# Randy Oliver's Request



## Jeanette (Jul 7, 2012)

Is this the link you were looking for, Mark? http://scientificbeekeeping.com/fighting-varroa-reconnaissance-mite-sampling/


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks Jeanette.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i would also like to read kim's 'epistle'. can anyone link me to it, or can it be pasted here?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i'm like steveng. other than pulling drone larvae, i haven't been counting mites. maybe i should be.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

See Daniel Y's Post below for a link to Kim Flottum's Post on his ezezine.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

many thanks mark.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

This is copied and pasted from http://home.ezezine.com/1636/ in regard to the request.

I like the idea but and will look into contacting him for starting collections in the spring. I don't do the sticky board thing mainly because I don't have a screened bottom board. I did pull drone larva this year though.

Thanks for bringing this to attention Mark.


*Treatment Free Beekeepers – Help Collect Data*

From Randy Oliver

Hi all treatment free beekeepers. How about helping me collect data on the actual mite levels in your hives over the course of the year?

Here's the simple protocol:
Alcohol wash is most accurate. Can do with only a level 1/3 cup of bees, which is slightly over 200 bees. Follow procedure at http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-11-mite-monitoring-methods/

The sample should be taken from the same place in the hive each time—He prefers the first non-brood frame adjacent to brood, since less chance of getting a queen.

Samples should be taken each month, at about the same time of month. All samples from the same hive(s), and kept track of for hive number. Two or more hives would be most desirable.

Such results would allow me to plot the mite population curve for the year in your hives, which would be of great interest for nontreated colonies that survive.

Record hive number(s), date, and mite count for each sample.

Send me the data and location after you have collected for a year. We'll make the data available to anybody interested on the web page, and let you know when it gets posted.

Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks Daniel Y. I don't have your computer skills.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Mark, in fairness to Randy, you ought to go back and read his page again. He does not ask for a donation to cover his time reading emails...he asks for a donation to answer beekeeping questions. I'm not Randy's biggest fan, but his wording and intent on this matter is clear to anyone that takes the time to actually read what he wrote. Those that do not take the time to read should not be commenting on what they decided not to read.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/contact-me/



> Contact Me
> 
> I appreciate when readers notify me of glitches or typos on this site, or suggested improvements. I also appreciate discussion with experienced beekeepers and researchers on fine points, and will ask your permission to add comments which I feel add to the site.
> 
> ...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

perfect, thanks dan.

regarding a donation, i don't think it is required, but i send a small one each year. small price to pay for all the great info.

i bought the double jarred mite washer last year, but haven't used it yet.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

**


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Keep it civil.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

First of all, many (if not most) treatment free beekeepers are treatment free, at least in part, "to help the bees". A request to such beekeepers to do monthly alcohol washes will be ignored by many (most?), simply because they don't want to kill 200 young adult bees from each hive each month....i certainly don't...and if I did, I'm perfectly capable of producing my own graph.

Secondly, it is hard to put treatment free beekeepers in a group. There is no consensus on what treatment free means, and Randy doesn't seem to have specified what he is specifically interested in ...except bees from beekeepers that claim to be treatment free. Heck, Randy has claimed that his own small cell treatment free bees survived because of the off gassing of HSC frames. If he really believes that, then a TF beekeeper with HSC in the hive would in fact, be using a chemical treatment in the hive....not treatment free....not helpful in a discussion or analysis of treatment free bees.

It's also worth noting (if you read Randy's report on his HSC experiment), that he has not done mite counts on his own small cell hives (at least as of the most recent update on his site).

deknow (who finds it offensively "unscientific" to delete one's own words in a public discussion)


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

deknow said:


> Heck, Randy has claimed that his own small cell treatment free bees survived because of the off gassing of HSC frames.


He didn't have ANY statistical number of surviving hives from that study.

"Unfortunately, all but one of the control colonies perished at the onset of cold weather, and most of the HSC colonies followed suit in February."

"I had planned to continue with this trial through the next season, but the untimely collapse of the colonies unfortunately prevented further data collection."

He did recycle the HSC frames in with the rest of his colonies, and that is the subject of his 2010 update, but as it relates to the study, most perished for "unrelated reasons." I also do not believe that he attributed any "success" from off gassing. He merely suggested that it was one possibility.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I try to raise bees. I don't like killing them, especially on purpose...


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> I try to raise bees. I don't like killing them, especially on purpose...


I don't like killing bees either. Until there is a way of accurately assessing Varroa in a hive without killing bees, there isn't a lot of choice if treatment free beekeepers decide to participate in Randy's study. Now beekeepers are an independent lot, and there are some who will proudly say "study? I don't need no stinkin' study. My bees do ok"; my concern, and the reason I will be gathering data for the study, is that all too often there are only anecdotal reports of treatment free beekeeping results, causing folks looking for scientific information to equate Treatment Free Beekeepers with, I don't know, telephone callers to late night talk radio?

I see Randy's request as an opportunity for treatment free beekeeping to get honestly measured, and just maybe, go mainstream.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Seems to me that no treatment beekeepers don't mind letting mites kill bees, why do they recoil at killing a couple hundred to see what's really happening in their hives.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

We do mind.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Seems to me that no treatment beekeepers don't mind letting mites kill bees

I haven't had a problem with Varroa for a decade now. Mites aren't killing my bees. Of course we mind if our bees are dying. That doesn't mean that the best course of action is to do something even if it's wrong. 

In reality our actions often have the opposite effect of what we expect. When people decided to poison the prairie dogs to get less prairie dogs, the results were quite the opposite. They poisoned some prairie dogs, to be sure, but the end result was less of all of their predators (black footed ferrets, burrowing owls, rattle snakes, hawks, eagles, coyotes...) resulting in a population explosion of prairie dogs. Many things, including treating for mites, are like this in that the result is not what you thought you were doing directly. The secondary effects come back to haunt you.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> >Seems to me that no treatment beekeepers don't mind letting mites kill bees
> 
> I haven't had a problem with Varroa for a decade now. Mites aren't killing my bees. Of course we mind if our bees are dying. That doesn't mean that the best course of action is to do something even if it's wrong.
> 
> In reality our actions often have the opposite effect of what we expect. When people decided to poison the prairie dogs to get less prairie dogs, the results were quite the opposite. They poisoned some prairie dogs, to be sure, but the end result was less of all of their predators (black footed ferrets, burrowing owls, rattle snakes, hawks, eagles, coyotes...) resulting in a population explosion of prairie dogs. Many things, including treating for mites, are like this in that the result is not what you thought you were doing directly. The secondary effects come back to haunt you.


What species would be affected if varroa were somehow eradicated?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What species would be affected if varroa were somehow eradicated? 

Pests are NEVER eradicated. Only the balance of nature is. The unintended consequences of trying to eradicate mosquitoes is not due to losing mosquitoes. The unintended consequences of trying to eradicate prairie dogs is not due to losing prairie dogs.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Thought you all subscribed to the bond method, live and let die. I see it often recommended in the no treat section. 



Solomon Parker said:


> We do mind.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> >What species would be affected if varroa were somehow eradicated?
> 
> Pests are NEVER eradicated. Only the balance of nature is. The unintended consequences of trying to eradicate mosquitoes is not due to losing mosquitoes. The unintended consequences of trying to eradicate prairie dogs is not due to losing prairie dogs.


OK then since the premise of your argument is that other species are affected. What other species would be affected if varroa treatments are simply used? BTW pests are occasionally eradicated (though I wouldnt expect that to be the case with varroa) but I think the term used in those cases is extinction.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

camero7 said:


> Thought you all subscribed to the bond method, live and let die. I see it often recommended in the no treat section.


This forum is not for 'you all.' Non participation is the most obvious option if you don't agree with the methods of the users of this forum.

To see a hive failing, dying, or dead is no fun. We do mind. One also gets sore after exercising. The end benefits are the goal in either case.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Solomon, that is a bit harsh. We all benefit from seeing the thoughts and opinions of other beekeepers.

I personally don't object to killing a small sample of bees to get accurate varroa data. Queen breeders doing serious selection for varroa tolerance should be doing this. However, I don't have the time to put into a long term project such as collecting data for an entire year.

DarJones


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

@Solomon - Is it in the interest of Treatment Free Beekeeping to provide measurable data to someone like Randy? Try as I can, I don't see a potential down side, once I get past the killing or sacrifice of roughly 200 bees for each test. If the Treatment Free Movement (not that I think there is a secret club, though we could have all sorts of fun imagining a clubhouse near Dee in Arizona) wants to be seen as serious, how does helping gather data for Randy's study hurt?

I have previously stated that I think TF works better is some places than in others - I'd love to see some evidence that I can be confident in regarding TF Beekeeping.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> What species would be affected if varroa were somehow eradicated?


Bees, obviously.  And, varroa!

More seriously, the _Law of Unintended Consequences_ doesn't necessarily offer _previews _of the the final outcome.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Bees, obviously.  And, varroa!
> 
> More seriously, the _Law of Unintended Consequences_ doesn't necessarily offer _previews _of the the final outcome.


True enough and that can be for better or for worse. Just trying to draw a parallel between MB's comparison and how it applies to varroa treatment.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Fusion_power said:


> Solomon, that is a bit harsh. We all benefit from seeing the thoughts and opinions of other beekeepers.


I'm not objecting thoughts and opinions. I'm objecting to the 'you all' attitude. There's no reason to make a false 'you' and 'us' separation. If one doesn't like what 'you all' are doing, then one's first option is to not participate. Such would be respectful of all points of view. Arguments about treatment-free beekeeping should take place in some other forum. This one is for discussing treatment-free beekeeping peaceably and agreeably among people who do it or who want to do it.




Andrew Dewey said:


> @Solomon - Is it in the interest of Treatment Free Beekeeping to provide measurable data to someone like Randy? Try as I can, I don't see a potential down side, once I get past the killing or sacrifice of roughly 200 bees for each test. If the Treatment Free Movement (not that I think there is a secret club, though we could have all sorts of fun imagining a clubhouse near Dee in Arizona) wants to be seen as serious, how does helping gather data for Randy's study hurt?
> 
> I have previously stated that I think TF works better is some places than in others - I'd love to see some evidence that I can be confident in regarding TF Beekeeping.


Andrew, you have some good questions and my answers do not fall firmly on either side. Will it be valuable to have mite counts? To someone it will. It's not worth my time, and I don't need to prove anything to anyone. Mite counts are typically used for diagnosis, something for which I have little use. A dead hive is a dead hive. The issue has resolved itself. On the other hand, I can see how someone might want evidence that something works. Treatment free beekeeping is ensconced in ideology. Many of its proponents are personally 'hands off' people, preferring to keep to themselves, do their own thing, self sufficiency etc. The fact that their hives are still alive after a certain number of years appears to them to be sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of the system. I have kept bees for nearly ten years now treatment free, never having lost all my hives and having grown to two dozen. Mite counts are irrelevant to me. Honey production is relevant as is the number of hives which come through the winter.

Gathering data for Randy won't hurt anything, but it almost seems to me like beekeepers unwilling to do the work themselves are trying to pry data out of a group of people who don't feel like collecting it in the first place.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What other species would be affected if varroa treatments are simply used?

All 8,000 or more organisms that live in a bee colony. Every treatment you use kills some or many of them.

Organic acids will kill most of the 8,000 microorganisms in the colony as will essential oils such as thymol.

Organophosophates and fluvalinate will kill all of the insects and mites that live in the colony. There are 30 some mites and 30 some insects that normally live in a healthy colony. Some of those, such as psuedo scorpions eat Varroa.

But your assumption that Varroa can be eradicated is the first mistake.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

But of course I never assumed varroa could be eradicated nor have I made the case that treating doesn't have some ramifications. What I asked is pretty simple so let me put it another way, In your analogy of the parallels of poisoning prairie dogs to treating hives. What species plays the role of the burrowing Owl and Black footed Ferret? Is it the pseudo scorpion? Just tell me what species I should be worried about.


----------



## jimsteelejr (Sep 21, 2012)

Many years ago I had a fly problem. I bought a stable spray. It killed all the flys-Unfortunately it also killed all the anoles and spiders that were eating the flys. In six weeks the flys were back in record numbers. It took two years for the lizard and spider population to rebound.Since then I have been very careful with any chemical treatment. By cleaning stables more often and covering the manure pile with straw I handled the fly problem. The same goes for the bees.What are you affecting with your treatment? Better to breed for resistance than using toxic chemicals. 
If you are concerned that you are losing a hive-do a series of sugar dustings, break the brood cycle , but avoid toxic chemicals as much as possible. Practice organic farming.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

So, when switching to treatment free, simply bringing in a treatment free queen leaves you with 7,999 gene pools to go? 
The gene pool in the gut of the attendants may be of as much value as the queen herself?
By extension a frame is a much more complete jump start than multiple queens?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

What Mr. Bush is so correctly saying is that to work, the system needs its parts to be let alone. When things are as they should be, the system is naturally self correcting, self limiting, and self regulating. No one thing is the solution. A hive is not just a hive organism, it is a super organism, a mini ecosystem.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I have never seen anything that indicated any other organisms are effected by treatment but will agree that it is most likely they are. More importantly I have not seen any evidence that any of those organisms are beneficial. Basically does it matter that they get unintentionally harmed? If so why? Are any or all of those organisms playing a part in the bees vulnerability to Varroa? are they playing any part in varroa resistance?
It is known that Varroa are harmful. At the very best it looks like a choice between bad and worse. At worst it is a decision that looks more like keeping organisms than keeping bees.

Fish in an aquarium need a culture of organisms to develop in order to remain healthy. not only that but the fish themselves condition the water. As it was said earlier a system of sorts develops and an aquarium does not operate well without it. The question is, can it operate without it? Yes it can. it takes a lot of work but it can in fact work. So it is not a matter of. Must fish have these organisms? it is a matter of the benefit from them. how much benefit. is it worth it etc all come into play.
Different people woudl answer the above differently. Some will put things in a tank specifically to foster the growth of these organisms. others will keep a tank completely bare and do all they can to prevent any organisms at all. The same conditions that produce helpful organisms are also the conditions that allow harmful ones to thrive. Better to have no organisms than harmful ones under certain situations.

Stress is an almost certain trigger for diseases. the organisms that cause these diseases are always present. I suspect this is true in a bee colony as well. From what I can tell stress on a kept bee colony is frequent. So if the same parallel hold true. irradication of all organisms except bees in a hive would be an overall net benefit.

Overall I don't question the existence of thousands of other organisms. My question is. Why should I care? Those organisms have anywhere on the planet to exist. I have a hive to keep bees. Not an omeba refuge.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> What Mr. Bush is so correctly saying is that to work, the system needs its parts to be let alone. When things are as they should be, the system is naturally self correcting, self limiting, and self regulating.


The introduction of varroa, or tracheal mites, or the soon to be new mite (tropollalaps) makes "keeping the parts alone" impossible. They are changing on their own.



Solomon Parker said:


> A hive is not just a hive organism, it is a super organism, a mini ecosystem.


And that organism acquired the equivalent of cancer. No known cure. All treatments (some successful, others not) have unintended, and often very serious consequences (kemo . . . enough said). Does that mean the moment an individual acquires cancer you just tell them to "figure it out" or do you breed from non cancer infected individuals? Do you not treat the cancer patents, only because it has unintended consequences? Some cancer patents will rebound on their own. Most will not.


----------



## BeeGhost (May 7, 2011)

It's simple Darwinism, the evolution of an organism will either cause its demise or adaptability. Bees have been around for long enough to know that they have dealt with organisms that we probably don't even know about. If we keep treating, the bees will not develop enough resistance to with stand the "super mite" that will eventually evolve. I read that mite treatments need to be rotated since mites develop resistance to them. By treating we are creating stronger mites and weaker bees. 

Have we come up with a cure for the common cold? How about flu shots every year? The cold and flu strains are getting stronger and mutating and we are not. I got a flu shot once and was immediately sick, haven't had a flu shot in over 10 years now and although I have gotten the flu in that time, it's not on a yearly basis like others at my work place. 

To each there own though, if you want to treat that's fine, if you don't want to treat that's fine as well. I'm not going to tell someone how to raise their bees or livestock.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

A. What does 99% of this Thread have to do w/ Randy Oliver's Request?
B. "By treating we are creating stronger mites and weaker bees." Does one necassarily follow the other?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Specialkayme said:


> And that organism acquired the equivalent of cancer.


Are you serious? The equivalent of cancer? Really? It's a tick. A tick. It's even a close relative of regular ticks. It's like a tick the size of a dachshund. 

This is more ludicrous than "you can't breed wolf resistant sheep."

Ridiculous.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

BeeGhost said:


> Have we come up with a cure for the common cold? How about flu shots every year? The cold and flu strains are getting stronger and mutating and we are not. I got a flu shot once and was immediately sick, haven't had a flu shot in over 10 years now and although I have gotten the flu in that time, it's not on a yearly basis like others at my work place.


To be fair, a cold or flu is a virus, not a parasite. Your body has specific measures for writing into your immune system the instructions to eliminate the threat of that particular virus in the future, if you survive it this time. All a vaccine does is add that immunity without your body having to do it. Viruses mutate continuously no matter the method of immunity. A mite is quite a bit different. Occasional side effects of immunization do include getting sick. Everybody gets to be the 1% of something eventually.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> "By treating we are creating stronger mites and weaker bees." Does one necassarily follow the other?


Yes. Selection takes place naturally anyway. If you kill a member of a species, you are necessarily selecting for methods for that species to survive despite the loss. Kill mites and you select for mites that can survive whatever you used to kill them. Same goes for bees killing mites. The goal is to select for mites that exist in the hive in small numbers so as to coexist with the bees without needing to be killed by them. Treating contravenes that and selects for bees able to weather the storm.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Are you serious? The equivalent of cancer? Really?


Yup.

Mites attack organisms. Mites don't attack cells. So when you view an individual bee as an organism, the mite is a tick. But when you view a bee as a part of a larger whole, a part of a superorganism, the mite isn't acting as a tick, it's acting more like cancer. While the mite may be a parasite of the individual bee, it's not a parasite of the overall superorganism. 

The theory of the "super organism" states that a bee colony works like an organism greater than itself. The bee, while it's own organism, acts more like a single cell of the larger colony. The mite attacks the individual bee, or the individual cell of the colony. Through the introduction of viruses and pathogens, the mite weakens the cell of the colony, to the point that it is mutated and not performing it's normal functions, poisoning the other cells of the colony.

I stand by my statement, regardless of your inability to comprehend my point.


----------



## BeeGhost (May 7, 2011)

Solomon, 

I'll rephrase it, everything evolves over time to adapt to the ever changing environment, if it doesn't adapt it goes extinct, this includes viruses, organisms, mammals, fish, reptiles, birds and what ever else is on this earth. Of course it doesn't happen over night, but it does happen over time. 

I'm not a scientist so I can't get technical nor do I know the exact terms for things either, all I can do is touch on things in layman terms. 

Guys that make a living with bees can't afford to lose over half their colonies to let nature take its course which is why they HAVE to treat for various things for bees, and this I fully understand, but hobbyists like myself might be able to experiment and afford to lose bees to perhaps get better genetics against certain parasites and such.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

BeeGhost said:


> Guys that make a living with bees can't afford to lose over half their colonies to let nature take its course which is why they HAVE to treat for various things for bees, and this I fully understand, but hobbyists like myself might be able to experiment and afford to lose bees to perhaps get better genetics against certain parasites and such.


I know how it works, but I disagree. No one has to do anything. They choose to. I understand why they choose to do it and I can't necessarily say I wouldn't do the same thing. This forum is not for talking about commercial things. It's in the Unique Forum Rules.

But we are completely off topic and poor Mark is never going to get an answer to his question. As for me, I will continue doing what I have always done because it works and leave Randy Oliver to his name calling. I'm never apt to help people out who look upon me with disdain. And I'm not interested in treating or doing mite counts. That's my stand.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

First Darwinism, in it's pure definition, does not apply. Darwinism is mainly the theory of natural selection as presented in his book "The Origins of Species"

In addition since the writing of the book Darwinism has completely been disprove. At the time of the writing there was not a fossil record adequate to support or argue the theory. Since then that fossil record has been established and it alone disproves the theory. In addition such discoveries as Genetic drift have been made that further disprove the theory.

In the context of the many misuses of the word Darwinism such as that it is a direct and beneficial mutation. This has never actually been a claim of Darwinism.

If in fact a Honey Bee can be threatened by the introduction of just one simple mite. How can it believed that they could survive a physical mutation radical enough to cause enough behavioral change to deal with that mite. It requires belief in only the positive while ignoring any negative consequences. The idea that allowing bees to be subjected to mites results in only a positive outcome is limited thinking. what if the bees answer to the mite is to stop colonizing? Or colonize on a much smaller scale such as a wasp? Of the literally millions of possible shifts the bee could make. what causes others to readily assume the shift will be a good one?

As was mention before. parasites are not an issue that immunity can deal with. Genetic mutation could if it was something that actually existed. 

I see people claim that they use treatment free methods and report lower mites. It is this alone that causes my greatest doubts. It is like you won the lottery multiple times in a row to be able to make some change and see exactly the results you desired just like that. How exactly did you know just what to manipulate in order to control the outcome in such a way. I am sure horse breeders that invest millions in their breeding would be very interested in that sort of progress.

Of course if you ask just exactly the nature of this progress the answer is said to be complicated. If it is asked if the progress of such hives have been compared side by side to treated hives it is said that such proof is not needed. If those that question the results enter the conversation they are told to be quiet and learn or stay out of the room.

As far as I can tell the only way treatment free really works is through a network of either agree or shut up.

Exactly how do you see increased ventilation is less suitable to the mite? Is it less suitable to the mite? Is it also less suitable to the bee? Have you done any studies that show mite is less productive at 70 degrees than they are at 90 degrees? Have any studies been done to show what the effect of increased ventilation are on the interior of the hive?

How do you know that the lower mite load in your hive is due to non treatment methods? I see the same claims of lower mites problems from beekeepers that do treat as well.

Nature has boom and bust cycles. Could have the past serious problems with the mite have been a boon period? Could we right now be in the midst of a bust period. Could it bee that the bees will learn to deal with the mite regardless of treatment or not?

I don't agree that treating bees causes a weak bee. It creates a mite load that will not be lethal giving the bees increased time to adapt to dealing with them on their own. My bees will be better trained in effect.

On the idea of a super organism. It is obviously recognized that some organisms are beneficial. what about the organism that is both beneficial even critical yet destructive at the same time. Could the mite be one of those organisms? Like the wolf serves to keep the weak culled from the herd. Does the mite at below a certain threshold serve to weed the weak individuals from the hive? Should the goal be to keep mites below a certain threshold rather than irradicated.

And again. I see the main argument for treatment free to be a management by natural selection when the management does not resemble anything close to natural selection. I see a huge effort to split the hairs of what is treatment and what is not. in that context. putting bees in a hive is treatment. 

I see the methods more as another way to impact the population of the mite other than the use of chemicals. It is still just as artificial and manipulation. I also believe it also carries a negative impact to the bees as well. That impact may be only in the production for example but it is still an impact. Bees that work harder and are shorter lived for example. lower colony populations possibly. But I don't think you can impact one organism and not impact the others. Because of this I consider the effect on the super organism a wash. You can harm it with chemicals or you can harm it with treatment free measures. But to assume you impact only the mite is not reasonable.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

There is very little in life that is truly all or nothing. Some package bees are not going to survive with even a modest step towards treatment free. I see no sense in saying live free or die. I am now seeing some bees that act like I can continue to avoid treatment and even go totally free. One a package line, another a bought treatment free queen. That queen went onto a very mite loaded split. That donor hive I gave my first hard treatment; wood bleach. 
Some hives I feed, some I do not. A mite encrusted hive I will treat. The hive next to it I will not if it is doing what it should, doing fine on it's own. A dead hive will not evolve, it will not supply bodies or offspring that might be capable of TF.
The biggest barrier to successful treatment free, in my case at least, was my ignorance. But that was the hinderance to treated bees as well.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Daniel Y said:


> As far as I can tell the only way treatment free really works is through a network of either agree or shut up.


I wish you had addressed these statements to somebody because I have no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't happen. 




Daniel Y said:


> Exactly how do you see increased ventilation is less suitable to the mite? Is it less suitable to the mite? Is it also less suitable to the bee? Have you done any studies that show mite is less productive at 70 degrees than they are at 90 degrees? Have any studies been done to show what the effect of increased ventilation are on the interior of the hive?


Again, I wish I knew who you were addressing and what you were talking about. Without names, this is just a long rambling post full of straw men arguments. Who are you talking to?




Daniel Y said:


> I don't agree that treating bees causes a weak bee. It creates a mite load that will not be lethal giving the bees increased time to adapt to dealing with them on their own.


Without death, there is no impetus for adaptation. Why change direction if the road is straight?




Daniel Y said:


> My bees will be better trained in effect.


Bees can be trained, but I have seen no evidence that they can be trained to eliminate mites.




Daniel Y said:


> On the idea of a super organism. It is obviously recognized that some organisms are beneficial. what about the organism that is both beneficial even critical yet destructive at the same time. Could the mite be one of those organisms? Like the wolf serves to keep the weak culled from the herd. Does the mite at below a certain threshold serve to weed the weak individuals from the hive? Should the goal be to keep mites below a certain threshold rather than irradicated.


Absolutely. That's what the *leaving the disease to the bees* sort of philosophy achieves. 




Daniel Y said:


> I see a huge effort to split the hairs of what is treatment and what is not. in that context. putting bees in a hive is treatment.


No you don't. It's not allowed in this forum.




Daniel Y said:


> You can harm it with chemicals or you can harm it with treatment free measures.


How is it harmed by doing something and by also not doing something? The doing of the something is by definition the thing that is out of the ordinary. Whatever the result of the not doing something, that is the result that is the default and the way it should be, by which all other doings of things should be measured.




Daniel Y said:


> But to assume you impact only the mite is not reasonable.


Who assumes this?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Specialkayme said:


> Yup.


I am loathe to have to explain this because it seems so obvious. Cancer doesn't attack cells. Cancer is cells.

Cancer does not attack a super organism, it simply exists within a single organism and its existence threatens the health of its host. It is a genetic aberration in a normally ordered biological system of one individual.

The mite does not attack the superorganism, it has precious little to do with any of the 8000 other species of organisms in the hive. It attacks only the hive minded insect colony.

The mite doesn't poison other "cells" of the colony. It damages individuals in a colony.

It is not, in point of fact, like a cancer. It is a tick. It bites the outside of an animal and draws out juices with which it maintains its health and provides itself nutrition to reproduce.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I heard it said on the radio just a day ago that Cancer cells are cells growing in the wrong place, the wrong kind of cell growing where it shouldn't. Or something like that. Sounds like a weed to me.

But I probably have that wrong.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Actually, you are close enough Mark. Cancer is most simply unregulated cell growth. Certain cells get their DNA corrupted and grow uncontrollably without the normal constraints of regulated cell death. By definition, any group of cells that grow uncontrollably are growing in the wrong place.


----------



## BeeGhost (May 7, 2011)

Daniel Y,

You had me at hello. Nice novel though, although I didn't read to much of it after you stated that nothing evolves. 

As for mites being compared to wolves in the sense that they only prey on the weak and old, that's funny right there. Wolves are now over populated and in order to survive they can't spend their time looking for weak animals, they now resort to strong animals as well. So if mites get over populated they too have to survive there for they prey on the strong as well.

If there was a miracle cure for mites that would wipe them out without effecting the colony at all, I would probably use it. I am just a cheap skate and figure if I lose a colony to mites I will just catch another swarm in the spring. 

Besides, doesn't the world end next month anyhow? LOL


----------

