# Sticky  A simple hypothesis



## Joseph Clemens

Though I am a scientist by training, I've never actually worked as a scientist (outside of university, as an undergraduate in Horticulture).

So, definitely consider this hypothesis as almost entirely anecdotal, for now.

Hypothesis: CCD is, most likely, a synergism between exotic pests, such as _Varroa destructor_, viruses and other diseases, vectored by such pests and modern agricultural pesticides, especially the neonic class of modern agricultural pesticides.

What has led me to postulate such a hypothesis, are the several and varied reports, my own included. Where honeybees, mostly, or completely isolated from modern agriculture, especially where they are not dependent on said agriculture for forage, seem to endure, if not thrive, despite the lack of any treatments, professed to be essential for their long-term survival. In fact, my own apiary is a nearby, fairly good example of that. 7 years ago my apiary consisted of 12 colonies, circumstances only allowed me to occasionally check on them, by walking by and observing if there were still traffic at any entrances. Now, 7 years later, there were still 7, very strong colonies, alive and growing. I've recently noted, by reports of others, where similar populations of honeybees, often near national parks, or other geographical locations, where the bees are intentionally, or unintentionally isolated from modern agriculture. I expect that time and scientific investigation, will prove or disprove this hypothesis.

It's hard to imagine that this hypothesis is not true, considering how many lawn/garden growing consumer and nearly all commercial agricultural enterprises seem to be using multiple neonic-based products. I live on the border of the Saguaro National Park, in the Picture Rocks suburb of Tucson, Arizona. It's an area where there are no lawns, and very few, if any, home gardens. Where the nearest agriculture are cotton and alfalfa fields, almost 11.5 miles away. I can be fairly certain they are using, at least, one neonic pesticide.


----------



## psm1212

The EU virtually banned neonics in 2013. If neonics have such a detrimental impact on honey bees, where are the studies showing radically improved HB survival rates in Europe? We should be seeing something. 

I would have accepted your hypothesis in 2014. In fact, I believed it personally. Not so much anymore.


----------



## Amibusiness

I think the hypothesis is too narrow. If we are considering synergistic effects why limit it to just two? There are a lot of factors going into this. If we change just one it may not have a huge effect in the short term....


----------



## GregB

Joseph Clemens said:


> 7 years ago my apiary consisted of 12 colonies, circumstances only allowed me to occasionally check on them, by walking by and observing if there were still traffic at any entrances. *Now, 7 years later, there were still 7, very strong colonies, alive and growing.*


Joseph, I meant to say earlier, but might as well do now (since you re-mentioned this 7-year run of, basically, "feral bee style" management - i.e. no management).

So - in reality you do not have hard documentation/observation information where you can show that you have several colonies *consistently and per-annually surviving *at your site.

As we discussed many times before here - what people often claim as a single colony that consistently survives in the same cavity (hive) for many years, often turns into several colonies that re-occupy the said cavity (hive).

So - while you have *a site of several hives* that has been occupied, you can not claim that you have certain *specific colonies* that persisted for *7 years*.

Yes - the site has been occupied for 7 years; but the dynamics of the specific colonies is un-known. You very well may have none of the original lineages from 7 years back still present (until you imported those Cordovans lately - if I keep track correctly of your writings).

In fact, yourself you stated multiple times by now how you were pre-occupied by other, more urgent matters. Which makes good sense. But what also makes sense is that you would not able to capture all the events taking place around your apiary - such as colonies collapsing and outside swarms entering the same hives.

I just want this understanding to be clear to some of the readers here.
Some of the readers are too quick to grab such a testimony and run with it as yet another TF success story.

Where, in fact, this story is not exactly a clear cut - as it is untraceable and has not been closely monitored over the timeframe presented.

It can not be denied outright either - to be fair.
The location maybe very favorable to confirm the story, in general. Still - this is impossible to trace back in any way now.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Amibusiness said:


> I think the hypothesis is too narrow. If we are considering synergistic effects why limit it to just two? There are a lot of factors going into this. If we change just one it may not have a huge effect in the short term....


I do agree with that. But I was just trying to keep it as narrow as possible so that someday soon it might be possible to investigate it scientifically. Too many variable may confound the issue - though, at the same time, considering them may also be essential to prove the hypothesis.


----------



## GregB

So in general - before tossing out some hypothesis to look at - a set of hard facts should be confirmed. 
We don't even have that - not in this particular context.


----------



## Litsinger

GregB said:


> So in general - before tossing out some hypothesis to look at - a set of hard facts should be confirmed.


Greg:

With all respect, I am reminded that Joseph offered this caveat at the outset of his post:



Joseph Clemens said:


> So, definitely consider this hypothesis as almost entirely anecdotal, for now.


Not being critical, just tempering expectations- seems he's offered a good-faith observation and invited discussion on the theme.

With a goodwill-

Sincerely,

The Village Contrarian


----------



## Joseph Clemens

GregB said:


> Joseph, I meant to say earlier, but might as well do now (since you re-mentioned this 7-year run of, basically, "feral bee style" management - i.e. no management).
> 
> So - in reality you do not have hard documentation/observation information where you can show that you have several colonies *consistently and per-annually surviving *at your site.
> 
> As we discussed many times before here - what people often claim as a single colony that consistently survives in the same cavity (hive) for many years, often turns into several colonies that re-occupy the said cavity (hive).
> 
> So - while you have *a site of several hives* that has been occupied, you can not claim that you have certain *specific colonies* that persisted for *7 years*.
> 
> Yes - the site has been occupied for 7 years; but the dynamics of the specific colonies is un-known. You very well may have none of the original lineages from 7 years back still present (until you imported those Cordovans lately - if I keep track correctly of your writings).
> 
> In fact, yourself you stated multiple times by now how you were pre-occupied by other, more urgent matters. Which makes good sense. But what also makes sense is that you would not able to capture all the events taking place around your apiary - such as colonies collapsing and outside swarms entering the same hives.
> 
> I just want this understanding to be clear to some of the readers here.
> Some of the readers are too quick to grab such a testimony and run with it as yet another TF success story.
> 
> Where, in fact, this story is not exactly a clear cut - as it untraceable and has not been closely monitored over the timeframe presented.


This is true. However, I've been keeping bees at this location since November of 1999, and it was 2015 before I stopped keeping close watch on my bees, before that I was into most hives every day, sometimes more than once per day.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Hey guys, a hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Not a scientific fact. Just a speculation. A speculation: "wild ass guess". It would be up to much more accomplished scientists, than I (I being just a novice). I wouldn't even know where to start in designing experiments to prove/disprove said hypothesis (wild ass guess).

Heck, Galileo had solid proof that the earth revolved around the sun, that still didn't keep him out of trouble.


----------



## Amibusiness

I disagree with the idea that biology should be studied in isolation (lab) like one may be able to get away with in physics. Take for example the oft repeated claim that it takes 8 (or x) pounds of honey to make a pound of wax. (Recently on this forum it was quoted as 3 supers of honey to make one super of wax! Is that like 75 pounds honey to 3 pounds wax?!) There is no way to test this scientifically. If the bees were put in lab like isolation they would be dead. So when it comes to life, which is so interconnected with all sorts of things, limiting the variables (which is considered so essential in science) is prone to give inaccurate results. Look for instance at the many studies of coffee: they tell you it's good for your heart, bad for your heart, will prolong human life, will shorten it. Clearly the science was so rigorously reductive it wound up either telling us nothing (if we take the entirety) or falsehood (if we only take one study). So I don't think we will find scientific proof that neonics or anything else are a smoking gun, when looking at something as complex and interconnected as a colony or a country full of colonies of bees.
As these hypotheses go, they often look at what is ailing something sick, search for a single stimulus, and thus prove their point. Better would be to look at the entirety of the context of something healthy and say, this seems to be working, we should strive for this if we want healthy results. Eliminating one ailment does not mean the system is now healthy. If your liver is shutting down and you have cancer, eliminating the cancer with chemo may well kill you, even if it is successful at eliminating the cancer....


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Amibusiness said:


> I disagree with the idea that biology should be studied in isolation (lab) like one may be able to get away with in physics. Take for example the oft repeated claim that it takes 8 (or x) pounds of honey to make a pound of wax. (Recently on this forum it was quoted as 3 supers of honey to make one super of wax! Is that like 75 pounds honey to 3 pounds wax?!) There is no way to test this scientifically. If the bees were put in lab like isolation they would be dead. So when it comes to life, which is so interconnected with all sorts of things, limiting the variables (which is considered so essential in science) is prone to give inaccurate results. Look for instance at the many studies of coffee: they tell you it's good for your heart, bad for your heart, will prolong human life, will shorten it. Clearly the science was so rigorously reductive it wound up either telling us nothing (if we take the entirety) or falsehood (if we only take one study). So I don't think we will find scientific proof that neonics or anything else are a smoking gun, when looking at something as complex and interconnected as a colony or a country full of colonies of bees.
> As these hypotheses go, they often look at what is ailing something sick, search for a single stimulus, and thus prove their point. Better would be to look at the entirety of the context of something healthy and say, this seems to be working, we should strive for this if we want healthy results. Eliminating one ailment does not mean the system is now healthy. If your liver is shutting down and you have cancer, eliminating the cancer with chemo may well kill you, even if it is successful at eliminating the cancer....


I'm not trying to set any definitive methods for such an investigation, just that one needs doing, an investigation, that is. Maybe it isn't Neonics, or any other modern agricultural practices, or lack thereof, causing my experiences, but, I'd like to have a better understanding as to what might be responsible for my contrary experiences. I don't believe it is magic, or is it? I would really like to know.

And yet, since before I had even relocated, here, to my present location, in November of 1999, I was continuously told, without treatments my colonies would not survive one year. I am still told that same thing. However, strangely enough, for the first 16 years, at this location, I rarely lost a single hive. In 1999 I started with only 4 colonies, yet, after only 2 years or so, I had nearly 20 colonies, maintained that number and raised queens and nucleus colonies, year-round, until my hiatus in 2015. My motivation for keeping bees is simply a fascination with the insects, and a desire to watch the inner workings of their hives, so I'm into them, nearly every day, year-round. I keep being told, "the world is flat", yet all the while, I'm sailing round and round it. If you kept being warned, that any colony you don't treat will be dead in a year, yet you keep watching for it, but it never happens, wouldn't you be skeptical too? Can the world actually be flat and round, at the same time? I hardly think so, but maybe it is? Or isn't it?

Can anyone, who believes the treatment myth, tell me why my colonies are dead, and I just haven't noticed yet? I would seriously like to know. If treatment free is location dependent - why is that? Why is my location, potentially devoid, or nearly devoid of any modern agricultural influence, so conducive to my bees surviving, treatment free? Is it just a coincidence? I am highly skeptical of this being a coincidence. Why wouldn't I be - wouldn't you be skeptical, too.

Seriously, if you kept being told that treating were the only way for you to keep colonies alive, year after year, yet you never treated, and your colonies still thrived, wouldn't you wonder why? Wouldn't you like to know how it were happening, to you? I, personally must ask these, "hard" questions, my curiosity demands it. If you kept doing something, you're told, is impossible, wouldn't you want to know why?

Maybe our science isn't yet up to such a task, maybe it never will be. Maybe we should try to investigate, anyway. Amibusiness, I'm not sure our science is up to an investigation of the scope you suggest. Yet, I do agree, that an investigation, such as you describe, would probably be most satisfying. Yet, even an investigation, that makes an attempt to answer the question, may be a step closer to a satisfactory answer.


----------



## James Lee

Treatment Free is not possible.

Wild colonies are always recolonized by other swarms from managed colonies. Even when monitored for multiple seasons.

Though I want it to be possible I will always tell everyone I can that becauase I gave up, you will fail too.

Signed, 

Beesource Beekeepers.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

James Lee said:


> Treatment Free is not possible.
> 
> Wild colonies are always recolonized by other swarms from managed colonies. Even when monitored for multiple seasons.
> 
> Though I want it to be possible I will always tell everyone I can that becauase I gave up, you will fail too.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Beesource Beekeepers.


Say, what?


----------



## AHudd

Here is a wild-ass guess, maybe it is the humidity, or lack thereof.
While living in dry West Texas, we had no problems with Spider Mites. Here in high humidity Arkansas they are very bad.

Alex


----------



## James Lee

Joseph Clemens said:


> Say, what?


Basically any attempts to theorize or consider the possibility of potential for honey bees to survive without human interventions and treatment will go highly derided in any form here at v source for some reason some folks just can't wrap their minds around the idea that it's plausible. 

Rather than consider the reasons for their necessary interventions being their ultimate goals and chief ends for beekeeping they will lampoon anyone here who desires to undertake strategy or reasonably consider keeping bees without miticides. And even when presented with evidence will still yet call it a farce or find some reason to debunk or disbelieve it.

And at the end of the day it may even not be The beekeeper they're upset with it's the historical definition of quote treatment-free beekeeping.

So I stated in my original reply those are the three most common responses you will get. Tongue in cheek of course.


----------



## AHudd

Joseph Clemens said:


> Say, what?


That was sarcasm, by James I presume. Note the signature.

Alex


----------



## AHudd

James Lee said:


> Basically any attempts to theorize or consider the possibility of potential for honey bees to survive without human interventions and treatment will go highly derided in any form here at v source for some reason some folks just can't wrap their minds around the idea that it's plausible.
> 
> Rather than consider the reasons for their necessary interventions being their ultimate goals and chief ends for beekeeping they will lampoon anyone here who desires to undertake strategy or reasonably consider keeping bees without miticides. And even when presented with evidence will still yet call it a farce or find some reason to debunk or disbelieve it.
> 
> And at the end of the day it may even not be The beekeeper they're upset with it's the historical definition of quote treatment-free beekeeping.
> 
> So I stated in my original reply those are the three most common responses you will get. Tongue in cheek of course.


Many have tried and many have failed. I don't need to repeatedly bang my head against a brick wall to learn to know it hurts.
What many of us resent is the contention that it's our inadequacy as beekeepers that cause our failure to keep bees off treatment. If only we could see the light.
If you are fortunate enough to be able to keep bees off treatments, I suggest, count your blessings.

Alex


----------



## GregB

Litsinger said:


> Greg:
> 
> With all respect, I am reminded that Joseph offered this caveat at the outset of his post:
> 
> Not being critical, just tempering expectations- seems he's offered a good-faith observation and invited discussion on the theme.
> 
> With a goodwill-
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> The Village Contrarian


Fair point.

I as well made a point to NOT deny Joseph's situation either.


> It can not be denied outright either - to be fair.


Rather I want higher accountability on the fact reporting by the writers and the higher fact acceptance standards by the readers. In fact, I myself am practicing this same approach (both as a writer and a reader).


----------



## GregB

To this wide and comprehensive hypothesis (and mostly unpractical to resolve):



> Hypothesis: CCD is, most likely, a synergism between exotic pests, such as _Varroa destructor_, viruses and other diseases, vectored by such pests and modern agricultural pesticides, especially the neonic class of modern agricultural pesticides.


I propose perhaps a simpler, applied problem.
A problem of comparing two groups of very similar locations where 1)feral bee are widely present and 2)feral bees are absent.

A sample case would be comparison of 1)Northern WI/Northern MI region vs. 2)Kentucky/Tennessee region.

Both regions have plenty of pockets where the intensive agricultural pressure can be discounted as non-essential and non-existent. The entire pesticide context can be taken out of the picture so to not be muddying the water.

Why is it no one from the region #1 ever reports successful treatment free beekeeping and yet we have many cases of the same from the region #2?

I am sure people have many readily available answers (climate differences would be the easiest target).
But I caution to NOT be jumping to easy conclusions. 

Climate in the region #1 is NOT prohibitive and is rather very compatible to the notorious Primorsky region of the Russian Far East - the very heartland of the Russian bees where they have been thriving for the last 150 years.


----------



## GregB

Joseph Clemens said:


> I was *continuously *told, without treatments my colonies would not survive one year. I am still told that same thing.


Are you told this by the *outsiders *OR the *neighbors*?
Be specific.
See - again, these abstract things like "you are told" are of little value. They are meaningless.

Opinions of the remote outsiders don't matter much (in either direction).

Experience of your immediate neighbors is what really matters.
But DO you have any immediate beekeeping neighbors that also practice successful TF?
Do you?

I would challenge you seek out your local beeks and find out their experience.
Then report back here.

Abstract talks (detached from the specific locality) have little value.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

GregB said:


> Are you told this by the *outsiders *OR the *neighbors*?
> Be specific.


Articles in beekeeping magazines, and posts, here on Beesource.



GregB said:


> Experience of your immediate neighbors is what really matters.
> But DO you have any immediate beekeeping neighbors that also practice successful TF?
> Do you?


Unfortunately, my nearest fellow beekeeper is almost 25 miles farther south, he is not a treatment-free beekeeper. However, he's always kept many more colonies, than I. Yet, despite using treatments he recently lost all of his colonies. A project I'm helping him with is to see how quickly I can split my 7 surviving colonies, into 20 for me and 100 for him, while raising my own queens, from imported mother queens, to help reduce the amount of Africanization we must deal with.



GregB said:


> I would challenge you seek out your local beeks and find out their experience.
> Then report back here.


I wish I had fellow, local beekeepers. But, if I did, they, most likely, would not be TF beekeepers, so who's to say how that would go.


----------



## GregB

Joseph Clemens said:


> GregB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you told this by the *outsiders *OR the *neighbors*?
> Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Articles in beekeeping magazines, and posts, here on Beesource.
Click to expand...

Articles and posts - these are nothing but the *outsiders to you.*
These articles and opinions don't matter.
Either way - pro or anti TF.

The specific location *detached *"recommendations" are meaningless.
This should be obvious by now.
I am surprised this very obvious point needs to be hammered non-stop.

Everyone will readily repeat the cliché of "beekeeping is local" and yet readily ignore *the same exact idea *when applied to the TF feasibility.

Is this not, kinda, ........eh.... stupid?


----------



## Joseph Clemens

As infrequent as it is for me to harvest anything from my bees, I occasionally do. In consideration of this, is why I decided to continue, TF. Since I believed the warnings of beekeeping magazine article authors, and several poster's here on Beesource, I was fully prepared to regularly replace my bees, from outside sources. And early on I discovered that nearly all local swarms, were never going to stay in any gear I forcefully introduced them to. I gave up trying to "hive" swarms, after trying to do so, nearly 100 times, over half a decade. Every so often a wild swarm would take up residence in a piece of idle gear, near my apiaries. Bonus bees, which I frequently requeened right away. I'm not really a radical TFer, I just would rather not unintentionally eat any of that treatment stuff.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

GregB said:


> Articles and posts - these are nothing but the *outsiders to you.*
> These articles and opinions don't matter.
> Either way - pro or anti TF.
> 
> The specific location *detached *"recommendations" are meaningless.
> This should be obvious by now.
> I am surprised this very obvious point needs to be hammed non-stop.
> 
> Everyone will readily repeat the cliché of "beekeeping is local" and yet readily ignore *the same exact idea *when applied to the TF feasibility.
> 
> Is this not, kinda, ........eh.... stupid?


I understand your point, yet I still am extremely curious to know, with somewhat more certitude, what I can thank for this aberrant experience. If it is location, what about my location, brings me this benefit?


----------



## GregB

Joseph Clemens said:


> I gave up trying to "hive" swarms, after trying to do so, *nearly 100 times, over half a decade.*


So you handle about 20 swarms *annually*.
And yet you have NO beekeeping neighbors.
That is a lot (!) of swarms - most likely of feral origin.

So you really seem be located in a middle of some very strong feral community (just per your own testaments).
Which (this strong feral bee presence) is a strong indication of a very favorable bee location - in every aspect of it.

Either this OR propose your own explanation of the very high numbers of the swarms. They have to come from somewhere.


----------



## GregB

Joseph Clemens said:


> I understand your point, yet I still am extremely curious to know, with somewhat more certitude, what I can thank for this aberrant experience. *If it is location, what about my location, brings me this benefit?*


#1. Overall favorable climate where the winter hardiness is not really a strong selection factor (opening up the door for the stronger AHB-based mite hardiness)
#2. Strong feral AHB influence 
#3. Absence of significant and persistent bee importation and migration (*next *to you). 
#4. Sufficient forage base - again, indicated by high survival rates of the feral bees 

To #1 - yes, I remember you mentioned occasional cold temps - these don't matter much - your winter is still short and mild to be considered a selective force.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

GregB said:


> So you handle about 20 swarms *annually*.
> And yet you have NO beekeeping neighbors.
> That is a lot (!) of swarms - most likely of feral origin.
> 
> So you really seem be located in a middle of some very strong feral community (just per your own testaments).
> Which (this strong feral bee presence) is a strong indication of a very favorable bee location - in every aspect of it.
> 
> Either this OR propose your own explanation of the very high numbers of the swarms. They have to come from somewhere.


After we'd been here, those first 5 years one of our neighbors removed an older building that had been in the corner of a neighbors lot, immediately north-west of our lot. There were various plants, cactus and shrubs obscuring our view of that location, from most angles. However, during this building demolition/removal, it became clear where many, if not all of those swarms had originated the past 5 years. There were, perhaps a half dozen, maybe more, colonies, living, suspended from the floor of this building. I couldn't believe I had never really noticed. Of course, they were fairly well obscured from view until this demolition event. I'd say, each individual colony, separated only by space (having a foot or two between each) was, perhaps the equivalent of 2 or 3, 10-frame deeps. I can't be sure they were strongly Africanized, since they never seemed to originate any overtly defensive or aggressive actions, during those 5 years. I do believe the building had been entirely unused, since it was seriously deteriorating. Hence, not disturbed until now. I chatted with the neighbor during this demolition, and was told that they knew there were bees there, and that was part of the reason for the demolition. In seasons past this I noticed my colonies were able secure more surplus from our main flow. 

But, what factors, make my location so favorable? If that questioned could be defined more succinctly, perhaps it might be more reproducible, or not.


----------



## GregB

Joseph Clemens said:


> I can't be sure they were strongly Africanized, since they never seemed to originate any overtly defensive or aggressive actions, during those 5 years.
> 
> But, what factors, make my location so favorable? If that questioned could be defined more succinctly, perhaps it might be more reproducible, or not.


I attempted; see #1-#4.
Continue to add/amend as you wish.

Speaking of the #2 - the AHB influence can be ever so subtle (not necessarily the sledge-hammer, massive defensive trait - the easiest and the first assumption, usually). The AHB influence brings *many traits* along with it, not just one.

Again, don't look for black and white explanations now. For example, the defensiveness is a good example of a trait measured on a sliding scale at any point in time. The same applies to ALL traits.

You are the scientist by training and should be telling US all of this!


----------



## Joseph Clemens

GregB, I think you have something there. The factors for my success are so noticeable, as to need no further illumination.

Yes, some of those AHB traits can be quite subtle. Like the one where, once you are holding a frame, with comb, you notice it had an entourage of guards, and now they have spread out to include your hands, arms, elbows, and shoulders included in the territory they are guarding, but don't bump or pinch one, or it's hell to pay.


----------



## GregB

To be consistent then.

What about:


> A sample case would be comparison of 1)Northern WI/Northern MI region vs. 2)Kentucky/Tennessee region.


In the context of:


> #1. Overall favorable climate where the winter hardiness is not really a strong selection factor (opening up the door for the stronger AHB-based mite hardiness)
> #2. Strong feral AHB influence
> #3. Absence of significant and persistent bee importation and migration (next to you).
> #4. Sufficient forage base - again, indicated by high survival rates of the feral bees


#1 - WI/MI are loosing to KY/TN - because the winter hardiness is of supreme importance in WI/MI (which under-cuts most any AHB traits that may be imported in)

#2 - again WI/MI are loosing to KY/TN - not much of AHB to speak of

#3 - maybe about even in certain places;
however in other places WI/MI are loosing to KY/TN since there is documented seasonal migration business used in WI/MI (winter in FL/summer back in WI/MI)

#4 - WI/MI maybe even with KY/TN (with local nuances).

Generally speaking, WI/MI is loosing to KY/TN (by my kitchen expert assessment).

Overall the winter factor and the mite factor (combined) in WI/MI are strong enough selective factor where the feral bees seldom survive up here.

Few isolated and short-lived feral cases here and there. But overall we don't even know of persisting and successful feral populations up here.
Meaning - we don't have a very favorable bee location if the feral bees' success is used as the TF-feasibility measure.


----------



## psm1212

There are two treatment free beekeepers that I follow and I believe have had good success. They are both located in North Carolina. One is Mark Smith of Flatwood Bee Farm and the other is Leigh from Five Apple Farms podcast. They both have very interesting stories and strategies and they both acknowledge that the secluded area where they keep bees seems to be at least a good portion of their success.


----------



## Litsinger

GregB said:


> ... not much of AHB to speak of


While there has been no known introgression of AHB genetics detected in Kentucky yet, I ran across this article a couple of weeks ago when looking at the question of Tracheal Mites in Tennessee:






Partially Africanized Bees Found in East Tennessee







www.tn.gov





This seems to comport well with the study below which suggests that AHB genetics should become 'watered down' the farther North one goes (for good and for ill):



Litsinger said:


> A recent research paper posted on Bee-L provided some interesting insights into the AHB/EHB interaction. Three interesting take-aways:


----------



## William Bagwell

Fascinating bit of thread drift! Well most of it...

To get back to your hypothesis. Have read that one of the criteria that defines CCD is "Little to no build-up of dead bees in the hive or at the hive entrance" If neonics are like most other pesticides then that pretty much rules them out as a cause. If they are not typical then you still have explain away psm1212's post #2 above.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

William Bagwell said:


> Fascinating bit of thread drift! Well most of it...
> 
> To get back to your hypothesis. Have read that one of the criteria that defines CCD is "Little to no build-up of dead bees in the hive or at the hive entrance" If neonics are like most other pesticides then that pretty much rules them out as a cause. If they are not typical then you still have explain away psm1212's post #2 above.


From what I've read of neonics, is they can cause foraging bees affected by very low doses, to have memory issues and forget their way home, among other symptoms.


----------



## William Bagwell

Joseph Clemens said:


> From what I've read of neonics, is they can cause foraging bees affected by very low doses, to have memory issues and forget their way home, among other symptoms.


If they forget their way home why do most of the nurse bees, who have never left the hive, also suddenly leave? 

Not picking on you, I want to believe your on to something (for reasons best discussed in Tailgater down below.) Reality is others have hashed this out in the past and ruled out pesticides as a cause. 

Very informative thread about CCD on BEE-L "Plus ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose" starting 02/09/21 
In English despite the odd title...


----------



## Joseph Clemens

William Bagwell said:


> If they forget their way home why do most of the nurse bees, who have never left the hive, also suddenly leave?


Good question. Wouldn't that simply mean that those few foragers who did make it back, and passed off their loads, like the wine of forgetfulness, in the Odyssey, passed on the honeybee chemical induced Alzheimer's? These compounds are proven to be deleterious at concentrations in PPB (parts per billion), which we only recently were able to detect. Who's to say they aren't still deleterious in even smaller doses, which we can't as yet detect. Isn't Occam's razor applicable? Since we know what effects minute doses of neonics have on honeybees, wouldn't it follow, via the principle of Occam's razor, that the nurse/house bees are likewise affected - rather than some other, exotic unknown cause.


----------



## Amibusiness

I think we are hashing this out unencumbered by the thought process.... Isn't it safe to say that bees survived for many hundreds or thousands or even millions of years before humans had a modern mechanical approach to agriculture and apiculture? And now there are all sorts of challenges to the bees viability? If we remove one chemical or manipulation, deemed by some to be detrimental to bees wellbeing, isn't there still a long way to go before we could count on any progress? If we only try to measure one drop we are still a long way from understanding the ocean.
We humans can make a detrimental effect on an organism in one human or bee generation that takes many hundreds of generations to correct itself. Just blaming neonics or chems without regard for mass production or reduction of forage is silly. Obviously there are differences in populations or circumstances that different beeks observe. These can raise very interesting questions and hypotheses. But to follow a science that attempts to understand the whole ocean by studying one drop is a fools errand. So ask the questions and make your observations and even hypotheses if you wish. Only the inquisitive and open mind will begin to see the connections. There are so many of them that anyone trying to carve each of them in stone and keep track of each data point and be 100% dogmatically accurate likely won't be able to grasp the whole because of all the confusing details. The devil may be in the details but without a grasp of the totality we are all going to hell in a hand basket anyway, so we are sure to meet him.....


----------



## Joseph Clemens

We're really getting, out there now:
And yet, that one drop may be all you need to understand what you need to understand about the ocean, at this time. I would never blame chemicals, per se, for anything in particular. After all, deadly as H2O can be, there are plenty of other chemical compounds, also liquids, at room temperature, one could drown in. I'm gonna bet, they are all chemicals, heck even we are composed primarily of chemicals. And too, Occam's razor, however, postulates that the simplest answer, that solves the mystery, is usually the answer that is correct, vs any more complex or difficult to understand answer. So, if the deceased lungs are full of water, and it appears that they drowned, and there is a half empty glass of water near there hand, yet they are nowhere near a body of water, in which people usually drown, it might not be prudent to start a search for some mysterious body of water they may have been able to visit, drowned in, then quickly return to where their body was discovered. It may just be, that however unlikely, they may have simply drowned in the water that was in the glass.


----------



## farmer9989

you can't count on science being any were close to accurate , because your government continually gets in the way to control the narrative. that makes hypothesis just as accurate .


----------



## A Novice

Joseph Clemens said:


> Hey guys, a hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Not a scientific fact. Just a speculation. A speculation: "wild ass guess". It would be up to much more accomplished scientists, than I (I being just a novice). I wouldn't even know where to start in designing experiments to prove/disprove said hypothesis (wild ass guess).
> 
> Heck, Galileo had solid proof that the earth revolved around the sun, that still didn't keep him out of trouble.


Actually, this is more of a conjecture than a hypothesis.

Conjecture - The act of forming an opinion without definite proof; a supposition made to account for an ascertained state of things, but as yet unverified; an opinion formed on insufficient presumptive evidence; a surmise; a guess. 

And Galileo, as I understand it, didn't really have the math to back up his hypothesis.
Kepler did. But Kepler was one really smart dude.


----------



## A Novice

This is a great topic we can all discuss indefinitely, because none of us have any idea if we are right or wrong.

A hypothesis should be testable, otherwise it serves no purpose.

However, testing any hypothesis about bee survival is very difficult. It takes a lot of time and money. Any number of things could be a factor.

So lets say we hypothesize that bees kept in a location remote from other managed colonies survive better TF than those located near other beekeepers.

Can we test that? How would we do it. Only I know about my 5 colonies. If you were TF near my location, you wouldn't know. 

This isn't easy. 

Remember when everybody was getting stomach ulcers?
After years of testing, surgery, dietary restriction, behavior modification, etc., none of which worked, we learned the ulcers weren't caused by stress - they were caused by helicobacter pylori. A bacteria. Even though the antibiotics to treat ulcers had been available for decades. Even though there were many other bacterial infections we knew about. Even though bacteria are very easy to find experimentally.

Careers were made "treating" ulcers. Surgery. Double contrast GI studies. Whole wings of hospitals devoted to sufferers. None of which worked. They completely missed the fact that just two weeks of treatment with antibiotics and antacids would cure stomach ulcers. 

What I find interesting is not how much we can learn experimentally, but how much we can miss for so long.


This is kind of like that. Maybe CCD is caused by a bacteria. That would explain why being isolated is helpful. Maybe not. Another conjecture.


----------



## Waymaker Farms

GregB said:


> So in general - before tossing out some hypothesis to look at - a set of hard facts should be confirmed.
> We don't even have that - not in this particular context.


From the internet:

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwi5pv7_nNX4AhWkDkQIHWGUBVMQ3eEDegQIAxAK
_noun_

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Can you say a hypothesis is correct?
A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but *it can never be proved correct 100% of the time*. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red.


----------



## GregB

psm1212 said:


> There are two treatment free beekeepers that I follow and I believe have had good success. They are both located in North Carolina.* One is Mark Smith of Flatwood Bee Farm and the other is Leigh from Five Apple Farms podcast.* They both have very interesting stories and strategies and they both acknowledge that the secluded area where they keep bees seems to be at least a good portion of their success.


We should enter this into our survey here:
Treatment-free beekeeper location survey #2 | Beesource Beekeeping Forums 

@psm1212 if you would enter Mark Smith, I can then enter Leigh from the Five Apple farms. Sounds as if they would qualify.
Sounds OK?


----------



## A Novice

Waymaker Farms said:


> From the internet:
> 
> hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
> how to pronounce hypothesis - Google Search
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
> 
> Can you say a hypothesis is correct?
> A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but *it can never be proved correct 100% of the time*. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red.


True enough.

Nothing can be proven in an absolute sense.

We accept things as true based on evidence and testimony.

However, this is a matter of belief. It involves a decision. An act of the will.

Sometimes we accept things as true without conscious thought - that the ground is solid and we can walk on it for example. Other times our acceptance is conscious.

However, these things we accept as true - operating assumptions - are all a matter of faith.

God did not design us with the capacity to know. Just the capacity to believe.

That is the human condition.

However, the belief that we live in a universe which is designed to work makes it reasonable that we can find rules it works by. So our operating assumptions - that, for example, gravity works according to the Law of Universal Gravitation - while still matters of faith - are quite useful.

BTW, if I remember correctly, General Relativity (which no one understands) supersedes the action-at-a-distance model, which remains a very good approximation which everybody uses, unless calculating the perihelion of Mercury or something like that.


----------



## drummerboy

"The truth depends on where one stands"


----------



## A Novice

drummerboy said:


> "The truth depends on where one stands"


I suspect that objective reality exists.

However, different people observe reality from their own point of view.

Everyone processes observations through the filter of their own world view.

A sort of fumbling around in the dark sort of thing.

One of the things that makes science difficult.


----------



## Gray Goose

Joseph Clemens said:


> Articles in beekeeping magazines, and posts, here on Beesource.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, my nearest fellow beekeeper is almost 25 miles farther south, he is not a treatment-free beekeeper. However, he's always kept many more colonies, than I. Yet, despite using treatments he recently lost all of his colonies. A project I'm helping him with is to see how quickly I can split my 7 surviving colonies, into 20 for me and 100 for him, while raising my own queens, from imported mother queens, to help reduce the amount of Africanization we must deal with.
> 
> 
> I wish I had fellow, local beekeepers. But, if I did, they, most likely, would not be TF beekeepers, so who's to say how that would go.


Joseph,

Is there a chance that a plant or water hole has some combination of minerals/ingredients that boost the immune system of the bees you have?

I have had bees in several locations, and can offer each site is different is some small way, some good some bad.
A mineral spring can change, the dynamic over a pond of runoff from farms.

when looking at the survivability of a colony, IMO many factors come into play.

be interesting if your bees in his Apiary do the same.

GG


----------



## drummerboy

A Novice said:


> I suspect that objective reality exists.
> 
> However, different people observe reality from their own point of view.
> 
> Everyone processes observations through the filter of their own world view.
> 
> A sort of fumbling around in the dark sort of thing.
> 
> One of the things that makes science difficult.


Einstein told us long ago that reality depends on ones perspective....on ones place in time and space. 

"WYSIATI" - or - What You See Is All There Is...


----------



## A Novice

drummerboy said:


> Einstein told us long ago that reality depends on ones perspective....on ones place in time and space.
> 
> "WYSIATI" - or - What You See Is All There Is...


There are, of course, two responses to that - the first being more theoretical - that having different observations of the same reality because of the different circumstances of the observer in no way detracts from the absolute nature of that singular reality. It merely illuminates the limits of our power to observe.

The second being practical - for us poor, slow earth-bound humans, the differences in our observations as a result of differences in velocity (when compared to the speed of light) are so small as to be impossible to resolve using our natural senses. 
Consequently, differences in human perspectives arise entirely from our limitations as observers, not from the reality we seek to explain to ourselves.

WYSIATI is an expression of human ineptitude.

However, what has this to do with bees? I forget...


----------



## GregB

drummerboy said:


> "The truth depends on where one stands"


Truth depends on where the issue on hand is located in the Maslow pyramid (in the human context).

For example - everyone needs water to survive (including bees).
This physiological truth is hard to argue about, no matter where you stand on the political issues. 

An so - a lot of smart sounding philosophical clichés are subject to interpretation and their specific context.
No matter if even Einstein came up with them (supposedly, but too often not factually).


----------



## A Novice

GregB said:


> Truth depends on where the issue on hand is located in the Maslow pyramid (in the human context).
> 
> For example - everyone needs water to survive (including bees).
> This physiological truth is hard to argue about, no matter where you stand on the political issues.
> 
> An so - a lot of smart sounding philosophical clichés are subject to interpretation and their specific context.
> No matter if even Einstein came up with them (supposedly, but too often not factually).


I agree Greg. Although Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" has been shown to be factually incorrect, especially the upper parts of the pyramid. Real people observably forego many of the items lower on the pyramid because their attachment to items higher on the pyramid. Even a dog will forgo food and water out of loyalty to its master.

A man in the concentration camps (I think it was Elie Weissel) observed this, as he said (roughly) 

Everyone was starving. According to the pyramid, you would expect people to all act similarly, since all were suffering from hunger. Instead, the differences between people became much sharper. The cowardly became more craven, the generous became more generous, the brave became more courageous, the holy became more holy. 

To which I add, Humanism, with its platitudes and little diagrams, is bunk.

TO connect this back to the bee, it can be seen (as AI Root pointed out in the original edition of the ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture) that often in the evening a worker bee, after it has been a forager and its wings are worn out, will be found crawling away from the hive, and if you think to rescue it, and put it at the entrance, it will crawl away again, to rid the colony of its now worthless self. 

Such a bee is doubtless hungry, tired, and needs shelter and protection from predation. But the good of the colony is a more compelling need.


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> However, testing any hypothesis about bee survival is very difficult. It takes a lot of time and money. Any number of things could be a factor.


@A Novice:

Thought about your perspective on this point today when reading an article entitled, '_Mooched'_ in the latest Bee Culture Magazine. The author, John Miller had this to say: 

_Science is hard. The beekeeping industry doesn’t fund a lot of bee research science. We do some very good science – but the amount of funding available to conduct good, rigorous scientific bee research is comically/tragically small. You’ve heard me say before: ‘Apple computer spends more per second on research than beekeeping spends in a year.’ _


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Gray Goose said:


> Joseph,
> 
> Is there a chance that a plant or water hole has some combination of minerals/ingredients that boost the immune system of the bees you have?
> 
> I have had bees in several locations, and can offer each site is different is some small way, some good some bad.
> A mineral spring can change, the dynamic over a pond of runoff from farms.
> 
> when looking at the survivability of a colony, IMO many factors come into play.
> 
> be interesting if your bees in his Apiary do the same.
> 
> GG


My water is from a group of community wells at a co-op. A few years ago their was an elevated level of arsenic (not at danger levels), but they warned us anyways. I always further purify any water we drink or cook with, by either R.O. or R.O. and D.I. But I water my bees with one of those rectangular, black plastic mud pans (usually used for mixing mortar in masonry. It is filled with small starter plants of Mediterranean reeds (_Arundo donax_) which are weighed down with a heavy rock, otherwise the wind will blow them out of the tray. The bees are busy there from dawn 'til dark, every day. I refill it as necessary, most days they take it down by about 1/2, but some days they drain it so fast I need to refill it again, before dark or the reeds would dry out and die.

You got me to thinking - there are many copper mines in our vicinity. I wonder if any native plants might pick it up and secrete any in their nectar. I'll see if I can find out anything about that possibility. I'll also ask my water co-op about copper levels in our water. I understand that copper is a necessary ingredient in honeybee hemolymph (blood), and that slightly higher levels than usual don't harm the bees, but it can be toxic, even deadly to Varroa.


----------



## GregB

Joseph Clemens said:


> *I understand that copper is a necessary ingredient in honeybee hemolymph (blood),* and that slightly higher levels than usual don't harm the bees, but it can be toxic, even deadly to Varroa.


You should google this up. 

You see, the insects have open circulatory system (NOT closed system).
They don't really have oxygen carrying agent (e.g. copper or iron) as the animals with closed circulatory systems do.

So talking of copper in "bee blood" is barking at a wrong tree (implying that somehow copper is critical for bee physiology). Meaning that assuming some certain guarantied (and possibly even elevated!) amount of copper in "bee blood" is incorrect. 

Darn science. 

PS: true - we are what we eat and drink (same for the bees) - I get the logic and it _might_ have some merit to it; minute amounts of copper could have some toxicity for some organisms, but I would rather look elsewhere.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I refer to the following research paper:

Copper - Honeybees - Varroa


----------



## drummerboy

Science; the only religion worthy of faith.


----------



## William Bagwell

Joseph Clemens said:


> I refer to the following research paper:


Stray junk in your URL, try this one
https://www.apiservices.biz/documents/articles-en/cupric_salts.pdf
If correct, you have 24 hours to edit yours.

Possibly on to something there. Appears to be from the early 90s and obviously a reason copper never caught on as a varroa treatment. Might be useful to those who have bees with some degree of resistance and feel copper is less offensive than other pesticides.


----------



## drummerboy

FYI; For those wishing to broaden their worldview, I believe the concept of WYSIATI came from Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Daniel Kahneman, hardly one who promotes ineptness - or it could have come from Edward O. Wilson, winner of the Pulitzer who warned us of the eventual collapse of biodiversity we are currently witnessing in real time.

Opinions? Everybody's got one......


William Bagwell said:


> Stray junk in your URL, try this one
> https://www.apiservices.biz/documents/articles-en/cupric_salts.pdf
> If correct, you have 24 hours to edit yours.
> 
> Possibly on to something there. Appears to be from the early 90s and obviously a reason copper never caught on as a varroa treatment. Might be useful to those who have bees with some degree of resistance and feel copper is less offensive than other pesticides.


Northern Wisconsin/Mn is copper country, which 'might' (mite) explain some things.....I dunno.


----------



## William Bagwell

drummerboy said:


> Northern Wisconsin/Mn is copper country, which 'might' (mite) explain some things.....I dunno.


Coworker claims his dad (and GF before him) is treatment free and always has been. Copper Basin Tennessee... So yes, makes me wonder.

And yes, I have hinted at wanting a queen or two. Or even a queen cell "Ask your dad what he does for swarm control"


----------



## drummerboy

William Bagwell said:


> Coworker claims his dad (and GF before him) is treatment free and always has been. Copper Basin Tennessee... So yes, makes me wonder.
> 
> And yes, I have hinted at wanting a queen or two. Or even a queen cell "Ask your dad what he does for swarm control"


We were TF for many years, until a Beek with more money than time decided to import several bee yards all around us. His bees all died the first year (fences are still up but he hasn't returned) and ours have never been the same. After loosing too many colonies over the last three years, this year we finally decided to treat, although we still believe that treating is no treat at all. 

Like many others; We hate buying bees and want to keep our bees alive and can't wait for the bees to make the corrections they would make if left to their own methods. I'll bee dead by then with all the crap were giving them.....which is likely inhibiting their own prevention methods. So it goes....


----------



## A Novice

drummerboy said:


> FYI; For those wishing to broaden their worldview, I believe the concept of WYSIATI came from Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Daniel Kahneman, hardly one who promotes ineptness - or it could have come from Edward O. Wilson, winner of the Pulitzer who warned us of the eventual collapse of biodiversity we are currently witnessing in real time.


You are correct that WYSIATI can be attributed to Daniel Kahneman.

It is a way of summarizing how people ordinarily (using "fast" thinking) make decisions and hold opinions based on their own individual perceptual experiences, as if what little they have seen reflects all of reality.

For example, many people view school shootings as a huge problem, because they hear about them every time they happen (their perceptual experience) but feel that their children are relatively safe once they are in their own minivan and headed home, even though traffic deaths of children being transported to and from school in personal vehicles are considerably more numerous than school shooting fatalities, and just as tragic. But a child dying in a traffic accident, no matter how tragic, doesn't make national news. Therefore, since we didn't "see" it, it didn't happen. WYSIATI.

It refers to human ineptness at assessing risk (among other things) when using the "fast" thinking process that all of us use the majority of the time. 

I recommend the book

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

to anyone who is interested. It presents much of the research on human thought processes in a fairly readable and entertaining format. It does show that people generally (all of us) stink at thinking, which is why so many people vote Democrat (or Republican) - all depends on what you think.

Applying this to honeybees, each of us has their own experience. 

I have (for example) kept bees in insulated hives and in uninsulated hives. In my very limited experience I see no difference. Even though my sample size is very small, and my experience is statistically irrelevant, I think I know the answers to the insulation debate. Even when I do experiments, I rationalize my results to fit what I already know. And I do experiments which I know are of insufficient statistical power to provide any useful information and draw conclusions from them. 
The frustrating thing is that even though I know I don't know anything on this topic, I still think I do. WYSIATI. Kahneman demonstrated that even statisticians do not habitually think statistically. 

Insulation is just one example, and I don't want to open the insulation topic, as it is wearying and pointless. I would have used CCD as an example, but I really haven't seen it so I think (and act as if) it doesn't really exist. WYSIATI


----------



## A Novice

drummerboy said:


> Science; the only religion worthy of faith.


It would be difficult, I think, to put much faith in something which changes so often, and which then only reflects the current thinking popular with "scientists".

My faith in science has gone the way of the Brontosaurus.

Those aspects of science which take their virtue from their practical utility - that are used to make things - are reliable and trustworthy to the extent they work. Surgery for stomach ulcers was bad science, though it made a lot of GI doctors rich.

The rest of so-called science - which is merely explanatory or descriptive, and has no other virtue, cannot be shown to be correct and is mostly bunk.

Real science - that demonstrates cause and effect - is very hard to do in complex biological systems. Which is why science hasn't solved CCD.

I like the idea CCD is caused by a bacterial agent yet to be identified. It fits the data as well as anything. (while this last comment could be viewed as sarcasm, check back in 20 years. If a cause of CCD is conclusively demonstrated, I very well may be right.)


----------



## ursa_minor

A Novice said:


> For example, many people view school shootings as a huge problem, because they hear about them every time they happen (their perceptual experience) but feel that their children are relatively safe once they are in their own minivan and headed home, even though traffic deaths of children being transported to and from school in personal vehicles are considerably more numerous than school shooting fatalities, and just as tragic. But a child dying in a traffic accident, no matter how tragic, doesn't make national news. Therefore, since we didn't "see" it, it didn't happen. WYSIATI.


School shootings aren't a huge problem then? I don't follow, I think you need a little different comparison. 



A Novice said:


> It would be difficult, I think, to put much faith in something which changes so often, and which then only reflects the current thinking popular with "scientists".


Science changes as our knowledge our methods our tools and our abilities become better, faster or more precise. Science, unlike beliefs, is willing to adapt to new information and of course it reflects current thinking, because the presence is all we have until new discoveries are made. When science is found to be wrong, as new information is discovered, it changes.

IMO people think that science should be correct all the time and the findings absolute, cast in stone. Science of the 19th century changed as people grew in knowledge and it will change as we go forward.


----------



## Amibusiness

Scientists may be willing to change as they see the need. The masses, however, tend to adhere to the "scientific discoveries" with religious-like fanatical faith, blatantly disregarding the inconvenient facts as unscientific while fervently / righteously explaining the "facts" they like as being science based. Take climate change, for example. As a religious debate no one is going to convince anyone of the merits of their side, as both sides have a religious conviction they are getting their info from the undisputed good book, the word of their scientific God.
My perspective does not change the reality of something. A color blind person may not be able to see the same thing as I but that does not change the colors. My perspective merely changes what science religion I adhere to.
This is not to say that all science is patently wrong, just like all religion may not be wrong. But having wars about our beliefs is clearly a fools errand.
Therefore, if church and state are supposed to be separate, and science is a religion: what would our society be like if state and science were respectful of each other's differences but remained separate? For many things the state uses science to make a best guess as to how to proceed. And then things get very twisted: gun rights is a religious not scientific issue (if we looked at the data we would make different decisions; for many years the federal government was banned from collecting the data due to a religious belief in the 2nd amendment). Or recycling: how much of my religious separation of plastics results in a big fire in southeast Asia? How much could be accomplished with that wasted human potential that could be used, for example, to maintain the things we have so we do not need to generate as much garbage that then needs to be sorted through to see if any of it should be separated before it all gets dumped in a fire?(!) So you can see, in some topics we already do keep the scientific religion separate from the state....


----------



## GregB

A Novice said:


> I agree Greg. Although Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" has been shown to be factually incorrect, especially the upper parts of the pyramid. Real people observably forego many of the items lower on the pyramid because their attachment to items higher on the pyramid. Even a dog will forgo food and water out of loyalty to its master.
> ................
> Such a bee is doubtless hungry, tired, and needs shelter and protection from predation. But the good of the colony is a more compelling need.


Surely one can find examples one way or the other.

However, I would not compare the *moral *choices that people make in defiance of the the Maslow's pyramid and *rudimentary behaviors* developed through evolution of a bug (however socially advanced the bug maybe).
Yes - it is convenient to equate the two.
But these are not equal.

Yes - I did pull in the Maslow (but only in the contexts generalized truth seeking statements). 

Btw, the current Russo-Ukrainian war is a good demo that Maslow actually does work.
The *vast majority* of the Russia's population is (yet again the latest example) - quietly going about their daily living and do nothing to stop the insanity - stuck in the lower part of the pyramid out of fear for their lives and well-being. 

All they have to do is to think of the "upper parts of the pyramid", go out in mass and trample that rather *small in numbers* oppressing them mafia state. 

NOT happening. 
Maslow works as defined.
(discount several thousand of those who rose up and are now in jail, threatened and beaten - these people are a drop in a bucket).


----------



## drummerboy

It remains the evolution of science that I find most intriguing and compelling. The fact that science is not ever stagnant is an attractant for me not an obstruction. 

Change, constant persistent change, is the only thing that is permanent in this world, in the entire universe imo. 

There has always been a small minority of humans who are unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves, resulting in some boss, leader, autocrat, con artist or dictator to do their thinking for them. 

Human history is loaded with examples.

Because these folks are so easily manipulated and yet tend to have the loudest voice (wa - wa) they end up ruling the world over the more open minded majority who are often asleep at the switch (fat and lazy) only to awaken once they feel the boot heel on their own throats.....

Mediocracy is the ultimate goal for our rulers and mediocracy is what we've got through such concepts as ownerships (land and resources) trade marks and copyrights.

The argument holds true; in that human emotions and behaviors have not kept up with our advances in technology and is likely causing great harm to our species (and the rest of the planet). Harm that will last for as long as we remain in our self-proclaimed state of ego centrist exceptionalism, refusing to admit how pitifully destructive the human species actually is - to all lifeforms. Our future generations, hopefully more evolved, will be cursing us all....if they survive what we are determined to leave them, begging the question; 

What is our purpose?

....just another opinion.....Happy July 4th! America! ....it may be the last time we can celebrate with a straight face.....


----------



## ursa_minor

drummerboy said:


> It remains the evolution of science that I find most intriguing and compelling. The fact that science is not ever stagnant is an attractant for me not an obstruction.


Me as well, as the ability for science to discover that past research was faulty and find new ones brings hope, hope for a cancer cure for a loved one before they succumb, hope that varroa mites will be found to be susceptible to a product that is safe for the beekeeper to apply, the bees, and the consumer. 

IMO some of the current impatience with science is simple a matter of our human selves in the present time. People want instant results, answers or gratification, no one is willing to wait until science figures it out as the wheels of research grind slowly in order to get it right. A result of that impatience is that govt.'s pump out an answer because people get restless, vocal, and demanding, unable to accept that some science takes time and sometimes there is no answer to a problem and we just have to deal with it as best we can.


----------



## squarepeg

really good thread joseph, many thanks for starting this discussion.

along with the rest of you, i too have been interested in deliniating the factors which support the success of bee populations sans treatments.

proximity to large expanses of wooded lands that are sufficient to support a feral (unmanaged) population is a frequent denominator. i presume the reason for this is adequate habitat in terms of tree hollows, as well as abundance and diversity of tree and other forage.


----------



## ursa_minor

Is it the bees that are the determining factor ( since sometimes transplanting these bees results in a mite crash) or is it the mites that cannot survive as well within the areas that are TF.

Are the bees accidentally bringing a substance in to the hive such as a specific nectar, pollen or propolis from a certain tree bud that the mites find hard to cope with? Is it because of the abundance of this element within woodlands that helps these bees along with their own grooming habits. Is there more than one factor at play, one with the mites themselves and one with the bees.


----------



## GregB

ursa_minor said:


> Is it the bees that are the determining factor ( since sometimes transplanting these bees results in a mite crash) or is it the mites that cannot survive as well within the areas that are TF.
> 
> Are the bees accidentally bringing a substance in to the hive such as a specific nectar, pollen or propolis from a certain tree bud that the mites find hard to cope with? Is it because of the abundance of this element within woodlands that helps these bees along with their own grooming habits. Is there more than one factor at play, one with the mites themselves and one with the bees.


Even M. Bush complained in the past - he'd invite researchers to look at his apiary and his bees.
No one was really interested, if I remember right.

Whereas the specific cases of TF success are to be looked as a *cross-section of all potentially contributing factors.*
Clearly this is not just the bees themselves - good VSH bees at *my location* must still be treated (that much I know, as well I mostly know why).

Because the TF success (OR the TF failure also!) is NOT transferrable, but rather is a function of a specific locational context - the locational contexts need to be studied.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

ursa_minor said:


> Is it the bees that are the determining factor ( since sometimes transplanting these bees results in a mite crash) or is it the mites that cannot survive as well within the areas that are TF.
> 
> Are the bees accidentally bringing a substance in to the hive such as a specific nectar, pollen or propolis from a certain tree bud that the mites find hard to cope with? Is it because of the abundance of this element within woodlands that helps these bees along with their own grooming habits. Is there more than one factor at play, one with the mites themselves and one with the bees.


Interesting possibility there, unique propolis, perhaps. Earlier, I began a different thread, asking if others have seen/smelled a kind of propolis, that is very common, here. It is a propolis whose fragrance is strongly reminiscent of "Pumpkin Pie Spice", though not exactly. It would predominate inside the hive, if it weren't for the many other scents there. It always pervades my nose, with its fragrance, when I have a hive open. I thought it might be from the Creosote Bush, but I haven't been able to find out for certain.

I wonder if it might be made into an innocuous emulsion, sprayed onto new gear, perhaps, to see if it has any such properties. Perhaps if dissolved in a strong ETOH solution (the ETOH would quickly dissipate). ETOH (ethyl alcohol) an ephemeral, naturally occurring substance.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

squarepeg said:


> really good thread joseph, many thanks for starting this discussion.
> 
> along with the rest of you, i too have been interested in delineating the factors which support the success of bee populations sans treatments.
> 
> proximity to large expanses of wooded lands that are sufficient to support a feral (unmanaged) population is a frequent denominator. i presume the reason for this is adequate habitat in terms of tree hollows, as well as abundance and diversity of tree and other forage.


NP, it's a question that's been on my mind for a very long time.

No matter that we haven't yet had any noticeable amount of precipitation, since January, yet. There are always some of those Creosote Bushes that are in bloom. It's like Spring dandelion bloom, in many other locations, but here, it is year-'round.

I sure wish I could remember which plant, it is, that has nectar the color of fluorescent automobile antifreeze.


----------



## drummerboy

Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters. - Bob Dylan.

"Bees make better beekeepers than beekeepers make bees" - Michael Palmer


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

This thread has strayed from its original theme, and after considering various options, I split it into two threads.

If you want to find the 17 posts that I moved into a new thread, titled "Science perspectives", the link is here:


https://www.beesource.com/threads/science-perspectives.371996/



If you wish to continue posting in THIS thread, "A simple hypothesis", please make your message "on topic" to the original theme of this thread.


----------



## A Novice

Rader Sidetrack said:


> This thread has strayed from its original theme, and after considering various options, I split it into two threads.
> 
> If you want to find the 17 posts that I moved into a new thread, titled "Science perspectives", the link is here:
> 
> 
> https://www.beesource.com/threads/science-perspectives.371996/
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to continue posting in THIS thread, please make your message "on topic" to the original theme of this thread.


Yeah. We strayed a bit.
Sorry about that, Chief!


----------

