# Colony Loss 2014-2015: Preliminary Results



## enjambres

Isn't that the data for the previous winter (2014-2015), not the one we've just ended?

Here's the link to the most recent winter's data:

https://beeinformed.org/2016/05/10/nations-beekeepers-lost-44-percent-of-bees-in-2015-16/

It's astounding that it was almost as bad as the very cold winter of the previous year!

ETA: No, wait, the losses in both summer and winter were worse last year, than the previous year. 


Enj.


----------



## Barry Digman

You're right, I copied the wrong link. Its' fixed now.


----------



## Michael Bush

And once again there is an attempt to blame the treatment free beekeepers for their problems...

“Many backyard beekeepers don’t have any varroa control strategies in place. We think this results in colonies collapsing and spreading mites to neighboring colonies that are otherwise well-managed for mites,” said Nathalie Steinhauer, a graduate student in the UMD Department of Entomology who leads the data collection efforts for the annual survey. “We are seeing more evidence to suggest that good beekeepers who take the right steps to control mites are losing colonies in this way, through no fault of their own.”

I used to hear the same rhetoric back when I was not treating for (and did not have) AFB. People who were treating and having issues would blame the people who were not treating. Yet I did not have AFB. So how was I responsible for their problems? Now my bees who have no Varroa problems, are the cause of the problems for those treating when their treatments are failing... I do not see the logic. Deknow did a good job of debunking the whole concept of "mite bombs", though it rapidly degenerated into an entirely different discussion... so I won't repeat all of that. 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?317932-The-Mighty-Mite-Bomb&highlight=mite+bomb

I look forward to the comparison of treating and not treating survival rates... but I'm sure they will blame all the losses the treatment people have on the treatment free people... when your model fails, find something to blame for it... don't change the model...

"'So convenient a thing to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do."--Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography


----------



## Stella

So now I am labeled a bad beekeeper because I have never treated? That seems to be what their saying.

I suppose I am a bad gardener too because I've never put chemicals on my garden and allowed the indigenous soil insects to run rampant.


----------



## JWChesnut

The sub-group splits have not been published for the current winter survey. Last year, among backyard beekeepers there was a highly significant difference between backyard beeks that treated (any method including powdered sugar) and backyard beeks that did not. *27% greater mortality in the non-treating cohort.*.

The non-treating cohort was larger than the treating cohort. This is consistent with all other surveys I have seen. The mind-share of "treatment free" among backyard beeks is >60% (and in my fruits and nuts region >80%). The colony loss from following the prescription is massive, *significantly highe*r than the proponents care to admit. Confirmed in survey after survey.

The result: enormous churn in beekeepers as they fail and drop out.


----------



## johno

I used to contribute my stats to the Bee informed group for about 3 years but eventually gave up on them as I could not afford to have the losses that they came up with so did not want to be informed of their BMP's. I have consistently had less than a 10% loss overwinter and have increased my hive counts over summer by about 80% I would mention that I treat for mites mostly with oxalic and formic acid and stress to the buyers of my nucs that if they kill mites they will keep their bees.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

How much of this includes domesticated commercially treated bees that all of a sudden are TF and left to their demise?

Could this be an indicator we are breeding stronger mites? Treatments are not working like they use to?


----------



## johno

Flower, Treatment has worked for me .
Johno


----------



## JWChesnut

-- Grump --


----------



## JRG13

MB, they're only blaming the non-successful TF beekeepers, so don't get so mad.


----------



## enjambres

I treat for mites (OAV, MAQS). I have had no losses, ever. Does treating for mites cause the lack of loss? Beats me, but I'm not willing to bet that I've got some kind of super-resistant bees and stop treating to find out. (From time to time in the year my bees definitely approach seasonal treatment thresholds.)

OTOH, I would say dozens of times per year I encounter beekeepers with total losses (of their one or two colonies), who have never treated, either because they haven't wrapped their heads around the mite problem at all or they have some woolly notions about chemicals. Does lack of treating for mites cause the loss? Beats me, though in a few cases I have successfully persuaded some of them to begin monitoring & treating and the losses have stopped.

I think a pretty big part of the overall loss experience for small scale, newish, backyard beekeepers is largely operator error of one kind or another. To the extent that the survey picks up disproportional number of hobby beekeepers, this skews the survey.

The survey always ask what is my "acceptable" rate of loss: from my perspective, it's zero. Why would I expect to lose colonies? If I lost a colony I would be very focused on discovering why, and not making that mistake again. Sometimes I get pretty annoyed at people who seem to accept the loss of their bees as inevitable. Bees are not annuals.

Enj.


----------



## wildbranch2007

should make a sticky out of Enjambres post:thumbsup:


----------



## sqkcrk

JWChesnut said:


> The sub-group splits have not been published for the current winter survey. Last year, among backyard beekeepers there was a highly significant difference between backyard beeks that treated (any method including powdered sugar) and backyard beeks that did not. *27% greater mortality in the non-treating cohort.*.
> 
> The non-treating cohort was larger than the treating cohort. This is consistent with all other surveys I have seen. The mind-share of "treatment free" among backyard beeks is >60% (and in my fruits and nuts region >80%). The colony loss from following the prescription is massive, *significantly highe*r than the proponents care to admit. Confirmed in survey after survey.
> 
> The result: enormous churn in beekeepers as they fail and drop out.


How many beekeepers are there? How many took the survey? How many know enough to fill things out intelligently and accurately?

I have a friend who bought a package and got it a couple weeks ago and it starved. Their data may go into the mix. Starvation will be "cause of death", whereas, really, it was ignorance and lack of experience.


----------



## sqkcrk

Accept what is, let go of what was, have faith of what will be."

Acceptable loss? Of course zero is the answer. For me the reality is that some of my hives die each year and that attrition makes the way I manage things work for me. The way I look at the empty equipment, when Spring comes, is "I need the empty equipment anyway." 

I don't want to grow my colony count. So if a certain number of hives don't die I will have different problems/opportunities. I don't let my hives die, but dieback is part of my business plan.


----------



## johno

It will be a diligent beekeeper that has many hives and does not lose some from time to time, especially from out yards in the winter. Of the 50 hives that I over wintered I lost 2 from starvation in 2 separate out yards even though I was feeding them with fondant I was still caught out by snow storms. I could have saved them if I had left 5lbs of fondant instead of 21/2lbs but that is always couda wouda shouda. But in the end 48 came through and if they come to the surface after 2 weeks of rain I might get some honey this year.
Johno


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

johno said:


> Flower, Treatment has worked for me .


Worked for me too. I had zero colony losses, I was going to take the survey...but stuff happened and I didn't get around to it.

I haven't placed screen bottoms and sticky boards yet, but culled drone brood did not turn up any mites...not saying there aren't any but so far not evident. Fortunately there are no other beekeepers very close by.


----------



## Agis Apiaries

sqkcrk said:


> ...whereas, really, it was ignorance and lack of experience.


While the debate goes on whether pesticides, mites or changes in habitat are the biggest culprits, I can't help but think that "beekeepers" are also a big culprit in colony losses. With the mad rush by newbies to buy FlowHives so they don't have to mess with bees, I expect that the loss rate for backyard beekeepers will skyrocket.


----------



## sqkcrk

I have a guy who wants to buy two nucs. He has the equipment to put them in when he gets them home. He has about as much experience as I did when I bought my first hive. None. If he participates in the survey next year his data goes into the mix. If I sell him what he asked for. Seems like there should be some way to weight the reports by how much experience one has. Whether one is a beehaver or a beekeeper.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

FlowerPlanter said:


> How much of this includes domesticated commercially treated bees that all of a sudden are TF and left to their demise?
> 
> Could this be an indicator we are breeding stronger mites? Treatments are not working like they use to?


The oft stated idea that treating breeds a stronger mite is a total joke. To become resistant the mite must divert metabolic energy from doing normal life functions to detoxifying some poison. The absolute least harm done to the mite is loss of that metabolic energy. On the other hand the loss to the mite can be far worse than simply loss of metabolic energy even if it is resistant enough the poison has no direct effect on the mite. In general such resistance will render the organism less able to survive IN THE ABSENCE of the toxin. The only people who talk about breeding stronger mites by treating are those who do not have the slightest clue about biology, biochemistry or genetics and live in an artificial dream world. Treatment free bee keepers should be thanking every bee keeper that treats for breeding a weaker mite. If we keep it up long enough we may even weaken the mites enough to make treatment free a rational choice.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

sqkcrk said:


> I have a guy who wants to buy two nucs. He has the equipment to put them in when he gets them home. He has about as much experience as I did when I bought my first hive. None. If he participates in the survey next year his data goes into the mix. If I sell him what he asked for. Seems like there should be some way to weight the reports by how much experience one has. Whether one is a beehaver or a beekeeper.



Maybe we could propose some new questions for the survey?

1) Was this your first year trying to keep bees?

2) how many years have you been trying to keep bees?

3) Have you ever successfully kept any hives alive through the Winter?

4) How many hives did you start the Winter with?

5) How many hives do you have?

6) How many hives did you have?

7) Do you personally know anyone who has kept hives alive through the Winter?


(I'll probably think of more later, but that's a good start.)


----------



## DaisyNJ

Richard Cryberg said:


> The oft stated idea that treating breeds a stronger mite is a total joke. *To become resistant the mite must divert metabolic energy from doing normal life functions to detoxifying some poison. * The absolute least harm done to the mite is loss of that metabolic energy. On the other hand the loss to the mite can be far worse than simply loss of metabolic energy even if it is resistant enough the poison has no direct effect on the mite. In general such resistance will render the organism less able to survive IN THE ABSENCE of the toxin. The only people who talk about breeding stronger mites by treating are those who do not have the slightest clue about biology, biochemistry or genetics and live in an artificial dream world. Treatment free bee keepers should be thanking every bee keeper that treats for breeding a weaker mite. If we keep it up long enough we may even weaken the mites enough to make treatment free a rational choice.


I am new beek but not new to biology, concepts of genetic mutation, natural selection and the likes. 

Mite diverting metabolic energy to detox ? No offense, but that sounds like new age talk or business "lets find synergy" talk. 

The resistance in this context is not built by A mite by channeling their inner energy into detox. Large portion of it is genetic mutation and (natural) selection process under the conditions presented - in this case a chemical presented. When a treatment is presented, certain percentage of mites die. However, depending on rate of mutation and complexity, certain percentage survive. Survivors breed and pass on their generics to offspring. Breeding nature of mites (within same family) increases odds of passing genetics almost in tact to next generation. 

It is WELL ESTABLISHED fact that using same chemical over and over again or using below dose chemicals result in resistant organisms. Otherwise, we wouldnt have to switch chemical at all. We would have solved all problems with the first chemical we found. Unless we invent a chemical that kills 100% of the mites 100% of the time and everytime, mites (as organism) will develop resistance to that particular chemical. 

Now, dont count me into 100% TF either. Because I am not sold on that concept either. If TF was the answer, then people, animals and other things in places with poor access to medicine (been to and lived in those places too) should be doing lot better than developed countries in terms of productivity and general health. But thats not the case.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

DaisyNJ said:


> I am new beek but not new to biology, concepts of genetic mutation, natural selection and the likes.
> 
> Mite diverting metabolic energy to detox ? No offense, but that sounds like new age talk or business "lets find synergy" talk.
> 
> The resistance in this context is not built by A mite by channeling their inner energy into detox. Large portion of it is genetic mutation and (natural) selection process under the conditions presented - in this case a chemical presented. When a treatment is presented, certain percentage of mites die. However, depending on rate of mutation and complexity, certain percentage survive. Survivors breed and pass on their generics to offspring. Breeding nature of mites (within same family) increases odds of passing genetics almost in tact to next generation.
> 
> It is WELL ESTABLISHED fact that using same chemical over and over again or using below dose chemicals result in resistant organisms. Otherwise, we wouldnt have to switch chemical at all. We would have solved all problems with the first chemical we found. Unless we invent a chemical that kills 100% of the mites 100% of the time and everytime, mites (as organism) will develop resistance to that particular chemical.
> 
> Now, dont count me into 100% TF either. Because I am not sold on that concept either. If TF was the answer, then people, animals and other things in places with poor access to medicine (been to and lived in those places too) should be doing lot better than developed countries in terms of productivity and general health. But thats not the case.


With all due respect lots and lots of people think they know something about genetics and biochemistry. When you are ready to talk to me about how the Gibb's free energy difference between the keto and enol forms of adenine impact some types of base substitution errors you will know enough to have some understanding. Between now and then simply rest comfortable that most of what you said is simply well proven to be wrong. By the way, that question is right out of an entry level genetics text book. It is not some made up highly technical question with no meaning. It is very basic modern genetics.

Let me give you one common example of how resistance harms viability. We have all heard of MRSA. MRSA is simply a highly antibiotic resistant stain of Staph aureus (SA). SA is found all over the place. If I did a swab culture from your forearm I have about a 50% chance of culturing SA. Our immune system generally deals with it just fine. But, occasionally it goes systemic and can kill you real fast, particularly if you are immune compromised or have poor circulation issues. Such systemic infections are generally easy enough to control with any number of antibiotics. The net result is populations of SA have over time become resistant to a variety of antibiotics and one such population resulted in MRSA. So, what are the odds I could culture MRSA off your arm? Nearly zero. Why? Because the metabolic cost of being resistant to all those antibiotics is so high MRSA can not compete with regular SA and other bacteria out in nature. About the only place it can compete is in medical facilities where things are so loaded with antibiotics it does not need to compete.


----------



## DaisyNJ

Richard Cryberg said:


> With all due respect lots and lots of people think they know something about genetics and biochemistry. When you are ready to talk to me about how the Gibb's free energy difference between the keto and enol forms of adenine impact some types of base substitution errors you will know enough to have some understanding. Between now and then simply rest comfortable that most of what you said is simply well proven to be wrong. By the way, that question is right out of an entry level genetics text book. It is not some made up highly technical question with no meaning. It is very basic modern genetics.
> 
> Let me give you one common example of how resistance harms viability. We have all heard of MRSA. MRSA is simply a highly antibiotic resistant stain of Staph aureus (SA). SA is found all over the place. If I did a swab culture from your forearm I have about a 50% chance of culturing SA. Our immune system generally deals with it just fine. But, occasionally it goes systemic and can kill you real fast, particularly if you are immune compromised or have poor circulation issues. Such systemic infections are generally easy enough to control with any number of antibiotics. The net result is populations of SA have over time become resistant to a variety of antibiotics and one such population resulted in MRSA. So, what are the odds I could culture MRSA off your arm? Nearly zero. Why? Because the metabolic cost of being resistant to all those antibiotics is so high MRSA can not compete with regular SA and other bacteria out in nature. About the only place it can compete is in medical facilities where things are so loaded with antibiotics it does not need to compete.


Officially confused. One - Nearly zero is not zero. On one hand you seem to suggest (in your example) presence of SA in abundance prevents MSRA from being prevalent. Yet, you seem to contradict same by saying treatments are not enabling resistant variety (sub families for lack of better word) of mites to proliferate and result in populations that are entirely resistant to given class of treatment. 

Simply asking - why do you think MRSA is able to compete in medical facility 

a) Increasingly stronger antibiotics being used taking down regular strains of SA and enabling MSRA strains all the room to expand 
b) Something else. 

If the "metabolic cost" of being resistant is so high, MRSA should remain in same numbers (or percentages) regardless of presence of other SA. By "metabolic cost of being resistant" you are implying somehow MRSA is actively using / spending biological processes in the presence of treatments, and somehow treatments are keeping "it in check by keeping it busy". If anything, treatments take the competition out and open resources up for MSRA to spread. Thats the reason why you find them prevalent in areas / places where increasingly higher / stronger doses of treatments are used.


----------



## JWChesnut

DaisyNJ said:


> If anything, treatments take the competition out and open resources up for MSRA to spread. Thats the reason why you find them prevalent in areas / places where increasingly higher / stronger doses of treatments are used.


Circular logic. Staph is controlled in hospital environments because *any* staph infection is life threatening. MSRA is not prevalent in the non-antiseptic wild because it cannot compete with wild-type Staph. MSRA is not inherently more toxic than wild Staph, but is more dangerous because once contracted it cannot be controlled absent hyperbaric treatment. You don't want any Staph if your pericardium has been exposed.

Cryberg's point is valid. The resistance mechanisms require energy from the organism -- no free lunch ---. The metabolic "cost" imposed by detoxifying antibiotics means they are less fit to compete in the wild. Less fit means populations are extinguished. This has been demonstrated by research. 

DaisyNJ is making an argument based on a chain of (faulty) logic. This is the problem with much of the "treatment-free" catechism. It is "belief" based and not evidence based.


----------



## DaisyNJ

JWChesnut said:


> Circular logic. Staph is controlled in hospital environments because *any* staph infection is life threatening. *MSRA is not prevalent in the non-antiseptic wild because it cannot compete with wild-type Staph. * MSRA is not inherently more toxic than wild Staph, but is more dangerous because once contracted it cannot be controlled absent hyperbaric treatment. You don't want any Staph if your pericardium has been exposed.
> 
> Cryberg's point is valid. The resistance mechanisms require energy from the organism -- no free lunch ---. The metabolic "cost" imposed by detoxifying antibiotics means they are less fit to compete in the wild. Less fit means populations are extinguished. This has been demonstrated by research.
> 
> DaisyNJ is making an argument based on a chain of (faulty) logic. This is the problem with much of the "treatment-free" catechism. It is "belief" based and not evidence based.


First, I have Apivar in my first Nuc and just got Apivar into second Nuc. I read and working on getting OA setup. So rest assured, I am not from any secret TF club bent on trashing Treatment folks. I am here purely for understanding perspective.

Second, the quoted arguments seem circular. Let me ask again, why is MSRA more prevalent in hospitals and controlled / treated environments. If cost of being resistant is high, that cost should continue to rise with more treatments and MSRA type should be LESS prevalent in highly treated environments if anything. 

Lets go with this "metabolic cost" theory, thats makes certain resistant kind unfit for survival. If thats the case, dont you want to keep the competition high to keep the percentage of resistant variety low ? How does using treatments that get rid of competition help ? 

On one hand you seem to argue against treatment free, yet you are making same arguments that I hear from TF gurus. 

Are you guys saying more and indiscriminate treatment is NOT resulting in mites that are resistant to specific regimen and industry has to move to other treatments. Are you saying thats faulty logic ?


----------



## Richard Cryberg

DaisyNJ said:


> First, I have Apivar in my first Nuc and just got Apivar into second Nuc. I read and working on getting OA setup. So rest assured, I am not from any secret TF club bent on trashing Treatment folks. I am here purely for understanding perspective.
> 
> Second, the quoted arguments seem circular. Let me ask again, why is MSRA more prevalent in hospitals and controlled / treated environments. If cost of being resistant is high, that cost should continue to rise with more treatments and MSRA type should be LESS prevalent in highly treated environments if anything.
> 
> Lets go with this "metabolic cost" theory, thats makes certain resistant kind unfit for survival. If thats the case, dont you want to keep the competition high to keep the percentage of resistant variety low ? How does using treatments that get rid of competition help ?
> 
> On one hand you seem to argue against treatment free, yet you are making same arguments that I hear from TF gurus.
> 
> Are you guys saying more and indiscriminate treatment is NOT resulting in mites that are resistant to specific regimen and industry has to move to other treatments. Are you saying thats faulty logic ?


More treatments of mites may result in resistance. There are many examples of failure to develop meaningful resistance after 50 years of constant exposure. We know mites can develop resistance to apivar. It has happened. Can they develop resistance to OA or Formic Acid? No one knows and we may not know for perhaps another 50 or 100 years. But, regardless if a mite is resistant to every known pesticide that does not make the mite "tougher" and able to take over the world. A non resistant wild type mite is even tougher and more able to take over the world.

As you can not even attempt an answer to my Gibbs free energy question it is obvious you have a very limited technical understanding. You have also appear to have made up your mind what the facts are so there is little point in my responding further. As a famous politician said, "Everyone is welcome to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Your facts are wrong.


----------



## Vance G

Let us agree the questionaire is flawed. The only people who it serves well are those needing to SCARE up grant money. I congratulate those able to thread the economic needle while not treating. 

I could not and since beginning to treat with a different miticide every time testing shows I should my losses are almost all queen failures. If I replaced queens annually my figures might be even better. I lost three colonies out of fifty last winter.


----------



## DaisyNJ

Richard Cryberg said:


> More treatments of mites may result in resistance. There are many examples of failure to develop meaningful resistance after 50 years of constant exposure. We know mites can develop resistance to apivar. It has happened. Can they develop resistance to OA or Formic Acid? No one knows and we may not know for perhaps another 50 or 100 years. But, regardless if a mite is resistant to every known pesticide that does not make the mite "tougher" and able to take over the world. A non resistant wild type mite is even tougher and more able to take over the world.
> 
> As you can not even attempt an answer to my Gibbs free energy question it is obvious you have a very limited technical understanding. You have also appear to have made up your mind what the facts are so there is little point in my responding further. As a famous politician said, "Everyone is welcome to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Your facts are wrong.


I almost forgot about this thread until I saw article about CDC warning on a resistant bacteria case in PA. 

Read again, only fact I mentioned is about "using same chemical / treatment over and over again resulting in resistant variety and contributing to problem". On the other hand, unless I am mistaken, you seem to suggest treatments somehow result in "lesser of the evils" type organism. 

I tried searching for any research that proves that continued treatments resulted in mites that are somehow inferior to "regular mites" in terms of their ability to cause havoc on hives (all other variable like number of mites etc being equal). Appreciate if you can point me to such research results. 


http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/health/first-superbug-cre-case-in-us/index.html

"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Tom Frieden announced the case at the National Press Club in Washington."
...
"Frieden warned that although this is the first case in the United States, we should expect to see more such superbugs in the near future. *Frieden, who often warns doctors against overuse of antibiotics, urged scientists to develop new drugs quickly*."..

Mind you, I am not against treatments, however I do not subscribe to "hit them hard, hit them often and hit them hard again" approach. Nor do I subscribe to your assertion that treatments result in mites that need to "spend extra in metabolic costs" and result in inferior mites. 

Adios.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Vance G said:


> Let us agree the questionaire is flawed. The only people who it serves well are those needing to SCARE up grant money. I congratulate those able to thread the economic needle while not treating.
> 
> I could not and since beginning to treat with a different miticide every time testing shows I should my losses are almost all queen failures. If I replaced queens annually my figures might be even better. I lost three colonies out of fifty last winter.


Bam! Or should I say shhhh!! We are trying to make grant money over here.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

DaisyNJ said:


> Nor do I subscribe to your assertion that treatments result in mites that need to "spend extra in metabolic costs" and result in inferior mites.
> 
> Adios.


I just read the May 13 issue of Science. Science is one of the two generally recognized most prestigious technical journals world wide. The other is Nature.

This issue of Science had an article on this topic on page 758. It says quite clearly that what I said about metabolic costs was exactly the truth and the reason most resistant organisms do so poorly in competition with wild type. Referring to proper dosing strategies to minimize resistance development the author states, "The ignorance is frightening and the ignorance of ignorance even more so," quoting one leading researcher in the field named Andrew Read. Of course I am sure you know more than this leading scientist so I should not believe him.


----------



## pgayle

Not looking to pick a fight, but most of the community-acquired S. aureus infections I see in kids are MRSA. It seems to do just fine out in the "wild".


----------



## brianjhagy

I am not sure I agree with you on this. I am a new beekeeper and you sound like you have considerable experience with bees so I do not discount this. I am in my second year keeping bees. 1st year I had one hive which swarmed and bred a new queen around the middle of June (I am in Kentucky). The new queen and the colony overwintered well, and we had a considerably significant winter, comparatively speaking, to what we normally have. I never feed the bees and I never treat the bees. I was aware of varroa and CCD many months before I started beekeeping. I have yet to see any varroa mites in any of my hives (I now have three). I am not sure how one could say the TF bees are responsible for the mites in treated bees if TF bees don't have mites (I am not saying this is true in all cases). Also, as is the case with humans, diseases build tolerance and mutate (maybe just viruses) as a way to enhance their resistance to treatment and medicine, i.e. antibiotics. I don't see how disease in bees or parasites like varroa would be any different. You may contribute this to my ignorance about biochemistry, genetics and biology as mentioned in your post, but from what I have seen and read, treatment free is most certainly a rational choice. I think over manipulation of the bees and their hives is more to blame. Plus the swarm and natural break in brood cycles also helps, I always try to have a home for swarming bees so I do not lose any, but I try not to derail a colony ready to swarm.


----------



## beemandan

brianjhagy said:


> I am not sure how one could say the TF bees are responsible for the mites in treated bees if TF bees don't have mites (I am not saying this is true in all cases).


I believe that you will find that even the successful, knowledgeable tf beekeepers will tell you that they have mites. Your bees have mites. If you've had those hives for over a year, and have done nothing to address the mite issue...you likely have hundreds to thousands of mites but just haven't looked properly.


----------



## Michael Bush

If you have bees in North America (and most other places in the world) you have Varroa mites. My problem is that when treating doesn't work as well as the people who believe in treating believe it should and not treating is working better than they believe it should, they blame the people who aren't treating rather than accept that things are not the way they believe. They don't like the statistics so they not only make excuses they try to blame the people who are their best hope for bees that don't require treatments.


----------



## D Coates

Glass houses. Treating and non treating "camps" can be like farts. Everyone thinks theirs doesn't stink. Some of those who don't treat blame those who do on their failures (poor genetics). Some of those who do treat blame those who don't for their failures too (mite bombs). As for statistics, many choose to ignore those that disagree with their position. Case in point, statistics and tests have show SC doesn't work. Yet, many swear by it and promote it with TF zeal. That's fine, do what works for you. It's beekeeping. But don't crawl too high on the proverbial hill lamenting those who ignore statistics without reviewing a morror.

I've tried it both ways. The real world has been a very firm teacher for me. I choose to treat and both my stress and overwintering failures have dropped dramatically.


----------



## jwcarlson

Michael Bush said:


> If you have bees in North America (and most other places in the world) you have Varroa mites. My problem is that when treating doesn't work as well as the people who believe in treating believe it should and not treating is working better than they believe it should, they blame the people who aren't treating rather than accept that things are not the way they believe. They don't like the statistics so they not only make excuses they try to blame the people who are their best hope for bees that don't require treatments.
> 
> Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 41y *200h* 38yTF





Michael Bush said:


> >How many hives are you now running Michael?
> 
> Probably about 40 at the moment.


Who do you blame for your 80+% loss, Michael?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Who do you blame for your 80+% loss, Michael?

I've never had 80+% losses... at least not since regressing, so I guess I don't need to blame anyone.


----------



## sakhoney

But at the bottom of every post where you have the link to your website I see 41Y 200h 38TF
I was under the impression that was 200 hives


----------



## D Coates

To be fair Michael to claim to have 200 hives when you actually have 40 appears to be a 80% stretch the truth. For me it honestly brings into question if similar stretching of the truth of the additional claims made in the tagline. Please consider revising. 

It is similar to me claiming bench press 315 lbs. I did it when I was 18, but at 47 my shoulders would sound like breakfast cereal (snap, crackle, pop) as I urgently request assistance (screaming) to get the weights off of me. I am fully aware I am not able to bench press that weight any longer and make no claims to it.


----------



## jwcarlson

D Coates said:


> To be fair Michael to claim to have 200 hives when you actually have 40 appears to be a 80% stretch the truth. For me it honestly brings into question if similar stretching of the truth of the additional claims made in the tagline. Please consider revising.


It's more like a 400% stretch of the truth.


----------



## aunt betty

Not blaming TF beeks for the 3 hives I've lost in the past two seasons. One was my fault. 
The other two... I'm blaming the mites. 
What was this thread about? Uh..oh yeah...colony losses. I lost 3.


----------



## Daniel Y

Michael Bush said:


> If you have bees in North America (and most other places in the world) you have Varroa mites. My problem is that when treating doesn't work as well as the people who believe in treating believe it should and not treating is working better than they believe it should, they blame the people who aren't treating rather than accept that things are not the way they believe. They don't like the statistics so they not only make excuses they try to blame the people who are their best hope for bees that don't require treatments.


mites are resistant to non treatment.


----------

