# Ramsey: Forced Brood Breaks Could Be Harmful to Bees



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

This has probably been discussed, but I was listening to a podcast this morning of Dr. Samuel Ramsey. He described forced brood breaks as risky. He stated that forcing varroa out of their natural reproductive cycles and moving them all, virtually at once, to host on the bees within a colony could cause a rapid spread of viruses within your colony and spike virulence.

I suppose that makes sense, but that is a break from some conventional wisdom -- as well as contrary to my practice of creating artificial brood breaks. Guess I will be thinking hard about this one over the winter. Any thoughts out there?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I cant envision how the "all at once" would occur. New mites will only come into play at the same rate as bees under cappings emerge. The effect of the queen having been caged will only become a factor some 12 days after the fact and that will result in a _diminishing_ rate of mite emergence, not a sudden influx. 

Either something is missing from the picture or I am missing something that is there!


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

This doesn't make sense, and I wonder if he perhaps mis-spoke. 

First of all, many of the viruses transferred by varroa infect both adults and larva (e.g. DFV), with some preferentially infecting larva (e.g. sac brood). So it is not like a brood break is moving mites from a unsusceptible larva to a susceptible adult; rather you're moving the mites from one virus-susceptible host to another. For some of these diseases, infection of larva is more serious than infections of adults (e.g. sac brood), so a brood break may actually be beneficial in that case.

Secondly, brood breaks are common in bee lifecycles - be it due to human intervention or swarming. If brood breaks were a reliable inducer of disease transmission, it seems highly unlikely that this phenomena would have been missed given the fairly intense research that has gone into a lot of these diseases and the near-obsessive monitoring that some beekeepers engage in.

But even assuming his statement was correct, its still only half the story - the other half being why a brood break was created. A small outbreak of a disease may be overall a minor cost to pay, compared to the benefits of a reduction in varroa, when a brood break is created as part of a treatment regimen.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

do you have a link to the podcast?


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

crofter said:


> I cant envision how the "all at once" would occur. New mites will only come into play at the same rate as bees under cappings emerge. The effect of the queen having been caged will only become a factor some 12 days after the fact and that will result in a _diminishing_ rate of mite emergence, not a sudden influx.
> 
> Either something is missing from the picture or I am missing something that is there!


A brood nest at its peak will house up to 80% of varroa. So within 12 days you go from 20% phorectic (which Ramsey says "phoretic" is a misnomer BTW) to 100% phoretic.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

squarepeg said:


> do you have a link to the podcast?


http://beekeepingtodaypodcast.com/dr-samuel-ramsey-the-varroa-fat-body-rediscovery

Meant to do that in my OP.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

SuiGeneris said:


> This doesn't make sense, and I wonder if he perhaps mis-spoke.
> 
> First of all, many of the viruses transferred by varroa infect both adults and larva (e.g. DFV), with some preferentially infecting larva (e.g. sac brood). So it is not like a brood break is moving mites from a unsusceptible larva to a susceptible adult; rather you're moving the mites from one virus-susceptible host to another. For some of these diseases, infection of larva is more serious than infections of adults (e.g. sac brood), so a brood break may actually be beneficial in that case.
> 
> ...


I will let you listen to it because I do not want to misrepresent what he said any more than I may have already. He got Kim Flottum pretty fluxed by the claim as well. I got the impression [this is ME not RAMSEY] that Ramsey believes the primary feeding is done on the fat bodies of the adult bees and not on the larva. That the time spent under the cappings is concentrated on mating and not feeding. Again, MY interpretation. 

As to your second point, the obsessive monitoring generally focuses on mite counts, not virulence. There is no doubt that the brood break reduces the amount of mites, which is enhanced by use of pesticides timed in the break. However, I think the majority of this monitoring is focused on mite reduction, not viral load reduction. 

In any event, please listen to the podcast. I would like to get your thoughts on it.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I can see where it will change the *ratio* but gradually; It will change the _ratio_ of a lower numbers total mite load reduced due to the lack of breeding opportunity. Perhaps the question is, which class of victim exposed creates the most net colony damage during the transition period. That would have to be weighed against the lower overall projected mite numbers. 

It certainly has been stressed that damage to the fat body cripples the would be "winter bees". Damage to early or mid season bees may not have the same relative impact.

Interesting.


----------



## baybee (Jan 10, 2016)

This piece of info has no value without mentioning the pre-forced-brood-break infestation level. Well may be that by forcing a brood break in a heavily infested colony one is just serving that last nail. The mite/virus dynamics may be quite different for low mite count hives.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Frank:

I hope you will listen to the podcast. It really has a lot of stuff I have never heard before. And I am a straight-up bee nerd that consumes it all. Not saying I digest it or understand it all. I just put a lot of hours into the literature.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

by that theory a two step break should be magnificent; Drop a drone frame in there from a donor, and freeze


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

I listened to the one hour podcast. Well worth the time to hear his thoughts on the matter.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Yes, some interesting stuff for sure. A good idea of starting to study the new (to us) pest that may be just around the corner. _Tropilaelaps_ Much quicker reproduction cycle and more viable offspring per cycle.

I wish him well with his go fund me for research. A lot more worthwhile that many!


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

Listened to the podcast on my way home. It was an interesting discussion, but a lot of what was said was hypotheses/supposition, not scientifically supported conclusions, which I think is where the OPs "confusion" comes from.

To clarify this (or explain to those who don't have the time for the podcast), Dr. Ramsey has previoisly done some beautiful work which very convincingly shows that varroa feeds off the fat bodies (essentially the liver) of bees. For this work he's recieved his PhD, and recently moved to a new research based job.

One hypothesis he developed during his PhD research, but ***did not test***, was that "forcing" more mites onto adult bees via a brood break may promote the spread of some mite-transmitted diseases, as the increased feeding of varroa on adults (rather than larval) bees would potentially lead to more infections of the adults. This hypothesis is the foundation of the new research he is conducting at his new job. Given his previous work, this is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis - but it is just that, a hypothesis, and to-date remains untested.

Mid-way through the podcast he brings up what I think the crux of this discussion is - brood breaks have very well established positive effects when used as part of a mite treatment. He does not question that, nor their utility. However, no one has looked at the possible negative effects, including the possible increase in disease. As such, we don't understand the true cost:benifit of using broodbreaks as part of varroa control. 

A better understanding of the costs would allow us to improve and optimize our use of broodbreaks as a treatment tool, as this knowedge can help decided when/if to treat, determine the optimal timing of treatment application relative to a brood break, and can help to inform better treatment design.

From a practical standpoint, our best way forward is to continue with treatments as before. There is no evidence at this point to suggest that a change is needed, or that existing treatment practices are unsound. But we should keep an eye on this work, as once it is complete, it may inform us as to better practices to use in the future. Likewise, a little more vigilance for adult disease during a broodbreak would not be untoward.


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

I've read researchers who report observing the foundress mite feeding on the developing bee in the cell. The reports state that the foundress mite bites into the larva, taking 30-60 minutes to conclude feeding. The first portion of that time seemed to be waiting for the larval tissue to dissolve, or ooze, enough to slurp it up. I think young mites feed there as well before leaving the cell.

I know of no other studies to refute Dr. Ramesy's conclusions. Until more is done in this area, he is the expert. In my view, his discovery was a big step forward and explains Randy Oliver's pre-discovery focus on adequate fat reserves needed for successful hive growth and health. JMO


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Don’t really understand what you believe I got “confused.” I used Dr. Ramsey’s word — “risky.”

He laments that researchers have been so focused on the rewards of artificial brood breaks (and he acknowledges what those rewards are) that very little if any consideration has been given to the risks of artificial brood breaks to the health of the bees. Admittedly, it had never occurred to me.

He also counters the conventional “knowledge” that mites primarily feed on larva. He points out that the mite’s flat, elliptical shape is perfectly formed to slide between the spiracles of the adult bee and its mouth parts can easily pierce the thin membrane which coats the fat body. He also states that these areas under the spiracles are where he often finds the mites. 

So why would a parasite that feeds on defenseless pupae in a capped cell spend all of this evolutionary energy to hone its body into a living wedge that can access these fat bodies of the adult bee? 

Ramsey’s hypothesis is that the fat bodies of the larva are not the primary feed of the mite. Instead, he thinks there is a strong possibility that it is the fat bodies of the adult bee. He provides further argument to this point that mites, when separated from bees and left with brood, will die. But mites that are separated from brood, but left with bees, will continue to live. 

But, he does state the determining which is the primary food source of the mite is a very difficult thing to discern.

But if the hypothesis is correct, and it is the adult bee — not the larvae — that is the primary food source of the mite, then we may very well be putting our bees at risk by artificially forcing the mites onto the bees.


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

psm1212 said:


> I will let you listen to it because I do not want to misrepresent what he said any more than I may have already. He got Kim Flottum pretty fluxed by the claim as well. I got the impression [this is ME not RAMSEY] that Ramsey believes the primary feeding is done on the fat bodies of the adult bees and not on the larva. That the time spent under the cappings is concentrated on mating and not feeding. Again, MY interpretation.
> 
> As to your second point, the obsessive monitoring generally focuses on mite counts, not virulence. There is no doubt that the brood break reduces the amount of mites, which is enhanced by use of pesticides timed in the break. However, I think the majority of this monitoring is focused on mite reduction, not viral load reduction.
> 
> In any event, please listen to the podcast. I would like to get your thoughts on it.



I will listen to it, and probably should before I reply: but for those that have...…..The idea that the verroa cause the problems from the bite according to what Bill Ellis in Fla and I think Randy Oliver have been saying? By reducing the mites, reducing the stressors, reducing bee loss?


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

edzkoda said:


> I will listen to it, and probably should before I reply: but for those that have...…..


If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK2Xi0ST4rA before the linked 'podcast' (I really HATE these new words ... 'webinar' is another ...) in order to put what Ramsey is talking about into context. 
There's a BeeSource thread about his discovery: https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...mph-Samuel-Ramsey-shakes-up-current-knowledge which has turned our assumptions (masquerading as knowledge) upside-down.

In the linked 'podcast', Ramsey was asked to speculate on possible applications of his discovery, and that's just what he did - he speculated, he conjectured - but always tempering his words appropriately. He was outlining a line of enquiry he considers worth pursuing, that's all - a procedure that he considers has risks attached to it. Perhaps Ramsey has indeed over-stepped the mark prematurely by such speculation - but that's the sort of thing which happens when scientists are asked to chat informally about their work. It was a casual chat, not a conference lecture.
LJ


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> Don’t really understand what you believe I got “confused.”


Confused was in quotes because I couldn't think of a correct adjective. No insult was made nor implied.



psm1212 said:


> He also counters the conventional “knowledge” that mites primarily feed on larva. He points out that the mite’s flat, elliptical shape is perfectly formed to slide between the spiracles of the adult bee and its mouth parts can easily pierce the thin membrane which coats the fat body. He also states that these areas under the spiracles are where he often finds the mites.
> 
> So why would a parasite that feeds on defenseless pupae in a capped cell spend all of this evolutionary energy to hone its body into a living wedge that can access these fat bodies of the adult bee?


This isn't what he said. It is well established - and he described the process in some detail in the podcast - that mites feed on larva. In the podcast, Dr. Ramsey describes in some detail this process - the adult mite chews a hole in the bee larva, through which the adult and larval mites feed. This is requried for the growth and survival of the larval mites - in Dr. Ramsey's words, their mouth pieces are too "squishy" to allow them to feed on their own - and its required for the adult mite as it has no other food source once sealed in the cell. This feeding behaviour has been well described, for example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19381843

So to answer your question more directly, varroa adults feed off of larva, even though the have the capacity to feed off of adult bees, because 1) that feeding behaviour is required for the mites larva to survive, and 2) because the mite is stuck in the cell with the bee/mite larva and has no other food source during that time.



psm1212 said:


> But if the hypothesis is correct, and it is the adult bee — not the larvae — that is the primary food source of the mite, then we may very well be putting our bees at risk by artificially forcing the mites onto the bees.


I don't disagree, however if it was a significant risk it is extremely unlikely that it would not have been detected already, given the frequency that brood breaks are used in both research and in bee husbandry.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

"So why would a parasite that feeds on defenseless pupae in a capped cell spend all of this evolutionary energy to hone its body into a living wedge that can access these fat bodies of the adult bee?"

Feeding on adult bees would be essential survival mechanism, otherwise swarm conditions and areas with winter broodless conditions would be deadly for them. Survival of both phoretic and non phoretic conditions is essential.

I think the author makes it clear that there is still a lot of conjecture as to the "why" of much of his thinking. One of his main thrusts is to not get locked into a fixed way of looking at things.

I noticed a lot of clips and breaks in the podcast so perhaps some of the context has been omitted. My impression is that he is quite objective.


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

While I work in a very different area of science (Immunology/Microbiology), I do have some exposure to the "bee world" - I sit on the advisory committees for two students looking at the use of probiotics to detoxify pesticides in bees - and I use some of the same methods he used in his varroa/fat body feeding study (microscope/SEM stuff mostly). His work with those later methods was top-notch, with the experiments very well designed and controlled, and with clear outcomes. While I'm not familiar with some of the other methods he used, they all had the hallmarks of well designed and controlled experiments. By the general standards of science, he does good work. 

The "issues" raised in this thread seem to be largely a result of people confusing where he is stating conjecture versus conclusions.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

SuiGeneris said:


> The "issues" raised in this thread seem to be largely a result of people confusing where he is stating conjecture versus conclusions.


agreed, as dr. ramsey was careful to use the qualifiers ''if'' and "might" to put his statement in that context.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

as i did with the last thread discussing dr. ramsey's work, i emailed him a link to this one.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

squarepeg said:


> as i did with the last thread discussing dr. ramsey's work, i emailed him a link to this one.


:thumbsup:


----------



## MichiganMike (Mar 25, 2014)

I agree with Frank, Dr Ramsey clearly stressed the point that there are many unknowns that need futher study.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Well as an American I can argue with what I think someone said ( or found on the internet) just as well as what they did say. 

God Bless America.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

SuiGeneris said:


> This isn't what he said. It is well established - and he described the process in some detail in the podcast - that mites feed on larva. In the podcast, Dr. Ramsey describes in some detail this process - the adult mite chews a hole in the bee larva, through which the adult and larval mites feed. This is requried for the growth and survival of the larval mites - in Dr. Ramsey's words, their mouth pieces are too "squishy" to allow them to feed on their own - and its required for the adult mite as it has no other food source once sealed in the cell. This feeding behaviour has been well described, for example:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19381843
> 
> So to answer your question more directly, varroa adults feed off of larva, even though the have the capacity to feed off of adult bees, because 1) that feeding behaviour is required for the mites larva to survive, and 2) because the mite is stuck in the cell with the bee/mite larva and has no other food source during that time.


Listen again from about the 7:30 mark to the 12:30 mark. I am not suggesting that he claims mites do not feed on larva. They do, and he acknowledges that. However, he seems to suggest that prior research ignored (or missed) the fact that mites also feed on adult bees. At another point in the podcast, he alludes to this "miss" when he points out that mites riding on adult bees are incorrectly referred to as "phoretic." They are not phoretic because phoresis is not a parasitic relationship where the phoront feeds on the host. In true phoretic relationship, the host is merely a transportation medium for the phoront and the two have no physiological dependence on one another. Ramsey thinks the old research gets it wrong and they were wrong when they hung "phoretic" tag on the mite, because researchers did not realize that the mites were actually feeding on the adult bees.

So Ramsey "wonders aloud" let's say (notice I used the word "could" in the subject line) what risks are associated with forced brood breaks.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

SuiGeneris said:


> I sit on the advisory committees for two students looking at the use of probiotics to detoxify pesticides in bees - and I use some of the same methods he used in his varroa/fat body feeding study (microscope/SEM stuff mostly).


I have been interested in that lately. Particularly in the Pro DFM product. If I start a new thread about use of probiotics, will you be at liberty to discuss what your students are finding? 



SuiGeneris said:


> The "issues" raised in this thread seem to be largely a result of people confusing where he is stating conjecture versus conclusions.


Again, if this is a reference to my posts, please let me know where you believe I have stated something as conclusory or proven. Everything I have stated has been qualified in a context of what "could" be occuring.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

squarepeg said:


> as i did with the last thread discussing dr. ramsey's work, i emailed him a link to this one.


Would love for him to join in. Thanks for sending it.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

I had a chance to listen to the podcast this afternoon. Dr Ramsey's hypothesis is clearly in line with the mite to bee relationship thinking that led him to discover that the mites were feeding on the fat bodies. Perhaps what we can do as beekeepers now is to start treating when we initiate the brood break and continue treating throughout the two week period, instead of waiting until all the mites are "phoretic".


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> I had a chance to listen to the podcast this afternoon. Dr Ramsey's hypothesis is clearly in line with the mite to bee relationship thinking that led him to discover that the mites were feeding on the fat bodies. Perhaps what we can do as beekeepers now is to start treating when we initiate the brood break and continue treating throughout the two week period, instead of waiting until all the mites are "phoretic".


I'd be cautious about changing routines. The methods we use now (assuming you're using a method approved in your country by your agricultural regulator) have all been verified to work with high efficacy as currently employed. Altering the timing of applying the chemical treatment relative to when you induce a brood break (or relative to other managerial steps in the treatment regimen) may lower the efficacy of the treatment. 

Keep in mind, these treatments have all been subjected to field trials that tested a range of doses, dosing numbers, treatment duration and timing of treatment to find what was the most efficacious. So even though some of the underlying assumptions about varroa's lifecycle were incorrect or incomplete, the design of the trials means that the optimisation of the treatment is essentially independent of the unknowns of varroa's lifecycle.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

SuiGeneris said:


> I'd be cautious about changing routines. The methods we use now (assuming you're using a method approved in your country by your agricultural regulator) have all been verified to work with high efficacy as currently employed. Altering the timing of applying the chemical treatment relative to when you induce a brood break (or relative to other managerial steps in the treatment regimen) may lower the efficacy of the treatment.
> 
> Keep in mind, these treatments have all been subjected to field trials that tested a range of doses, dosing numbers, treatment duration and timing of treatment to find what was the most efficacious. So even though some of the underlying assumptions about varroa's lifecycle were incorrect or incomplete, the design of the trials means that the optimisation of the treatment is essentially independent of the unknowns of varroa's lifecycle.


You are absolutely right SuiGeneris. We probably shouldn't be talking about how to address a "problem" we have not confirmed we have. 

But . . .

Take off your researcher/scientist hat and let your hair down man!!  Speculate with us! That is what message boards are all about. 

1. IF VALIDATED, how would you address the concern that you are forcing mites onto the adult population? JWPalmer talked about OAV treatments applied as the bees emerge from the cappings. What would that schedule look like? 

2. And with regard to Frank's earlier point in this thread, why would forcing mites out of cappings to feed on the adults be more "risky" than allowing them to feed on the larva inside the capped cells? Would this really make the viruses spread faster, hastening a quicker collapse? (again, asking you to just develop a hypothesis of how it MIGHT happen)

You're not publishing an article here. Just spitballing with some beeks. You have a background in this stuff and your opinion is valued. Lose the lab coat for a minute and let yourself go down the rabbit hole.


----------



## John Davis (Apr 29, 2014)

JW makes a good thoughtful suggestion above about treating during the brood break.

Looking at the brood break by itself the general statements are around reducing the mite population by breaking the reproductive cycle.
It is true that there is a period of time the mites can't raise young so the rate of increase is slowed a little. 
Since most adult mites continue to survive by feeding on adult bees during this time there is not a big decrease in the adult mite population.

When the queen starts to lay again the first couple days of bee brood will have large number of mites to enter it, meaning multiple foundress mites per cell, weakening those pupae so much they don't survive.
This may result in some mites dying as well but at additional expense to the bee population.
Most folks don't see this dying brood situation because they are removed.
Mel Disselkoen makes reference to this.

Like many things in beekeeping there are trade offs.
In this case a slowing of the mite population increase at the expense of reduction of a brood cycle of bee population and the resulting change in the ratio of nurse bees to foragers.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

I have always gone against this so called conventional wisdom that brood breaks diminish mite infestations due to the fact that mite lifespans are greater than summer bee lifespans so in fact we have a zero sum game or in other words half time is called and both sides can take a rest. I have seen no evidence of any trials which would support the theory of brood break as a mite treatment and what is more if there are brood filled colonies any where near the broodless colonies there would be a good chance of some mite migration from the broodless to the brood filled so at best you end up shuffling your mites around Of course it may help some in treating not just the broodless colony but all colonies at that time. JMHO.
Johno


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

John Davis said:


> When the queen starts to lay again the first couple days of bee brood will have large number of mites to enter it, meaning multiple foundress mites per cell, weakening those pupae so much they don't survive.


Doesn't this assume though that you did not administer an effective treatment during the brood break? If you get a >95% kill while the nest was broodless, there should be few mites surviving to reenter brood once the queen restarts, correct?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

John Davis said:


> Looking at the brood break by itself the general statements are around reducing the mite population by breaking the reproductive cycle. It is true that there is a period of time the mites can't raise young so the rate of increase is slowed a little. Since most adult mites continue to survive by feeding on adult bees during this time there is not a big decrease in the adult mite population.


with my survivor stock i'll see a break in brood rearing here during our summer dearth period. this can last from a few weeks to over a month in duration.

to what degree this is helping the bees coexist with mites is not clear. when i play around with randy oliver's mite model it's clear that brood breaks of this time duration have measureable impact on the adult mite population, enough so to keep the numbers below critical.

if all of the mites turned loose on the adult population has an impact it isn't anything readily obvious to me based on casual observation.


----------



## John Davis (Apr 29, 2014)

Yes psm1212, that is the assumption.
Brood breaks are often a part of the minimal/tf process.
Your though of eliminating most of the mites while broodless is a way of giving the bees a leg up.

That is why I think JW raises a good point.
Again with a brood break there is always the trade off of reducing the bee population by one brood cycle and the resulting shifting of the population towards older bees.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

John Davis said:


> Yes psm1212, that is the assumption.
> Brood breaks are often a part of the minimal/tf process.
> Your though of eliminating most of the mites while broodless is a way of giving the bees a leg up.
> 
> ...




Yes; I think we can all see that during some critical time periods forcing a brood break would be potentially more damaging to the colony growth than others. Certainly during a dearth when the bees are hanging around doing nothing but consuming stores would seem much better than during spring build up or during a fall flow when winter bee raising is essential.

I think it would be interesting to do colony level virus titres to see if they typically rise during brood breaks. If you lost ground on the virus aspect compared to the varroa die off the benefit might be a wash or even as Dr. Ramsey conjectures, a net loss of potential colony survivability. The makeup of any local virus background titre would have such a high variabilty that it seems like too complicated to be of value at the beekeeper level.


----------



## trishbookworm (Jun 25, 2016)

Dr Ramsey's statement that the mites are feeding significantly on adult bees helps explain an interesting phenomenon - hives that are killed despite having low mite counts through the season and showing minimal mite "frass".

I've seen this myself - a hive went robbing on Nov 1st; previous alcohol washes were like 1-2/300 bees, in August. Then it was dead, and there was a mite on the dead QUEEN! 

If a hive can be taken down without having the larvae exposed to mites...then the mites are a crushing force on adult bees. That's my reasoning for treating after fly days, and monitoring the OAV-induced mite drop to see if they need another shot.


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> You are absolutely right SuiGeneris. We probably shouldn't be talking about how to address a "problem" we have not confirmed we have.
> 
> But . . .
> 
> Take off your researcher/scientist hat and let your hair down man!!  Speculate with us! That is what message boards are all about.


I only wish I can let my hair down. Eggs have flowing locks in comparison to me.



psm1212 said:


> 1. IF VALIDATED, how would you address the concern that you are forcing mites onto the adult population? JWPalmer talked about OAV treatments applied as the bees emerge from the cappings. What would that schedule look like?


It would probably mean that you'd apply your treatment (OAV or whatever) at the same time, or slightly before starting the break, and ensuring that it continued throughout the break. That way you'd get the mites as they emerge from cells, before they parasitse the bees. Like I said before, this probably wouldn't change existing treatments much as the have been optimised already in a manner which is "blind" to the varroa lifecycle, but it may alter the way newly designed treatments are designed. 

As one example, I think Scientific Beekeepings glycerol/OA shoptowel method could work well with this approach - apply the towel on the same day as you initiate the brood break, and ensure a towel with active ingredient is present throughout the brood cycle - maybe with a final dribble or OAV treatment right before restoring brood rearing.



psm1212 said:


> 2. And with regard to Frank's earlier point in this thread, why would forcing mites out of cappings to feed on the adults be more "risky" than allowing them to feed on the larva inside the capped cells? Would this really make the viruses spread faster, hastening a quicker collapse? (again, asking you to just develop a hypothesis of how it MIGHT happen)


I think its a ****ed if you do/****ed if you don't situation. Feeding on larva = weaker adults from larva which survive + greater larval losses + increased spread of larval disease. Feeding on adults = weaker/shorter lived adults, spread to neighbouring hives, and possibly increased rates of adult disease.

Neither of those are good or preferred, and I suspect that the costs of tipping things in one direction or the other would counter-balance any gains. Long-term (and thinking beyond single hives), anything which helps improve varroa eradication is likely the best in the long run, even if it has short-term negative consequences.

B


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

John Davis said:


> Yes psm1212, that is the assumption.
> Brood breaks are often a part of the minimal/tf process.
> Your though of eliminating most of the mites while broodless is a way of giving the bees a leg up.


I was thinking about it the opposite way. I'm new at beekeeping (but old at science & farming...judge accordingly) - but any time I have a brood break (winter brood break, following a split, or after capturing a swarm...if that ever happens) I treat with OAD. This is a great window to knock down varroa levels, as most/all of them should be exposed to treatment. 

My comments in this thread upto this point have been predicated on that assumption - e.g. that a brood break was being created as part of a larger pest management plan, most likely paired with a chemical treatment of some sort to kill the exposed varroa.


----------



## jnqpblk (Apr 7, 2015)

psm1212, my only response would be to pay attention to the natural brood break designed into hives and generally happens each year. Specifically, I am talking about a hive swarming, and naturally causing the brood break. My suspicion is the closer you come to causing a similar brood break and during similar timing, will net you the greatest natural result re mites.


----------



## Matt Sanchez (Jul 26, 2016)

Dr. Ramsey has done an amazing job with this research and is a great bee ambassador. He mentioned last month that his paper was still being peer reviewed and will most likely be published, soon. Just listened to the podcast. Great stuff, as always. But it’s probably best to take a step back for a moment and remember that brood break or not - the brood that is already there will eventually emerge into adult form. The way the podcast came across was like an alarm bell at the possible negative impact of brood breaks releasing a “food gate” of doom in our colonies. Kim Flottum even wonders aloud in the podcast that “brood breaks might be the worst thing we can do”. I love Mr. Flottum and everything he does for bees. However, it is necessary that we keep things grounded before jumping the gun on this one. It is a scientific fact that in nature: Varrora mites only reproduce in brood cells. Implimenting a forced brood break is, therefore, an absolutely viable means of IPM and a natural function of bee populations that have shown tolerance, e.g. the excessive swarming of A. scutellata or the queen shut-down during dearth as seen in “Russian bees”. Using a soft chemical organic acid like oxalic during full emergence will achieve effective mite kill within one treatment (rather than several treatments spread over weeks to chase emerging bees). The crux of the research is that fat bodies fuel mites. We know that lipophillic chemicals build into wax over time and can be deleterious to colony health. So, where the rubber hits the road is when we find out what Dr. Ramsey means by “weaponizing” this information.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

good post matt.

that colonies seemingly doing alright going into winter fail to make it through to spring,

during what is arguably the longest brood break of them all,

supports the contention that mites depleting the adult bees of their vitellogenin stores could be involved with over-winter collapse.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Anybody done mite counts on the bottom board during the duration of the brood break to see how many mites the brood break has killed? Bearing in mind if the mites do diminish they have to go somewhere, so I would hazard a guess if they are not on your bottom boards they will be in your surrounding hives. If that is correct what will a brood break accomplish but spread your mites around.
Johno


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

According to https://articles.extension.org/pages/65450/varroa-mite-reproductive-biology a forager causes a drop in success over nurse bees as a host. Baffled by the math but a shift in available young hosts factors in somewhere.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

johno said:


> Anybody done mite counts on the bottom board during the duration of the brood break to see how many mites the brood break has killed? Bearing in mind if the mites do diminish they have to go somewhere, so I would hazard a guess if they are not on your bottom boards they will be in your surrounding hives. If that is correct what will a brood break accomplish but spread your mites around.
> Johno


If not medicating, I would assume you get somewhat of a slow down in the otherwise exponential growth. This slow down could be beneficial if you cannot/will not otherwise treat while honey supers are in place. It is an IPM strategy that could help you get to the end of a season for a "hard" treatment when your supers are off. 

If introducing OA into the forced brood break process, then you should be getting a significant reduction in mite populations.

As to mite migration, the OA will put a damper on that. If not treating, I would think you would do a forced brood break in all hives in your yard at the same time. 

I have often thought of going into my hives around the end of May or beginning of June and killing all my queens. This would time up well so I would have broodless hives when I pull my supers off for the season. Also encourage early promotion of nurse bees to foragers to work my nectar flow. Treat and have a new queen headed into Fall.


----------



## Matt Sanchez (Jul 26, 2016)

Thank you Squarepeg. Was thinking the same. It seems likely that depletion contributes to winter loss.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

johno said:


> I have always gone against this so called conventional wisdom that brood breaks diminish mite infestations due to the fact that mite lifespans are greater than summer bee lifespans so in fact we have a zero sum game or in other words half time is called and both sides can take a rest. I have seen no evidence of any trials which would support the theory of brood break as a mite treatment and what is more if there are brood filled colonies any where near the broodless colonies there would be a good chance of some mite migration from the broodless to the brood filled so at best you end up shuffling your mites around Of course it may help some in treating not just the broodless colony but all colonies at that time. JMHO.
> Johno


I'm with you on the brood breaks, Johno. It seems to me that Ramsey's work shows us how much we can take for granted with little or no evidence to support our assumptions. How long have we taken for granted that mites fed on hemolymph? How many people hang much of their IPM on the effectiveness of brood breaks? The assumptions are important to challenge. I'm glad Ramsey's asking, and causing us to discuss further.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I'm with you on the brood breaks, Johno.


As am I.


----------



## Matt Sanchez (Jul 26, 2016)

Good point, Johno. We do know from studies that mites prefer nurse bees over foragers and that nurse bees are able to make the temporal jump to forage when colony dynamics change. It is probable that robbing during this time would present an opportunity for the mites to offload and that a drop in mite load from a treated colony would mean a direct increase in mite load to other colonies not given the treatment. (This brings up the broader question as to timing of treatments by all beekeepers in forage zones that overlap. If treatments are staggered, the mites could simply be caught to vector in “musical chairs”) This is all speculation; however, we should also consider behaviors such as allogrooming and altruistic sacrifice that may increase or possibly be more effective when the mites are exposed in much the same way that many chemical treatments work better when mites are exposed. It could result in zero sum gain if the bees do not posses behaviors found in stock with mite tolerance and / or the beekeeper does not use the break as a management strategy to increase efficacy of treatments. Dr. Ramsey has suggested formic acid being a possible work around with available commercial treatments since it barrels down into brood. This works for many beekeepers. However, personally, I am trigger shy having had queen issues with formic and prefer to use the break in conjunction with OAV. Dr. Ramsey is working to “weaponize” his research and if not take a chemical approach, then, is it genetic? Perhaps, a novel method to interrupt expression of larval pheromone that triggers the foundress to oviposit? Whatever it is, I’m certain Dr. Ramsey is going to find something beneficial to beekeepers and that is exciting.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

"In addition, when we compared the fecundity of mites hosted by bees with different ages, we found a significant negative relationship between mite fertility and the age of nurses (Fig. 4)."

That is working in favor of brood break , migration or not. There would be a time lag in any mite count impact until the 2nd generation.

For the chem free the introduction of a sacrificial drone brood frame as a mite vacuum at the optimum time(whatever that is, post emerge ,prior to migration) would be well worth the hassle. Almost make maintaining a LW hive worth it.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Salty, there is no problem getting a frame of drone drawn; at least not in my neck of the woods. This one was 100% drone both sides in 6 days! That could soak up a lot of mites if it was timed ready to catch the surge.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Drone foundation or just lucky?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Saltybee said:


> Drone foundation or just lucky?


Foundationless; 10th of June. Just before my spring flow starts.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Michael Palmer said:


> As am I.


Me 3


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Ramsey's work certainly is cause to rethink everything concerning Varroa, but keep in mind that "Forced Brood Breaks Could Be Harmful to Bees" is merely a thought experiment. Observations would seem to contradict this view. I don't do forced brood breaks but many have observed positive results and brood breaks are the typical explanation for why feral bees are surviving. The thought experiment is interesting but let's look at real world results and decide from that.


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

SuiGeneris said:


> ...snip... My comments in this thread up to this point have been predicated on that assumption - e.g. that a brood break was being created as part of a larger pest management plan, most likely paired with a chemical treatment of some sort to kill the exposed varroa.


I agree with the quote above, and assume the max benefit from a brood break would be had with a well timed mite treatment(s). Although, apis cerana's brood breaks have been attributed to one of it's defenses against these mites...Nature is already doing the brood breaks in the mite's native habitats.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> "Forced Brood Breaks Could Be Harmful to Bees" is merely a thought experiment.


Well, if it's just a meandering thought experiment, lets put some numbers to the thoughts. If a queen is laying 1500 eggs a day, total bee population will stabilize around 60,000 bees. 20 days egg to emerge, then 42 day average lifespan. 42 x 1500 = 63,000. So now we go thru the process of forced brood break, easiest way to do that, kill the queen. For the next 20 days, bees continue to emerge and older bees continue to die off. After the last brood has emerged, older bees continue to die off, no young bees coming along to replace them. The 'bee math' page tells me, average 28 days for a queen to start laying, and if we assume bees started with a 3 day larvae, then we carry on to day 25 with older bees dieing off, and no replacements in the pipline, so the population is down by 7500 once the queen starts to lay. Now we have another 20 days from when she starts laying till the first replacements emerge. 20 x 1500 = 30,000 bees die off of age during this process, so the total die-off amounts to 37,500, which is more than half the peak population of 63,000, and left us with 25,500 bees tending 30,000 brood.

From my perspective, a forced brood break of this style is a great way to take a healthy thriving colony that's at peak population for summer flows, and turn it into a nucleus colony struggling to regain it's footing and rebuild in time for the winter. the population low point happens about 7 weeks after killing queen, then it takes another 6 weeks to fully recover.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Grozzie:

Good post re: population decline after forced brood break. A couple more things to consider, if you are attempting to maximize your forager-force during a nectar flow and time your brood break (and OAV) accordingly. I have a six week nectar flow (generally May 15 to July 1). If I kill my queen on May 15 I don't believe this will impact my workforce during the flow. In fact, it could be that with an idle broodnest, nurse bees will be promoted early to work the nectar flow, creating more foragers for the flow. If I had allowed the queen to live, the eggs she laid on May 16 will not become foragers during the flow (42 days until foraging according to "Bee Math"). 

In your climate, I assume it would be extremely risky to be entering August with only 30,000 bees. But in mine, I will still have many brood cycles before my 2 weeks of "winter." The remaining population will forage the goldenrod and asters in September and October. Six weeks for recovery is ample in my case.

Edit: Also, killing the queen on May 15 helps control swarming during my flow, which is a frequent problem for me. Nothing like losing 50 to 70% of your workforce just when the nectar flow starts.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

psm1212 said:


> In fact, it could be that with an idle broodnest, nurse bees will be promoted early to work the nectar flow, creating more foragers for the flow.


it's hard to know without scientific study whether or not the workers get recruited to foragers quicker in which case the assumption made by grozzie on longevity might be about right, 

or whether not have nursing duties for a time might add to the lifespan (per randy oliver's discussions on longevity) of the last rounds of workers emerged after the colony is made queenless (which would sway grozzie's calculation somewhat).

my bees typically take a natural brood break during our summer dearth here. playing with randy's mite model it appears that break is enough to put a measurable dent in the mite population prior to the fall brood up.

my colonies are now decreased in population down to nuc size with many of them having only five frames of bees or even less though most of them are kept in hives with a volume equivalent of 3 deeps or more.

many will be at 2 or 3 deep frames of bees come late february when brooding starts back on the early tree pollens. 

it's what they do when left to their own devices, not given any supplemental feed, and allowed to modulate brooding based on field forage alone. they are frugal when they need to be and down right productive when i want them to be.

it's unlikely this would work out so well in the northern climes where the winters are much longer and colder and a much larger colony is needed to make it through.

either way, i'm not an advocate of inducing an artificial brood break as a means to control varroa. in fact, my least productive colonies are the ones that don't remain queenright prior to and during the main nectar flow here.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I was thinking that that idea was formulated in an area with a long, predicatable summer dearth and with a productive fall flow. I am in an even shorter season than grozzie and no fall flow at all so it sure would not fit in my pistol!

I had discussions with a fellow in Ohio running three deeps, who experienced the bees gobbling down most of the spring flow during the dearth. Getting queens mated was difficult because birds were picking them off on mating flights. I believe he gave up on the idea of knackering the queens. Caging might have been a different outcome but that can be a fair chore to accomplish.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

crofter said:


> I had discussions with a fellow in Ohio running three deeps, who experienced the bees gobbling down most of the spring flow during the dearth.


that is likely because the colonies are continuing to brood like crazy and the spring stores are getting turned into brood food.

rampant fecundity regardless of conditions is a trait desired by commercial breeders because it fits well with respect to the millions of colonies used for pollination, package bee production, ect.

of course the mites love this which is why treatments aren't really an option in those scenarios.

i would argue that back-yarders are probably better served with bees that modulate their brooding as described above.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

It is amazing what a huge variable "local conditions" can be if you consider the extremes of each possible one. No wonder we are like the _seven blind men and the elephant_ when trying to explain the nature of the problem beekeepers face.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

indeed. very well said frank.

it kind of gets back to these two postulates of beekeeping:

1. it depends
2. no guarantees


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

psm1212 said:


> Grozzie:
> 
> Good post re: population decline after forced brood break. A couple more things to consider, if you are attempting to maximize your forager-force during a nectar flow and time your brood break (and OAV) accordingly. I have a six week nectar flow (generally May 15 to July 1). If I kill my queen on May 15 I don't believe this will impact my workforce during the flow. In fact, it could be that with an idle broodnest, nurse bees will be promoted early to work the nectar flow, creating more foragers for the flow. If I had allowed the queen to live, the eggs she laid on May 16 will not become foragers during the flow (42 days until foraging according to "Bee Math").


I used to believe that, did it for a couple years. What we found, killing queens just before flow had no positive, possibly negative impact on our honey harvest. By far, and I do mean FAR, the single biggest factor with respect to honey harvest on the spring flows is how many drawn supers we put on the colonies. A colony with 2 or 3 drawn supers above the brood nest will get to work filling them. Those without drawn supers, either with no boxes or a box of empty new undrawn frames will rather start backfilling the brood nest and that leads to swarming issues. Summer flows are a different story, the bees will go right to work drawing out supers on the summer flows once we are past the swarmy part of the season.

This is our experience, in our conditions, your mileage may vary.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

grozzie2 said:


> I used to believe that, did it for a couple years. What we found, killing queens just before flow had no positive, possibly negative impact on our honey harvest.


Good to know. I have not yet had the courage to actually go in and kill off all my queens at this time, mainly because I am never fully confident of the timing of the flow. Experience trumps theory. I will still try it, but I will do it very small-scale with only a few test hives.



grozzie2 said:


> By far, and I do mean FAR, the single biggest factor with respect to honey harvest on the spring flows is how many drawn supers we put on the colonies.


This has been my experience as well. Drawn comb is possibly the most valuable asset I have in my small operation.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

grozzie2 said:


> By far, and I do mean FAR, the single biggest factor with respect to honey harvest on the spring flows is how many drawn supers we put on the colonies.


Well, population might have a bit more to do with it.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

grozzie2 said:


> By far, and I do mean FAR, the single biggest factor with respect to honey harvest on the spring flows is how many drawn supers we put on the colonies.


A lot of discussion about this here in Finland too.

I have made some measurements (more than once): 
-colonies headed by sister queens (with isolation apiary mating) side by side (or at least in the same yard)
-I put one extra super on the other one, drawn frames

result: with the accuracy of my scale the same crop


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

Juhani Lunden said:


> result: with the accuracy of my scale the same crop


I’m not surprised. Thank you for investing the time to look at this. You are a true naturalist.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Juhani Lunden said:


> A lot of discussion about this here in Finland too.
> 
> I have made some measurements (more than once):
> -colonies headed by sister queens (with isolation apiary mating) side by side (or at least in the same yard)
> ...


I'm not certain what you are saying here. With side-by-side sister queens, you added one super with drawn comb and gave the other only foundation? Foundationless frames? or did not add a super? Please elaborate. I am very interested in that result. Thank you.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>it's hard to know without scientific study whether or not the workers get recruited to foragers quicker in which case the assumption made by grozzie on longevity might be about right, 

That was proven long ago. I think I saw a study done back in the 40's that was listed in ABJ (also back in the 40's) titled something like "early recruitment of foragers" and another that had "precocious foragers" or "precocious foraging" in the title. Recently there was more focus on the actual mechanism which seems to be juvenile hormone.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002650050276
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00300679
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519303001218
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00192722
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022191085900034
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-008-0413-9

A colony is constantly losing bees and the population is constantly shifting. It SHOULD shift depending on the flow etc. The concept of queenlessness two weeks before the flow is counting on this to improve production and in particular to improve production of comb honey. Beekeepers have said for more than a century that you don't want bees raised ON the flow, you want bees raised BEFORE the flow.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

psm1212 said:


> I'm not certain what you are saying here. With side-by-side sister queens, you added one super with drawn comb and gave the other only foundation? Foundationless frames? or did not add a super? Please elaborate. I am very interested in that result. Thank you.


I think Juhani is saying, the setup difference was - "one extra super..., drawn frames".
Which resulted in no difference in crop - "the same crop".


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

psm1212 said:


> I'm not certain what you are saying here. With side-by-side sister queens, you added one super with drawn comb and gave the other only foundation? Foundationless frames? or did not add a super? Please elaborate. I am very interested in that result. Thank you.


My bad, said it unclearly. I was not using foundations at all in these experiments.

Similar hives, side by side, sister queens, same mating, one gets 4 drawn supers, the other one 3. Result: same crop in kg. Just divided into larger volume and thus more work to the beekeeper. 

About using foundations:
Bees need honey to make wax comb from foundation, (5 kg honey to 1 kg wax?), it is clear that using foundations cannot be compared to drawn combs. Some people with high brood disease pressure and bees poorly resisting diseases may have another opinion. In that case using (almost) solely foundations may be beneficial. In fact Brother Adam put one drawn super on top of the queen excluder, all super after that were with foundations.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> A colony is constantly losing bees and the population is constantly shifting. It SHOULD shift depending on the flow etc. The concept of queenlessness two weeks before the flow is counting on this to improve production and in particular to improve production of comb honey. Beekeepers have said for more than a century that you don't want bees raised ON the flow, you want bees raised BEFORE the flow.


In Finland with very short summer and intense flow some reckon taking queen away just before main crop will improve honey crop with one full Langstroth box of honey. 
My teacher in beekeeping used that system all his 60 years carrier, I used it too guite often in the 70´s and 80´s.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Riverderwent said:


> You are a true naturalist.


Thanks, I dont quite understand but I take that as a compliment!


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Michael Palmer said:


> Well, population might have a bit more to do with it.


Allow me to politely rephrase what I said 

Assuming colonies of equal population, the single manipulation that will result in the largest harvest from spring flow is how many drawn supers we put on. This one manipulation by far outweighs the effects of other manipulations we can do.

A big part of this is likely local conditions. We get our strongest flow in the spring, same time of the year bees are interested in swarming. Our experience is, colonies with empty drawn comb above are far less likely to get into swarm preps. And to paraphrase a long time beekeeper I saw presenting at a conference a couple years back, those that do get into swarm preps with empty drawn comb above, go 'Off the list'.


----------



## mgolden (Oct 26, 2011)

Equal big populations, 75,000 bees, just below cusp of swarming.

I like to run with three 10 frame deep honey supers. No queen excluder Pull the bottom honey super when sufficiently capped and add a wet super to the top. Put an empty drawn frame or a blank frame in the brood chamber weekly to keep laying space.

During the peak of the canola flow and with a big healthy populated hive, I needed to pull a super every four days.


----------

