important part — our association leans toward "treatment free." We had Sam Comfort and John Seaborn come and talk to us in 2012, Michael Bush in 2013, and Ramona and Dean this year. Langstroth, top-bar, Warre, everybody... it seems like we're all getting packages from southern suppliers. The same beekeeper was at Ramona and Dean's talk this year passing out fliers selling his packages this spring. And in their talks, Ramona and Dean both told us about how commercial suppliers "treat the snot out of 'em" with antibiotics. (They sort of have to, right? for the paperwork needed to make sure they're not selling bees with foul brood or nosema.) In another thread, Michael, you cite the studies showing tetracycline resistance in the bacteria of bees throughout the country, and that's where it comes from.

The standard line that I heard last year was: Buy packages from the South and requeen them with locally bred queens. I think Ramona's talk throws all that up in the air!

Maybe beekeepers in some parts of the country have the luxury of getting locally-sourced bees that have avoided antibiotic treatments. But probably a lot of people reading this forum, like me, are keeping bees just 2-3 steps removed from heavily treated sources, at best. So yes, one question is, How *do* we repair the damage after the ecology is disrupted?

Amazingly, many colonies of bees do survive. That's the first thing. To recognize that the microbes are available locally and get into the system pretty early on. So if there are studies that can begin to shed light on how that happens, let's hear about them and think about what we can do to assist.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> My package of allegedly small-cell, treatment-free bees...

Oddly enough most of the so-called treatment-free bees being marketed seem to be treated with essential oils, which of course disrupt the microbes...

>How do we repair the damage after the ecology is disrupted?

I'm not even sure you can repair it. But if you can get some local feral bees you may be able to do a cutout and in the process innoculate your apiary and then by giving some brood and pollen frames to your other hives, innoculate them...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>And in their talks, Ramona and Dean both told us about how commercial suppliers "treat the snot out of 'em" with antibiotics. (They sort of have to, right? for the paperwork needed to make sure they're not selling bees with foul brood or nosema.) 

Maybe someplace. Mine are not treated and the state does not require that. They only require inspection for diseases, not treatment when they don't have them.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> If you can get some local feral bees you may be able to do a cutout and in the process innoculate your apiary and then by giving some brood and pollen frames to your other hives, innoculate them...


That's what I'm asking about, but let's take the ideas at work in that scenario and generalize them to other methods.

So, for example, those of us who've been keeping bees treatment-free for more than 2-3 years, maybe could sell queenless "nucs" with a couple of frames of brood, nurse bees, and beebread. How is that different, in its essentials?

Feral bees could be just 1-2 years removed from the same package bees. Who knows?

And if we develop ways of telling what bees have got a better microbial "balance," that would help. How many years are we removed from being able to run tests on the bacteria in bees, locally, with the technology now used for bee research in just a handful of labs?


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Michael Bush said:


> > My package of allegedly small-cell, treatment-free bees...
> 
> Oddly enough most of the so-called treatment-free bees being marketed seem to be treated with essential oils, which of course disrupt the microbes...


I believe this is the case with the Wolf Creek bees I bought last spring (John Seaforth.) They did not do very well, superceding several times and eventually going laying worker. I managed to get them queenright eventually, but it was a long and costly process.

The local nuc in the hive right next to them did very well, and is already building up pretty well this spring.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Kofu said:


> So, for example, those of us who've been keeping bees treatment-free for more than 2-3 years, maybe could sell queenless "nucs" with a couple of frames of brood, nurse bees, and beebread.


I'm not at the stage to do that myself, yet, but I claim copyright on the idea. "Inoc-u-nucs"®


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>And if we develop ways of telling what bees have got a better microbial "balance," that would help.

Obviously the ones that are healthy and productive while not being treated.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >And if we develop ways of telling what bees have got a better microbial "balance," that would help.
> 
> Obviously the ones that are healthy and productive while not being treated.


That test has the hazard of running into the "True Scotsman" fallacy.

It would be better to have ways of measuring resilience against specific diseases, queen & brood rearing, longevity without treatment, supply of successful 'Inoc-u-nucs'®, etc.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Kofu said:


> That test has the hazard of running into the "True Scotsman" fallacy.
> 
> It would be better to have ways of measuring resilience against specific diseases, queen & brood rearing, longevity without treatment, supply of successful 'Inoc-u-nucs'®, etc.


I think the trouble with testing for specific traits is that it runs the risk of not being a true test of colony survivability. For example, testing for VSH behavior may not predict colony viability.

One of the truisms about microbial ecosystems is that they are usually complex beyond the abilities of studies to successfully quantify all the intrinsic relationships.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>That test has the hazard of running into the "True Scotsman" fallacy.
>One of the truisms about microbial ecosystems is that they are usually complex beyond the abilities of studies to successfully quantify all the intrinsic relationships. 

That is exactly the problem. They are complex and it's really only the outcome you can accurately measure. But it's not hard to measure a successful healthy hive. They are obvious.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

rhaldridge said:


> I think the trouble with testing for specific traits is that it runs the risk of not being a true test of colony survivability. For example, testing for VSH behavior may not predict colony viability.
> 
> One of the truisms about microbial ecosystems is that they are usually complex beyond the abilities of studies to successfully quantify all the intrinsic relationships.


Yes, true, but some tests measure against a larger yardstick. You don't have to quantify all the intrinsic relationships to be able to say, this hive showed signs of EFB, and recovered, while that one didn't. (Or DWV? Nosema? another disease? Maybe certain diseases would be a better test? I'm just thinking aloud.) By itself it's not very much, but it's part of a measure. Just as people pick certain attributes they want to selectively breed their bees for, it can't be 100% accurate, but it has better than 0% validity.

If someone says that feral bees have been living in a certain location for the past five years, that's generally taken as a significant measure of something. Why couldn't you say the same about colonies that have been maintained for five years, say, without treatments and with a reasonable record of queen-succession etc.?

The basic issue is that until recently, we thought we were measuring the colony's genetics. Ramona and Dean (and others too, for all I know) are now suggesting that bee-genetics is only one of several clumps of factors that affect a colony's viability, survivability, and general health. The integrity of the microbial community is now another clump to be considered. How do you assess that — that's the question. Is it enough to say it can't be done? Or are we looking for a general sense of "healthy and productive while not being treated," and leave it at that?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The basic issue is that until recently, we thought we were measuring the colony's genetics. Ramona and Dean (and others too, for all I know) are now suggesting that bee-genetics is only one of several clumps of factors that affect a colony's viability, survivability, and general health. The integrity of the microbial community is now another clump to be considered. How do you assess that —

Exactly. But I can easily assess the big picture and I think the big picture is what matters. When the right combination has come together I breed from that. Maybe I'm breeding good genetics or maybe it's just good microbes. In the best cases it's likely to be both.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

The point is, we can "breed" (bee-genetics) for the one set of factors, and there are specific attributes to aim for (and to avoid). With the other set of factors (microbial cultures and overall integrity) it's not really bee-breeding that'll get us where we want to be. That's where we can begin to pay better attention, to develop the specific attributes, etc.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Sorry to interject, but it's not hard to assess the effects of Honeybee genetics vs microbial communities.

You can use some very common management techniques to get the genetics from a weaker colony, while providing for microflora from a healthier colony.

You can use a matrix approach (contingency table) if you have frames of eggs from weak vs strong colonies X frames of stores from weak vs strong colonies. Chi squared statistics would be applicable if you can decide on a variable to measure.

Picking the right variable is the trick since it should be a whole number (It has to bee countable, like mites drops or # of certain types of cells).


----------



## Ramona (Apr 26, 2008)

Kofu said:


> And in their talks, Ramona and Dean both told us about how commercial suppliers "treat the snot out of 'em" with antibiotics.


Actually, "they're feeding the snot out of them with fumagillin" was a quote from Dave Tarpy in answer to the question we had as to why the commercial queens he looked at in 2010 showed 0% nosema when samples from 1947 to 1998 showed nosema from 7% to 38% infected queens.

Dave was speaking to our local bee club and when he showed the slide (a duplicate is on page 34 of the "Honey Bee Colony Health, Challenges and Sustainable Solutions edited by Diana Sammataro and Jay Yoder) we couldn't understand the 2010 0%.

I was speaking of the Dave Tarpy quote alone, not making a general statement on practices of commercial breeders. I don't know enough commercial breeders personally (and do not have adequate information/data) to comment on the industry at large.

Fumagillin is classified as an antibiotic but is used on nosema, a microsporidian. It can't really be put in the same category as terramycin, tylosin, or other antibiotics. 

Ramona


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

Sorry for the misquote, Ramona. I blended the fumagillin quote with your comments on research that finds markers for resistance to tetracycline, due to long-time (and routine?) treatment for foulbrood diseases. And I know that somewhere, probably on Beesource, I've read that packages are almost always treated, as it's the easiest way to pass inspection and be able to ship bees across state lines.

So, supposing that many newbie beekeepers start with packages of treated bees, we have to ask for ways to get the microbial community on a better footing.

"Start by not treating them" — is that the only answer? (In this forum, "treatment free" is a given. Okay, but what else besides that?)


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Kofu said:


> So, supposing that many newbie beekeepers start with packages of treated bees, we have to ask for ways to get the microbial community on a better footing.
> 
> "Start by not treating them" — is that the only answer? (In this forum, "treatment free" is a given. Okay, but what else besides that?)


One thing I've noticed is that a lot of TF success stories involve the capturing of feral swarms. Probably swarm traps should be in the arsenal of any prospective TF beekeeper.


----------



## Kofu (Jan 26, 2011)

An article via _American Bee Journal_'s 'Extra' emails presents the treatment-free slow-collapse scenario, as modeled in a new computer simulation program, BEEHAVE.

"The first results of the model show that colonies infested with a common parasitic mite (varroa) can be much more vulnerable to food shortages. Effects within the first year can be subtle and might be missed by beekeepers during routine management. But the model shows that these effects build up over subsequent years leading to eventual failure of the colony, if it was not given an effective varroa treatment.

"BEEHAVE can also be used to investigate potential consequences of pesticide applications. For example, the BEEHAVE model can simulate the impact of increased loss of foragers. The results show that colonies may be more resilient to this forager loss than previously thought in the short-term, but effects may accumulate over years, especially when colonies are also limited by food supply.

"BEEHAVE simulations show that good food sources close to the hive will make a real difference to the colony and that lack of forage over extended periods leaves them vulnerable to other environmental factors. Addressing forage availability is critical to maintaining healthy hives and colonies over the long term."​
I doubt that their model includes data from long-term treatment-free hives, where the microbial ecology is already well established, so there's reason to doubt their projections. But as I've been trying to ask here, what practical measures can beekeepers use to build up that ecology during the 2-3 year span of time that, according to simulations, treated packages and hives might be collapsing without further treatment? Having good forage available nearby seems to be one important factor.

(The link to ABJ's page for articles emailed in March doesn't yet list the one about Beehave, but it will soon. A webpage for the project is at http://www.beehave-model.net .)


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Kofu said:


> But as I've been trying to ask here, what practical measures can beekeepers use to build up that ecology during the 2-3 year span of time that, according to simulations, treated packages and hives might be collapsing without further treatment? Having good forage available nearby seems to be one important factor.


I've given a lot of thought to this question, because it seems to be a central aspect of success in TF beekeeping. As I said upthread, I think catching swarms is an important step to take. I caught one up in NY last year, and because it was an August swarm, I knew it wouldn't survive the harsh winter of the North Country, so brought it down to FL. It seems clearly different to me than my other bees, especially in the way it gathered (and kept) a lot of stores, and remained a very small cluster over the winter. It's starting to expand now, and I plan to distribute comb from it around to my other colonies.

I also wonder about whether when you buy in a resistant queen, if you don't also get microbiota from the resistant colonies from which that queen was bred. I queened a split late last summer with a Beeweaver queen, and it's done extremely well. It now consists of three 5 frame boxes, and I need to split it soon.

Another aspect of having adequate forage is that bees exchange microbiota when visiting flowers. I wonder if a wide range of flowering plants is one of the factors that contribute to TF success. In addition to the healthful aspects of having nutrition from many different sources, perhaps feral bees and other pollinators can more easily exchange microbes if floral life is profuse and constant. This might go some way toward explaining why migratory beekeepers have more problems. Floral monocultures in areas with reduced native pollinators may mean reduced microbial distribution. I have noticed that many successful TF beekeepers seem to operate in areas with a lot of plant diversity... though not all.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion that doesn't get the attention it deserves.

That's probably partly because of its intrinsic complexity. It's very hard to be sure about anything connected with such a complex system.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>One thing I've noticed is that a lot of TF success stories involve the capturing of feral swarms. Probably swarm traps should be in the arsenal of any prospective TF beekeeper. 

Yes. And the more we look at microbes the more it looks like microbe genetics may be as important if not more important than bee genetics. 

>"Start by not treating them" — is that the only answer? 

Once you have some healthy colonies from feral swarms, you can share frames of open brood and bees and frames of bee bread to inoculate the struggling hives. I think this is much more likely to succeed than trying to culture these in an environment outside of the colony. Trying to culture them is much more likely to lead to imbalances than balances. There are 8,000 microbes and they need to be in an equilibrium. How will you establish an equilibrium in milk? Or even honey? The gut of a bee is a very specialized environment. Even the bee bread in the colony is 93 F, a particular humidity, and a particular pH created by a combination of things. How do you recreate that outside of the colony?


----------

