# Latest in Darwinian Beekeeping



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Anyone else in the TF community heading this direction? 

Tom Seeley spells it out pretty clearly in latest BC issue. Wife and I both think we've been having more fun with our bees since going this direction. 2019 will be our third year keeping colonies small and more spread out. A little more work, a little more spread out, but if you're a hobbiest Beek and have the space its been worth it for us...so far.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

drummerboy said:


> Anyone else in the TF community heading this direction?


i am not leaning that way at this time db, although i do see some merit in implementing those ideas, especially for those just starting out and/or those in locations more challenged than mine.

all of my hives are in a straight row and separated by about a hive width of space. they are are indentical in appearance except for maybe the number of supers at any given time.

i'm pretty sure i have a lot of drifting. i see it happening at times when a pollen laden forager returns to the wrong hive, wanders in for a moment, and then comes right back out and goes into the to hive next door.

going forward i'm going to pay more attention to the impact of drifting. i may put differing markers on the fronts of the hive for example. i started this year putting robber screens on hives that i see dwv and crawlers coming out of, and i may start putting them on more if not all the hives. i'm also reducing my entrances much more in the late fall and through the winter months.

the degree of acceptance of drifting bees as well as the propensity to rob may be traits that play a role in mite resistance. as far as drifting goes here is an interesting discussion that took place on bee-l some time back:


https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1607&L=BEE-L&D=0&P=88357

(click on 'next' to the right of 'by topic' to follow the discussion). 


as far as smaller colonies go i really hope it doesn't come to that. my populations peak at about 2.5 ten frame deeps worth of bees on average, hived in a single deep with 4 - 5 medium supers. a colony like that will yield as much as 150 lbs. of harvestable honey under good conditions. 

smaller colonies such as splits, a swarmed colony, or a caught swarm will typically produce half or less as much honey as one of those larger ones will.


----------



## Jadeguppy (Jul 19, 2017)

Not sure about the reason for the title, but for someone with three or four hives, putting distance between them sounds worth the try to keep drifting issues at bay. I paint different colors to help with drifting.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Something we've been doing for a couple seasons is the staggering of hives, instead of placing them in 'neat' rows. A slight turn 'away' from the closest one (Usually 6-8'). 

We used to have one yard, located about fifty yards from our front door. It could handle up to a dozen or so hives, plus a few Nuc's, more if we placed them closer together. Now we have two yards (more fencing, another fencer) with only 2-4 hives in each and each yard separated by 75-100 yards. We haven't been doing it this way long enough to realize any benefits so far, but the methodology as described by Tom Seeley seems logical enough that its the direction we're going. 

We've always treated or thought of Honey Production, kinda like we think about fishing. I simply enjoy being on the water (or ice, depending on the season), and catching any fish (or harvesting a lot of honey) simply becomes a bonus for us. Good thing we're no longer trying to add income to the reserves anymore. 

We keep bees now days because we love keeping them, and after many years we still enjoy the 'relatively' small amount of effort it takes to have them around.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

drummerboy said:


> We've always treated or thought of Honey Production, kinda like we think about fishing. I simply enjoy being on the water (or ice, depending on the season), and catching any fish (or harvesting a lot of honey) simply becomes a bonus for us. Good thing we're no longer trying to add income to the reserves anymore.
> 
> We keep bees now days because we love keeping them, and after many years we still enjoy the 'relatively' small amount of effort it takes to have them around.


very cool db.

this points out the reality of how diverse the universe of beekeeping is in terms of desires, goals, and purposes all of which very much impact management decisions. 

there's nothing wrong with doing it for just the enjoyment of it, just like there's nothing wrong with doing it to pay your mortgage and put your kids through college.

as to darwinian beekeeping:

placement of hives is an easy thing to control especially for smaller apiaries. i suggested to litsinger in his 'bungling' thread to scatter the placement of his hives as he grows his apiary.

i think colony size is going to be mostly determined by factors such local climate, forage availability, genetics, and whether or not swarm prevention and/or splitting are practiced.

i don't have access to seeley's bc article, but i'm not surprised at his findings that left up to their own devices bees tend to maintain colony size smaller than managed colonies and prefer keeping some distance from their neighbors. it makes sense and the bees' needs are met perfectly.

the minute we put them in our box, place them closer together, invade and rearrange their space, and take things from them is the minute we add stressors to the bees that their feral cousins don't have to contend with.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

squarepeg said:


> the minute we put them in our box, place them closer together, invade and rearrange their space, and take things from them is the minute we add stressors to the bees that their feral cousins don't have to contend with.


Maybe. What about before varroa? I saw no stressors back then that feral bees didn't have. What would they be?


----------



## Jadeguppy (Jul 19, 2017)

I can't resist mentioning that when I opened the thread I thought it would be about some horribly stupid thing someone did that cost them. I guess I've read too many Darwin Awards books and posts.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Michael Palmer said:


> Maybe. What about before varroa? I saw no stressors back then that feral bees didn't have. What would they be?


i am in complete agreement michael that the arrival of varroa introduced a significant stressor for both managed and unmanaged colonies alike.


my comment was 'generally speaking' but the type of stressors i had in mind include:

1. the boxes we place our bees into are not as cozy as the hollow trees their feral cousins choose.

2. i'll speculate that the rotting inside of a tree hollow allows for a better propolis envelope and provides a better environment for beneficial microbes.

2. placing more than one colony per square kilometer or whatever the density seeley found the ferals have creates competition for resources, and increases the impact of horizontal transmission of diseases and pests via drifting and robbing.

3. taking resources away from a given colony such as comb, brood, pollen, and honey is most likely not particularly helpful to that particular colony, and again a stressor the unmanaged colony doesn't have to contend with.

4. effective swarm prevention via our manipulations deprives a colony of that natural broodbreak and yearly requeeing that on the surface would seem to have some survival benefit.


excellent beekeepers like yourself developed work-arounds to these stressors long before varroa arrived. you wrap your hives and insulate the tops for wintering. you make sure you don't overpopulate your individual sites. you ensure your colonies have the stores needed to winter safely, and you make sure your colonies are adequately queenright.

i'm guessing the lack of these beekeeper inputs would manifest in problems for the managed colonies that the ferals don't have to contend with. jmho.

the point i was trying to make is that there are elements that are inherent to keeping and managing bees that deviate from the natural condition, and in that respect we have to qualify to some degree when applying the term 'darwinian' to what we do.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

This is a really neat discussion and I look forward to the continued conversation. I'll readily admit that I don't have enough first-hand experience to contribute anything of value to the discussion, but I am acutely interested in what our experienced forum members have to say on the subject - I guess this is my verbose way of saying "following". 😉


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

squarepeg said:


> my comment was 'generally speaking' but the type of stressors i had in mind include:
> 
> 1. the boxes we place our bees into are not as cozy as the hollow trees their feral cousins choose.
> 
> ...


Now, not trying to start anything, and only trying to understand...The whole idea of Darwinian Beekeeping is foreign to me. 

I consider these 4 points assumptions. Going back before varroa and acarapis, we always had low losses. Always less than 10%. Often near zero. Losses were normal issues. Queen issues, starvation, etc.

I kept bees 15 years before varroa. Large yards and small yards. I think if there were an issue with the hive, #s 1 and 2, we would have seen it. Harvesting from our bees doesn't hurt them. Of course, it's easy enough to be greedy. Taking more than the bees provide us is wrong, and we never did that. Of course the brood break is a post varroa management scheme, and something I don't buy into.

So, other than point #4, which is post varroa, I didn't see what is being claimed. I just don't think points 1-3 are inherently true.


----------



## Knisely (Oct 26, 2013)

...a little more spread out...

I haven’t seen the Seeley article yet. Are colonies more dense on the landscape than they are in Cornell’s forest suboptimal? It would seem so. How far apart should yards be, and how many colonies per yard?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Michael Palmer said:


> So, other than point #4, which is post varroa, I didn't see what is being claimed. I just don't think points 1-3 are inherently true.


i very much respect your opinion michael and i appreciate you taking the time to engage here.

the point i was trying to make in #4 is that a swarmed colony will have a fresh queen which would be less likely to fail before the following spring, thereby giving a colony not managed for swarm prevention of bit of an advantage. i should have left the brood break part out of it.

yes, i am just making assumptions when i say that pre-varroa managed hives were exposed to more stressors than their feral cousins. the ideas make intuitive sense to me, especially with regard to #2, insofar as there were other diseases and pests around pre-varroa. 

good beekeeping would tend to negate #1 and #3. 

research hasn't yet adequately addressed #2. 

that your experience bodes differently than my assumptions doesn't come as a total shock. things aren't always as one thinks they should be when it comes to bees.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Squarepeg, how do we know that bees "prefer" the hollow tree that we assume to be their natural habitat? Wouldn't that tend to make putting swarm traps in a forested area pointless? I think experience has shown us that bees willingly choose some places to set up housekeeping that we find very strange, and not at all tree-like. Maybe the tree is what they take when nothing better presents itself. Regarding #2, I imagine that bee density is relative to the perceived available forage, otherwise why would swarms choose to move into boxes in an established apiary with hundreds of acres of woodlands all around? Not trying to argue, rather, serve another course to chew on.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWPalmer said:


> Squarepeg, how do we know that bees "prefer" the hollow tree that we assume to be their natural habitat?


good questions jwp.

i used the term 'choose' but i can see how that might be interpreted as 'prefer'.

when i put swarm traps up 100 yards or so from the hives i keep in the somewhat forested area i live in, about half the swarms that issue from my hives move into the traps and the other half take off for the woods.

i can't be sure if swarms take off because they have found and given preference to a tree hollow, or if it is because of a natural tendency to put some distance between themselves and the parent colony, or if it is for some other unknown reason.

supposedly the scout bees spend some time investigating and locating potential new homes. if there is more than one choice they supposedly compare and end up picking the one that best suits them.

i can see how the decision could go either way depending on what's available at the time.

i believe this process is described in seeley's 'honey bee democracy', but i haven't read it or too much else of seeley's work. i also haven't had the chance to read the bc article(s) in which the 'darwinian approach was discussed. so like michael, i'm not sure exactly what that entails.

from the op, i am assuming it has to do with spacing out hives more, keeping smaller colonies, and perhaps allowing them to swarm.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

JWPalmer said:


> why would swarms choose to move into boxes in an established apiary with hundreds of acres of woodlands all around? .


I have a PDF version of a 1983 book about native Bashkir forest bee (title page attached).
This is about bee-tree beekeeping.
I may selectively translate few pages of interest.








One of the main points of the book - there must be abundant old growth forest before it is usable by the bees.
We are talking about plenty of choices of hollow trees of at least 3-4 in diameter that are needed for suitable habitat.

In the USA, most of the old growth forests does not exist except few pockets.
One can argue that secondary forests are old enough - maybe yes, maybe now. 
But in fact, no one cared to look into this systematically (outside of Seeley's forest if that is to be counted).
In addition, we love bringing down old, hollow trees in the managed locations that pose risk.

So, now, "hundreds of acres of woodland all around" me personally are mostly useless to the bees.
In addition, it is hard to find that exact hole in a tree that has a nice, large 40-60 liter hollow behind it AND have it been previously occupied by the bees AND having a nice bee nest smell to it.
Looking for such places is very, very ineffective most current settings.

Meanwhile, someone like me has several very nicely baited traps standing across the area AND also several bee yards across the same area that also produce nice plumes of attractive smells.
In such setup bees finding and choosing "previously occupied" bee dwellings (not natural, but only *presented artificially so*) is pretty obvious.
Of course, they will go for a nice smelling trap vs. looking for a big enough oak with a large hole where bees most likely never lived anyway.

PS: last year I plugged a bee-tree by person's request; they had bees repeatedly occupying an oak in their yard for several years (well - no more; so another bee-tree went off-line).


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

squarepeg said:


> the point i was trying to make in #4 is that a swarmed colony will have a fresh queen which would be less likely to fail before the following spring, thereby giving a colony not managed for swarm prevention of bit of an advantage.


yet there are those aplenty the espouse beekeepers for yearly re queening 



> Squarepeg, how do we know that bees "prefer" the hollow tree that we assume to be their natural habitat? Wouldn't that tend to make putting swarm traps in a forested area pointless? **snip** I imagine that bee density is relative to the perceived available forage


It seems the limitation on feral bee population is suitably nest cavitys, urban areas typically have much higher denistys of outher places due to the man made cavitys, pree varroa of course, if the limiation was forage, we would not be able to keep any were near the high denceincys that we do 


sqkcrk said:


> Looks like .5 feral colonies per km squared in rural forested area and 2.3 feral colonies in urban area buildings, across NY State, Vischer and Seeley 1982, Morse et al 1990.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

GregV said:


> In the USA, most of the old growth forests does not exist except few pockets.


interesting point. the wooded lands around me haven't been logged for the most part since the tva and wpa programs just after the great depression, so i don't know if that counts as old growth or not.

that, and the much of the steep sides of the long-running ridges if the southern applachians may have never been logged because of the difficulty involved with logging on very steep grades.


----------



## Treehopper (Dec 9, 2012)

Which issue of BC are you referring to?


----------



## tpope (Mar 1, 2015)

I have some acreage with mixed hardwoods. The red oaks are starting to have hollow hearts. I would not call it old growth. I have two pine stumps that were cut with a crosscut saw. The hearts are about 3 feet in diameter. That was a massive tree. I am not sure that there are any cavities that are suitable for bees.
I do know that the pines grown in my area for pulp production are seeing low prices. This will hopefully cause the high density, single species forest to diversify.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

squarepeg said:


> interesting point. the wooded lands around me haven't been logged for the most part since the tva and wpa programs just after the great depression, so i don't know if that counts as old growth or not.
> 
> that, and the much of the steep sides of the long-running ridges if the *southern applachians may have never been logged because of the difficulty involved with logging on very steep grades*.


Three years ago now, we made a family vacation at the Great Smokies NP area.
I made note of:
a) indeed, very unfriendly terrain for large scale logging in many places (which did not seem to prevent some selective logging anyway in between the ridges)
b) but also very rocky and infertile soils on the mountain slopes themselves (compared to the low-land valleys)
c) somewhat stunted tree growth, the higher you go, the smaller are the trees (see b).

In any case, I noticed bees at the very tops of the mountains (pretty sure - feral bees).
Notably, there were bees in the lawns by the very Newfound Gap visitor center (for those who know).
I was very interested to know where those bees came from; it was pretty darn high and away from residential bees I thought.

To compare, virtually all of WI is easily accessible in winter and was completely logged out (a huge shame; few people got disgustingly rich).
The secondary growth only now re-entering the stages of old growth in few places.
Overall, natural bee habitat does not really exist.
Hence, the obvious bee dwelling choices that we observe.
I lost a swarm last summer and pretty darn sure it ended up in someone else's trap OR an old farm barn nearby - those are the easiest options in the area.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

drummerboy said:


> ... Now we have* two yards *....


Hehe..

I got *six yards* at the moment for just 10 live units.
Wanting to call farmer nearby (she is looking for a bee hive to host) - if lucky, that will make it seven yards.

The biggest yard for now is my back yard - 4 units - too many.
Someone already wrote an anonymous complaint about my backyard bees pestering them (during the heaviest yellow jacket season - of course - it figures).

My maximum single yard target population - three units. 
If have more units at a single site, I will move some units do an alternate location.
The target minimum single yard population - two units; not always possible but I try for it.
I am trying to keep hives 5-10 meters away from each other at any single location (not always possible but trying; the little backyard is a problem).

The key is selecting the locations strategically and efficiently.
All my yards are located along my typical daily routes and I often just check the bees after taking kids to school, etc.
The longest drive is no more than 5 miles one way directly. 
Also, the yards are located so that I can just make one circular drive and hit all of my yards at once (the entire round-trip drive is under 20 miles).
All it is to it.

The biggest reason I am doing this - apiary redundancy and avoiding feed-lot types of situations (again - not natural for the bees) .


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

GregV said:


> Hehe..
> 
> I got *six yards* at the moment for just 10 live units.
> Wanting to call farmer nearby (she is looking for a bee hive to host) - if lucky, that will make it seven yards.
> .


Well, sounds like I got me the seventh location too (near a very good late summer pasture).
That probably a reasonable max for me for the time being - need more bees.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Has anyone else besides me actually read the BC article by Seeley? Its in the latest issue, but NOT the first time he's offered info/data on the subject/topic. 

It'd be great if we were all at least talking about the same thing instead of assuming, no? 

GregV, you gotta get out of Dane County Bro, there's still lots of forest in Northern Wisconsin, despite over 100 years of logging and development. 

In fact I can still see a few old (3-400 year old) white pines from our back door. They really do stand out this time of year.

The burning that took place in the 20's and 30's after the theft of the White Pine, replenished and then prepared the region for what today is a pretty diverse stand of trees. Do I wish we logged less? Heck Ya! Lots of logging around here takes place during winter months (often in the middle of the night), so whatever may/might be living in or nearby a selected tree/log is very likely doomed, whether it be a colony of Honeybees, a family of squirrels or raccoons, woodpeckers...etc....the list is very long. 

But as we all know, profit usually trumps life in this world, no?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

drummerboy said:


> It'd be great if we were all at least talking about the same thing instead of assuming, no?


fair point and i agree. for those of us that don't have access to the article you mention can you give us a cliff note synopsis of what's there, and more specifically how you are interpreting and implementing 'darwinian' beekeeping.

from what you have written so far it sounds like that is taking the form of no treatments, limiting the number of hives per yard, and more spacing/staggering of the hives.

and no, profit doesn't have to trump life, but in the universe of beekeepings profit can certainly occupy a higher rung on the ladder for some compared to others, and that isn't inherently a bad thing.

i noticed in one of your other posts that you are a military veteran. many thanks for your prior service db!


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

drummerboy said:


> Has anyone else besides me actually read the BC article by Seeley? ...........
> 
> GregV, you gotta get out of Dane County Bro, there's still lots of forest in Northern Wisconsin, despite over 100 years of logging and development.


I think, DB, those Tom Seeley ideas have been posted and discussed 2-3 years ago, at least.
I do not have the magazine to read, but the idea has been around.
At least this is not new to me.
For example:
https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...-bees-in-small-colonies&p=1496136#post1496136

So yes, you may have noticed by now how I have 1)several small, redundant and separate bee yards and 2)working on how to run the smaller individual units.

Regarding the North WI forest - we do get out! We do! 
Last two summers we did the Door County camping.
But do point me to something of interest in your area - we could just drop by while summer camping and check out your bees.
North WI is a camping paradise, no doubt.

Regarding the old growth - you see, few old trees do not constitute habitat (especially, healthy old trees).
Really good habitat is when you have totally unmanaged old growth with *lots and lots* of dead/half-dead trees where finding a cavity is really, really easy.
Basically, this is a pile of trash, not a forest (from human point of view).
Until the last 100-200 year, most forests looked just like it - trash.
Then clear-cutting occurred in most places (West Euro cleared the forests even before that - 500-600-700 years ago).
Then managed forests came along where the sick/dead/dying trees just taken down - bee trees taken off-line.

Bees need not be flying miles and miles looking for that elusive hole in a tree - what we have today.
One should be standing in the forest any place and just looking from a single spot seeing 10-20-30 holes around you right there - *that *is good habitat.
While there are few older pines and oaks standing above the forest here and there - this is not a bee habitat.
Dead/half-dead trees are promptly removed from most areas now days - they call it forest management.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

So Drummerboy’s admonition challenged me to look this up. I went to Bee Culture and found two recent articles which speak to Darwinian Beekeeping:

https://www.beeculture.com/bee-audacious/

_Just a few of the management paradigms in this beekeeping philosophy include:

1.	Smaller colony sizes closer to that of average wild colonies;
2.	More space between apiaries, fewer colonies per apiary, and more distance between colonies within apiaries;
3.	Use of local queens, selected and reared for local conditions;
4.	Reduced or no swarm control, and capturing swarms to initiate new colonies and replace colonies that have died;
5.	No chemical disease or pest management, allowing natural selection to play a stronger role.

Darwinian beekeeping may be best suited to hobbyists or sideline beekeepers, but many elements in this management philosophy would be adaptable for commercial beekeeping as well._

https://www.beeculture.com/bees-in-trees/

_Some key managements to “natural” Langstroth hive beekeeping, based on what he finds common to bees living in trees, are: 

1.	Average in the wild is 2.5 colonies per square mile; space colonies as widely as possible
2.	Use small nests; one deep and one shallow; make less honey but colony healthier
3.	Use rough cut lumber on inside of hive to increase propolis coating 
4.	Maintain 10% to 20% drone comb, as found in feral tree nests
5.	Keep nest structure and orientation and frame location in hive intact; do not reverse boxes in Spring. Do not disturb colonies in Winter; don’t supplementally feed syrup or pollen
6.	Don’t use top entrances and limit bottom opening to two-inch opening._

This article also referred to a recent presentation that Dr. Seeley gave at EAS:

https://www.easternapiculture.org/images/stories/extentions/DarwinianBeekeeping-EAS17.pdf

_… bees are superb “beekeepers.”
They have been “beekeeping” for a long time

1.	Colonies genetically adapted to their location
2.	Colonies live widely spaced in woods
3.	Colonies live in small nest cavities (ca. 1 deep hive body) and swarm freely
4.	Nest cavity walls are coated with propolis
5.	Nest entrance is high off ground (avg. ca. 25 feet)
6.	Colonies have diverse pollen sources
7.	Colonies are not treated for diseases.
8.	Colonies build drone comb freely; produce many drones_


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

squarepeg said:


> i noticed in one of your other posts that you are a military veteran. many thanks for your prior service db!


I heartily second this sentiment- we appreciate you!


----------



## jjapple (Sep 6, 2009)

I have read Seeley's article recent BC issue. Agree pretty much with everything and would love to separate my colonies further apart. The biggest issue is the bear pressure where I am in Central Vermont means an extensive, powerful and strong fence. Can't do that and spread them out. So for now I have 15 colonies all different colors, different directions facing...do what I can.


----------



## Kathleen Bourn (Oct 31, 2014)

Last fall I decided to give Selley's ideas a try.

I think I have the perfect set up to see what happens with Darwinian Beekeeping. I have 170 acres in an agriculture/timber area. I'm a hobbyist that doesn't worry about how much honey I'm getting from my hives. Last fall I had 13 hives and right now I'm down to 8.

One of Seeley's points, that I think is hardest for beekeepers to do, is to *euthanize failing hives* that have heavy mite loads. I started doing that last fall and ended up drowning 3 colonies in soapy water. It was tough but I want to faithfully try this method. I've never treated my hives but I do monitor. 

Another point is the* distance between hives*. I planned on moving my langstroths at least 30yards apart this spring. Just the other day, Jennifer Berry told me that they did a study at the University of Georgia that showed that you can get the same results (minimum drifting) from putting the hives in a circle with the entrances facing out. I'm going to try that because it's a lot easier on the beekeeping. 

I have 8 frame mediums and I plan to keep them to no more than 3 boxes. I also have top bar hives that have 24 bars. I will be putting out a ton of bait hives.

I'm also going to break my cycle of buying bees. I'll work with whatever I have coming out of winter (unless I'm down to zero).

My plan is to keep good records and see how this goes.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

jjapple said:


> I have read Seeley's article recent BC issue. Agree pretty much with everything and would love to separate my colonies further apart. The biggest issue is the bear pressure where I am in Central Vermont means an extensive, powerful and strong fence. Can't do that and spread them out. So for now I have 15 colonies all different colors, different directions facing...do what I can.


Cool, doing what we can is still doing, right? Certainly this method wouldn't be acceptable for anyone keeping more than ? number of colonies....its definitely a Not-for-Profit form of keeping bees, but isn't the data telling us that most folks keeping bees never or rarely see a monetary profit for their efforts. I'm happy to break even and don't do that very often. We've had a great Honey season perhaps every 3-4 years, and we tend to have a great Bee season that follows suit.

IMHO; if you just want some bees, are resistant to treatments, want to imitate a more natural habitat/conditions, Seeley's methods appear the most promising.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Litsinger said:


> I heartily second this sentiment- we appreciate you!



This is not meant to be offensive, the sentiment is always appreciated, but as a VVAW life member I've said the following words whenever thanks are offered for my military service (I've got a sticker on the truck saying the same thing). 

Many Vets are understandably uncomfortable when hearing this form of appreciation from fellow citizens, while some Vets will readily wrap the sentiment around themselves like a Flag. My response to Thanks usually throws folks off kilter, but it also offers an opportunity to discuss ones feelings. Some are open to such discussion, some are horrified, I have dealt with both and more. None of us veterans had the same experience yet society lumps us all together, how we humans love to categorize everything and everybody.

Fact is; Vietnam Vets were treated horribly when we returned home, most of my friends, acquaintances didn't speak of our service unless it was to another veteran. Since the 1st Gulf War, this has changed, now we place vets on a pedestal, whether deserving or not. The Military has always represented the society at large, it is full of both good and bad folks and at least 'this' veteran wishes more would realize this reality.

So, does anyone still want to know what my steadfast answer is to those who thank me for my service? The following is my pat answer and an opening for dialogue.

"Thank you for your consideration, but if you want to thank me for my service, work for peace"

Sorry for the rant, but this particular subject is admittedly a sore spot with me.


----------



## SK47 (Apr 21, 2013)

I haven't been active on Beesource, but I do get the "trending forums" emails occasionally, so I just read this thread. I am a hobby beek myself and have gone the more natural route in my beekeeping efforts. Sometimes successful, other times not so much. 
As a Vietnam vet myself ('68-'69), I appreciate DB's last response. Maybe slightly off topic, but still needed to be said, IMHO. When I returned home in '69, I did not experience the hostility that some did, but it was a pretty cold reception from some of my friends. It was a very unpopular war. I'm glad that vets are getting the recognition they deserve now. But as DB pointed out, the actions of some folks are honorable, and some less so. Just like right here stateside. So, thanks for the recognition, and just remember, there are true heroes in any vocation, there are just the regular guys doing their job, and there are a few scoundrels mixed in as well. We need to be careful about putting people on a pedestal just because they are part of any certain large group of individuals.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> One of Seeley's points, that I think is hardest for beekeepers to do, is to *euthanize failing hives* that have heavy mite loads. I started doing that last fall and ended up drowning 3 colonies in soapy water. It was tough but I want to faithfully try this method. I've never treated my hives but I do monitor.


Kathleen:

I enjoyed reading about your efforts. If you don't mind sharing, what are you using as your benchmarks to decide when you need to step-in regarding a failing colony?

Thanks again for the outline-

Russ


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

drummerboy said:


> Sorry for the rant, but this particular subject is admittedly a sore spot with me.


Drummerboy:

I respect your position. My father is an combat veteran of Vietnam, and we have had many frank conversations about the past, present and future of military service and of culture in general. While I cannot speak from first-hand experience, I am well-aware of the indelible mark that serving our country during the Vietnam era (and in combat) has made on my dad.

I do sincerely appreciate that you served, and I wholeheartedly share your desire for peace.

Respectfully,

Russ


----------



## Jadeguppy (Jul 19, 2017)

I'm wondering about the comments about having a small entrance at the bottom and none at the top, with the brood nest at the bottom. The wild hives I saw had various entrances and brood nests were all at the top with honey below and to the sides. I wonder if queen excluders cause issues. Do those of you following the Darwinian ideas find that the queens move the brood nest to the top? 

The oldest hive I pulled filled about 8 feet top to bottom and the others were expanding to that size. Around here oak trees often get hollows as they age. Some of them can be hollow in the center, not just a small cavity created by a lost branch. This makes me wonder about the assertion that the hives should be kept small. If you use this method, what is your opinion on the need for a small hive that won't allow them to store large amounts of honey. FWIW, the second largest hive I pulled yielded over 40# of honey and had more in there that I didn't manage to harvest or that was fed back to them. Maybe the issue is standard boxes are wide and the square footage the goal.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

squarepeg said:


> i'll make a deal with you msl. if i should ever end up with a colony in the late season that is heavily mite infested and has dwindled so small that there is no chance for surviving winter, i'll sell it to you for $398, you can apply the $2 treatment, and resell for $600. an easy $200 for you, right?
> 
> i've been lucky in that winter has done all the euthanizing for me so far. i did have a colony several years ago that got down to a couple handful of bees by late fall and alcohol wash revealed there were more mites than bees in the hive. i shook them out, but later regretted not placing them in the freezer.
> 
> ...


We used to just 'dump' our dink colonies (dwindlers) on the ground in the Fall, allowing them to die or take up residence wherever they could. An old practice that is no longer advisable or practical for modern beekeeping due to obvious issues with disease, mites etc. We've since learned to just soap them dead so other colonies will have a better chance for survival. It gets easier after doing a few and you'll sleep better knowing that at least 'your' bees aren't spreading varroa around and back.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Jadeguppy said:


> I'm wondering about the comments about having a small entrance at the bottom and none at the top, with the brood nest at the bottom. The wild hives I saw had various entrances and brood nests were all at the top with honey below and to the sides. I wonder if queen excluders cause issues. Do those of you following the Darwinian ideas find that the queens move the brood nest to the top?
> 
> The oldest hive I pulled filled about 8 feet top to bottom and the others were expanding to that size. Around here oak trees often get hollows as they age. Some of them can be hollow in the center, not just a small cavity created by a lost branch. This makes me wonder about the assertion that the hives should be kept small. If you use this method, what is your opinion on the need for a small hive that won't allow them to store large amounts of honey. FWIW, the second largest hive I pulled yielded over 40# of honey and had more in there that I didn't manage to harvest or that was fed back to them. Maybe the issue is standard boxes are wide and the square footage the goal.


We still use both a top and a bottom entrance, thinking the bees like having more than one option. During Winter the top one (a small notch on inner cover bottom) is used more often by our bees, it allows moisture/condensation to escape and when its really cold (sub zero), frost at the top entrance ensures that we still have a live colony. 

As for queen excluders, we remain somewhat confused by Seeley's advise. He tells us to use excluders to confine queen in the bottom (a Deep or 2 mediums) which makes sense, but doesn't offer any advise (that I've seen, so far) on when (or if) to remove the excluder, so we do what we've always done whenever using excluders. Upon Winter wrap up time we just remove them, so the entire colony can move freely up into the honey stores. We'll keep doing that until we learn different.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

SK47 said:


> I haven't been active on Beesource, but I do get the "trending forums" emails occasionally, so I just read this thread. I am a hobby beek myself and have gone the more natural route in my beekeeping efforts. Sometimes successful, other times not so much.
> As a Vietnam vet myself ('68-'69), I appreciate DB's last response. Maybe slightly off topic, but still needed to be said, IMHO. When I returned home in '69, I did not experience the hostility that some did, but it was a pretty cold reception from some of my friends. It was a very unpopular war. I'm glad that vets are getting the recognition they deserve now. But as DB pointed out, the actions of some folks are honorable, and some less so. Just like right here stateside. So, thanks for the recognition, and just remember, there are true heroes in any vocation, there are just the regular guys doing their job, and there are a few scoundrels mixed in as well. We need to be careful about putting people on a pedestal just because they are part of any certain large group of individuals.



Welcome Home, Brother.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

db, just wanted to say thanks for helping me understand the veterans' side of it from a perspective that i was clueless about.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> I think I have the perfect set up to see what happens with Darwinian Beekeeping. I have 170 acres in an agriculture/timber area. I'm a hobbyist that doesn't worry about how much honey I'm getting from my hives. Last fall I had 13 hives and right now I'm down to 8.


kathleen, thanks for contributing to this thread. i see that hart county, ga is about the same latitude as jackson county, al. we should have the first rounds of brood underway and hopefully get to inspect in another month or so. please let us know how your remaining colonies do.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Drummerboy:

I don't know if the following article/video adds any additional information to the conversation regarding Darwinian Beekeeping, but I thought I would share it if there is anything helpful in here:

https://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/darwinian-beekeeping

https://www.facebook.com/naturalbeekeepingtrust/videos/1522467957782147/


----------



## DianeF (May 14, 2012)

Jan 2019. I just read the article last night. First time I've read about Darwinian Beekeeping. Interesting.


----------



## Kathleen Bourn (Oct 31, 2014)

I apologize for the late reply. It’s amazing how work, conferences, short courses and hive maintenance can eat up the winter. 

I said last fall when I decided to try Darwinian Beekeeping, even if I was down to one hive I would work off it. 

Well, I’m down to one hive. All of these losses were winter dead outs (not euthanized). I lost about two a month. The one that remains seems strong. I can only inspect on the weekends and every weekend has been rainy or cold or both. (BTW, whoever keeps praying for rain needs to knock it off!) 

Anyway, I’m going to stick with the plan. I’ve decided to put hives in a circle (entrances facing out) instead of 30yds. apart. I talked to Jennifer Berry at UGA and she mentioned that they did a study and found that the drifting was the same or better when the hives are in a circle. 

To answer the question about my mite threshold, I euthanized hives in the fall if they had more than 3/100 and definite signs of decline. They got a soap bath because I don’t have the freezer space. 

I haven't decided if I'm going to vary from Seeley and keep my upper entrances or not. 

The advantages of this heavy loss (and believe me, I’m looking for them) is that I now have a ton of drawn comb and I was able to do intensive equipment maintenance this winter 

I’ll have every bait hive and box I have in service as swarm traps. I’m trying to find some treatment free bees in my area but it’s tough. Most of the keepers here treat and I’m getting my share of eye rolls for trying this. 

I’m working under the old adage that it has to get worse before it gets better. 

Good, Bad, or Ugly . . . I’ll keep you posted.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

great to hear back from you kathleen, many thanks for the update.

beesource member 'tpope' is rearing queens on the other side of the state from you and may be able to help you out with some tf genetics. 

you can see his thread here:

https://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?333591-My-journey-towards-treatment-free


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> To answer the question about my mite threshold, I euthanized hives in the fall if they had more than 3/100 and definite signs of decline. They got a soap bath because I don’t have the freezer space.
> 
> I haven't decided if I'm going to vary from Seeley and keep my upper entrances or not.


Kathleen:

I appreciated reading your update, and thank you for cluing us in on your threshold.

I too have struggled with the upper entrance question- while I don't have too much to compare it to, it seems that one of my hives in particular has appreciated the upper entrance this winter- and the whole nexus between ventilation, moisture, insulation and overwintering success seems to have a lot of factors associated with it that I do hope to better understand.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> I haven't decided if I'm going to vary from Seeley and *keep my upper entrances or not. *


The more I study about the primitive beekeeping, the more I question Seeley's conclusions.

He never once clarifies that his studies are really done in relatively new growth forest (typical of North America where the old growth is hard to come by).
Hence some of the conclusions made in the "The nest of the honeybee".


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

GregV said:


> Hence some of the conclusions made in the "The nest of the honeybee".


Do you know, that he travelled the whole World dissecting honey bee nests? Probably he knows a thing or two about the topic, even outside the Arnot Forest.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

BernhardHeuvel said:


>


Bernhard:

Thank you for sharing the video- I enjoyed watching it. I had to look up, 'Heideimkerei' but I guess it roughly translates as 'Heath Beekeeping'?

I suppose the normative skep in this approach employs a single upper entrance?

Thanks again for sharing- I've enjoyed reading your posts on the Warre forum.

Russ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Do you know, that he travelled the whole World dissecting honey bee nests? Probably he knows a thing or two about the topic, even outside the Arnot Forest.


I am sure he does know things.
And I am sure he traveled far more than I.

But his early book "The nest of the honey bee" is referred to often and is taken literally as if a "bible".
I refer to it also - sure.
But some depictions are not accurate if taken as a general situation, IMO.
Like this one suggest low placed entrance as the usual case:








Per what I have been reading, I am starting to see a different picture - typical natural bee tree entrances in the *upper-half or about the middle of the cavity * are more usual.
Does it matter?
Maybe.
Should we be question things?
We must.
The standardized "small cell" global solution to all problems comes to mind (as not really working).
As well as the doctrine that "large bee is a good bee" fits the same mold.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Location, location, location. Here the entrance in the bottom 1/4 of the cavity is the norm.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

AR Beekeeper said:


> Location, location, location. Here the entrance in the bottom 1/4 of the cavity is the norm.


Exactly - location drives the need.
Not some "bible".


----------



## Kathleen Bourn (Oct 31, 2014)

Ok, today was the day to "circle up". Instead of circling the wagons, I circled the hives. (maybe that's the key to fighting varroa)
View attachment 46723

I'm also finally getting a chance to check on my remaining hive. If they have drones and the weather holds, they're getting split. 

I put out every bait hive, Langstroth, Top Bar, Warre and Layens hive I have for swarm catching. I'm even going to try some Russian Scions.
I put all my Langs in a circle with the entrances facing out and about 15 feet apart. This is one of the variations I'm making to Seeley's Darwinian Beekeeping layout. 

Getting them level in this pasture was a bear but it'll be a lot easier managing them from inside the circle rather than 30yds. apart.
I'm going to keep both the upper and lower entrances open but small. I've had hives before that seem to choose which one they prefer. I had only one hive propolise the upper entrance in the winter but then they opened it back up again in the spring. Also, because they'll now be in full sun, I'm hoping the extra ventilation helps.

BTW, thank you squarepeg for the queen idea. I'll check it out. 

Keep Beeing


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> Squarepeg, how do we know that bees "prefer" the hollow tree that we assume to be their natural habitat? Wouldn't that tend to make putting swarm traps in a forested area pointless? I think experience has shown us that bees willingly choose some places to set up housekeeping that we find very strange, and not at all tree-like. Maybe the tree is what they take when nothing better presents itself. Regarding #2, I imagine that bee density is relative to the perceived available forage, otherwise why would swarms choose to move into boxes in an established apiary with hundreds of acres of woodlands all around? Not trying to argue, rather, serve another course to chew on.


Hi JWPalmer Just in the 50 years I have been snoopin around in the woods, There is no where near the hollow trees one would find in what could be described as "Old growth" I know of only a couple tracts of ground that have big old hollow trees, both great swarm capture areas BTW. Most of the woods forested areas today are less than 100 years old ( logging , farming, fires, etc,) and contain firm not yet hollowed trees. Bees find their way into roofs , Barns and other man made objects, mostly because they are there. If the forested area had tons of hollow trees then I would agree the swarm trap is pointless. As I wander the woods around my yards I am lucky to find even 1 nice hollow tree, if I do it has a family of ***** in it. I some what agree they are looking for a "space", 1000 years ago it was likely a hollow tree, today it could be a wide variety of things. On the bee density topic, I would have the same argument 1000 years ago the flowers in any given 9 square mile block would only support a certain number of "colonies". Today when Man plants 2000 acres of hay crop in the 9 square mile block the bee density can vary from the time of Darwin because the "flower density" is not really "normal". Talking about the Darwinian of yesteryear , while operating in the here and now, needs some more thought. The bee density can however IMO exacerbate the spread of bee disease. so it is a big "It depends" on spreading the hives apart.
For a rob out of a hive spreading the disease 25 yards is not going to be much different than 175 yards. What is Darwinian today and in the past are different because the environment is different. 
O and BTW honey bees are an invasive species here in the USA as they were brought here from Europe.
So I am not really sure Darwinian concepts are at work here. Better discussion maybe is should Man limit the species and sub species here in the USA to something capable of surviving in the "wild" so we effectively re populate the ferals that must have went with the dinosaurs or some other event out of the continent.
As most of the rule making falls in the Ag world for bees this arena will get a lot more interesting.

I just read an article today about someone who is bringing packages bees up north with an adopt a hive program, from Georgia. Admitting hardly any are surviving the winter. And the "writer/media" seem to be gaga about it. Talk about messing up a DCA or 5 DCAs and getting public support, and funded by people who "want to help". http://www.upbees.com/adopt-a-hive/ 
I am all for folks helping. I guess the definition of "saving the bees" or Help is where Some of us have different opinions. On one hand there never were bees in Sault Ste Marie area, so whats the problem, on the other can Southern types of bees gain a hold in the Sault? And what If there happen to be a few northern dark bees in the wilds of this area how will drones from 30 or 40 Packages, spread around the county help with this years swarming? So many Darwins and so little time...


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> I just read an article today about someone who is bringing packages bees up north with an adopt a hive program, from Georgia. Admitting hardly any are surviving the winter. And the "writer/media" seem to be gaga about it. Talk about messing up a DCA or 5 DCAs and getting public support, and funded by people who "want to help". http://www.upbees.com/adopt-a-hive/ .


GG,
+1 to your description of the "old growth" situation.
The "old growth" habitat largely does not exist.

Now, that "adopt a hive" program is not only a non-sense - it is outright harmful and dishonest.
It should be discredited and shown for what it really is - using public funding to undermine the locally-adapted bee (really is worse than annual, commercial package bee dumps).
It really should just be killed.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

This is one topic I 100% agree with you guys on. Bringing southern bees to the UP to "save the northern bees" is really doing just the opposite. DCAs flooded with southern Italian drones can serve no purpose other than to weaken the locally adapted genetics. And this group is scamming people into believing they are helping. Really it just looks like they are selling honey for $35 per pound.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> This is one topic I 100% agree with you guys on. Bringing southern bees to the UP to "save the northern bees" is really doing just the opposite. DCAs flooded with southern Italian drones can serve no purpose other than to weaken the locally adapted genetics. And this group is scamming people into believing they are helping. Really it just looks like they are selling honey for $35 per pound.


"Really it just looks like they are selling honey for $35 per pound."

People in general want to "help" if they perceive an issue. The 300 defrays the hive cost, the package cost was a given cost any way. First 10 pounds is the rent. spread them around the country side. Interesting business plan. 

yes I had a sad day yesterday. this area just south of the Soo was an area last year I put out a frame of honey and not a single honey bee touched it for a month. I "was" going to try to breed queens there this year. And also a friend of a friend told me that one of my neighbors is ordering packages this year because he wants to save the bees, so now my main yard could be compromised With the DCA populated with drones from was south. Don't get me wrong I think the bees in the south are GREAT for the south. When we drag them across 4 or 5 state lines, we really need to understand that we are affecting local DCAs and maybe bringing in pests with the packages. I am really OK with the adopt concept if it were locally issued swarms, catch and house. Not sure ordering Packages is even in the same category.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Just a hint...

*Flow currents and ventilation in Langstroth beehives due to brood thermoregulation efforts of honeybees.*
Journal of Theoretical Biology 295 (2012) 168–193
http://www.uoguelph.ca/canpolin/Publications/JTB-PAPER-Sudarsanetal-2011.pdf

And a followup: http://www.uoguelph.ca/canpolin/Publications/ThompsonCody_MSc2011_edited.pdf

"The presence of the bottom cavity beneath the level of the hive inlet greatly reduces the volume of air which directly penetrates the hive body. Instead, air exchange occurs slowly as stale hive air is drawn off by a venturi effect and fresh air is slowly drawn up to replace it. Conceivably, this could offer an advantage to honeybees who are constantly under pressure to maintain the temperature of their brood. Having a bottom cavity minimizes direct exposure of the brood to influent air, effectively buffering the internal hive environment from the external world. An implicit advantage afforded by a slow exchange between the hive and ambient environments is the increased control honeybees may exert over that exchange."


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Just a hint...
> 
> *Flow currents and ventilation in Langstroth beehives due to brood thermoregulation efforts of honeybees.*
> Journal of Theoretical Biology 295 (2012) 168–193
> ...


Interesting article Bernhard, I hate to rain on the parade But....
The list of 12 assumptions, and the fact that most of the data was from "Mathematical modeling" has me kind of wondering what the real world would look like. With Bees when I make assumptions, I can easily go down the wrong trail. I have 2 hives with screened bottom boards on 2x6 on edge, with a 5 inch drawer under, next to 2 hives with the standard wood bottom boards, hived the same day in the same Apiary. All 4 had 4 supers of honey.
the last assumption, the effect of humidity on air flow is not considered, Is a big one when you model with Fluid equations. Once main flow starts for me I place a 3/8 stick on both long sides , under the top cover to greatly increase air flow. By then I am 4 or so boxes High, these tests were all on 1 deep with/or with out 1 super, so the heat rising in the collume effect also changes with each super you add. Taller stack has different heat flow than a short stack.
Sure with a short stack and a rounded bottom you would measure or infer more venturi effect, but most of us are cooling in taller stacks with collume effect as well. 
Also not mentioned is if you start with a higher air volume in the hive it would take more time to heat it up, So the effect is the air volume changing, would impact heat transfer as well the increased surface area of the bottom tray.
Interesting experiment, I would rather have seen more measuring, entire year, and less assumptions. By The Way it is mathematical modeling that has the world ending in 12 years due to over heating......

3.1.2 Assumptions of the Mathematical Model
The flow within the enclosed hive structure can be driven by several mechanisms
including: buoyancy driven flow and natural convection, forced convection by fanning
bees, and draft-ventilation from external wind. As in our previous investigation, we
refined the scope of our simulations using the following assumptions:
1. Air temperature outside the hive is constant
2. All honeybees in the beehive are contained within the bee cover volumes
3. Bee thermal response mechanisms are engaged in heating only – cooling mechanisms are not considered
4. Conjugate problem is not solved - heat transfer between comb cells is neglected
5. Mass transfer has an effect on natural convection flow - density of air is a
function of temperature and species concentration
6. Bee cover modeled as a porous medium
7. Metabolic heat generation rate modeled as a function of local bee activity and
temperature
8. Metabolic heat generation rate is not a function of time
9. Comb surface temperature is not a function of time
10. Flow is steady and laminar
11. No thermal equilibrium between bee phase and air phase in porous medium
12. Effect of humidity on air flow is not considered
Detailed descriptions of each assumption and their implications for our study are
presented in Section 3.2 of our previous report [54].


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Just a hint...
> 
> *Flow currents and ventilation in Langstroth beehives due to brood thermoregulation efforts of honeybees.*
> Journal of Theoretical Biology 295 (2012) 168–193
> ...


Interesting article Bernhard, I hate to rain on the parade But....
The list of 12 assumptions, and the fact that most of the data was from "Mathematical modeling" has me kind of wondering what the real world would look like. With Bees when I make assumptions, I can easily go down the wrong trail. I have 2 hives with screened bottom boards on 2x6 on edge, with a 5 inch drawer under, next to 2 hives with the standard wood bottom boards, hived the same day in the same Apiary. All 4 had 4 supers of honey.
the last assumption, the effect of humidity on air flow is not considered, Is a big one when you model with Fluid equations. Once main flow starts for me I place a 3/8 stick on both long sides , under the top cover to greatly increase air flow. By then I am 4 or so boxes High, these tests were all on 1 deep with/or with out 1 super, so the heat rising in the collume effect also changes with each super you add. Taller stack has different heat flow than a short stack.
Sure with a short stack and a rounded bottom you would measure or infer more venturi effect, but most of us are cooling in taller stacks with collume effect as well. 
Also not mentioned is if you start with a higher air volume in the hive it would take more time to heat it up, So the effect is the air volume changing, would impact heat transfer as well the increased surface area of the bottom tray.
Interesting experiment, I would rather have seen more measuring, entire year, and less assumptions. By The Way it is mathematical modeling that has the world ending in 12 years due to over heating......

3.1.2 Assumptions of the Mathematical Model
The flow within the enclosed hive structure can be driven by several mechanisms
including: buoyancy driven flow and natural convection, forced convection by fanning
bees, and draft-ventilation from external wind. As in our previous investigation, we
refined the scope of our simulations using the following assumptions:
1. Air temperature outside the hive is constant
2. All honeybees in the beehive are contained within the bee cover volumes
3. Bee thermal response mechanisms are engaged in heating only – cooling mechanisms are not considered
4. Conjugate problem is not solved - heat transfer between comb cells is neglected
5. Mass transfer has an effect on natural convection flow - density of air is a
function of temperature and species concentration
6. Bee cover modeled as a porous medium
7. Metabolic heat generation rate modeled as a function of local bee activity and
temperature
8. Metabolic heat generation rate is not a function of time
9. Comb surface temperature is not a function of time
10. Flow is steady and laminar
11. No thermal equilibrium between bee phase and air phase in porous medium
12. Effect of humidity on air flow is not considered
Detailed descriptions of each assumption and their implications for our study are
presented in Section 3.2 of our previous report [54].


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Bottom board in a honeybee nest:


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Common variation of the "bottom board" in the honeybee tree - a deep pit full of rotten wood.
Here is a good review of multiple and credible references and descriptions of actual honey bee nests in trees (will require Google translation).


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Spreading the "truth" (tm). 

:scratch:


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

With respect to colony size as a factor, I'm curious about the effect of using a queen excluder to allow a relatively small space for brood while still allowing plenty of room for honey production.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

works for me david. i've got several hives right now with an excluder about a single deep and 7 or 8 medium supers above the excluder all full of honey on our main spring flow. will be harvesting soon.

although i'm seeing that the excluder isn't needed anymore after the upper half of the first super becomes a honey dome. in fact it appears that removing the excluder at that point might even boost production by a bit.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

drummerboy said:


> Anyone else in the TF community heading this direction?
> 
> 2019 will be our third year keeping colonies small and more spread out.
> 
> A little more work, a little more spread out, but if you're a hobbiest Beek and have the space its been worth it for us...so far.





squarepeg said:


> i am not leaning that way at this time db, although i do see some merit in implementing those ideas, especially for those just starting out and/or those in locations more challenged than mine.


that exchange took place only 5 short months ago.

fast forward to today and yes i'll be heading in the spreading them out direction for sure after seeing how fast efb can drift through a congested yard.

in terms of colony size i plan to continue swarm prevention management with the goal of large, strong, productive colonies.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

While fewer colonies spread across more landscape makes some sense, there is a point where it becomes uneconomic. Brother Adam was in favor of a hive stand that held 2 colonies. This has huge advantages when managing bees as there is another colony nearby if brood is needed or to facilitate other manipulations.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> While fewer colonies spread across more landscape makes some sense, there is a point where it becomes uneconomic. Brother Adam was in favor of a hive stand that held 2 colonies. This has huge advantages when managing bees as there is another colony nearby if brood is needed or to facilitate other manipulations.


i agree with that dar, but for now and until i see if and how my yards recover from the efb outbreak, there won't be any moving of any resources or equipment from one hive to another. 

the exception to this is that after this season's honey is harvested from what at this point appear to be hives unaffected by the efb, i plan to remove one frame of brood, one frame of stores, and a couple frame's shake of bees to make up nucs.

it make take another season or two to see if recovery is possible. once i get the hives more widely separated and decrease the # of hives per yard, and if irradiation or some other means of equipment sterilization does not become available, i'll be moving to a strict destruction by fire approach for any that i find efb in.

i've got a least one affected hive that appears to have a terramycin resistant strain of efb. it continues to dwindle and has affected larvae after 2 weeks of treatment. this colony will likely get euthanized next weekend and the frames sent off for analysis.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

squarepeg said:


> i agree with that dar, but for now and until i see if and how my yards recover from the efb outbreak, there won't be any moving of any resources or equipment from one hive to another.
> 
> the exception to this is that after this season's honey is harvested from what at this point appear to be hives unaffected by the efb, i plan to remove one frame of brood, one frame of stores, and a couple frame's shake of bees to make up nucs.
> 
> ...


SquarePeg, I was wondering if after honey extraction the wax could contain the EFB? Do you mark the frames and boxes so they go back on the same hive, or do you cut and strain. just wondering what strategy one could utilize if you suspected something. Unfortunately After extracting my frames get mixed up and placed on different hives. so if something was there it would spread somewhat by default.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

the experts at the bee lab aren't sure exactly how long efb can survive on the frames.

i haven't been too careful going about how frames got mixed up in the extractor and placed afterward but i will going forward.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

That is a discouraging scenario to consider. Your uncapping tools, and station, everything you transport and stack supers on etc. No more having the bees clean up wet frames.

I have gathered (perhaps because that is what I want to believe) is that the pollen or bee bread is the long lasting reservoir of the bacteria on the combs. Of course most honey frames have the odd pollen pockets.

If the honey super frames prove to be a source of recontamination I will pack it in.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

crofter said:


> If the honey super frames prove to be a source of recontamination I will pack it in.


yes. i've reconciled myself to the fact that i can't keep bees under a laboratory hood or in an autoclave. at some point my colonies are going to have to be able to deal with coming in contact with a little bit of m. plutonius from time to time. if the measures i am undertaking don't result in the majority of colonies surviving my strict burn policy going forward i'll pack it in.

the only wet supers i'll have this year are coming off of super strong colonies somehow apparently unaffected by efb. some of these have 7 or 8 supers full of honey on them. some of those wet supers will be given to the colonies that recovered after the terramycin treatment. (as of now there are only 3 out of 6 that look hopeful in that regard).

otherwise all wet supers will be put back on the stacks they come off of.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

crofter said:


> I have gathered (perhaps because that is what I want to believe) is that the pollen or bee bread is the long lasting reservoir of the bacteria on the combs.


my hypothesis as well frank. i can imagine how those anaerobes might survive a very long time at the bottom of a wet beebread cell.

i am removing those cells from the frames containing just a few of them before my disinfecting regimen.

there are too many to remove on many of my frames, and if i can't sterilize them by irradiation or fumigation they will get burned.

i am suggesting to bee labs that they look there for live bacteria on the sample frames i will be sending them.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> my hypothesis as well frank. i can imagine how those anaerobes might survive a very long time at the bottom of a wet beebread cell.
> 
> i am removing those cells from the frames containing just a few of them before my disinfecting regimen.
> 
> ...


It sure would be nice if we had a time frame whereafter all frames could be safely considered free of EFB contamination even without messing with them. 

I have certainly seen the 18 month figure mentioned, but that may be no more than someones oft repeated hunch.

With the recognition that there are a large number of sub types, it could still be questionable whether that info was true in all cases. There certainly are voices of experience that still feel EFB is nothing worse than the common cold.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

all true frank, all true.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

I just found the latest book by T. Seeley - published 2019 (relevant to the Darwinian Beekeeping - hence posting).
Apologies if this is a repeat (but the book is really fresh - Publisher: Princeton University Press (*May 28, 2019*)).

*The Lives of Bees: The Untold Story of the Honey Bee in the Wild*

https://www.amazon.com/Lives-Bees-U...e+in+the+Wild&qid=1560966026&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Free preview is on Google:
https://books.google.com/books?id=R...ousand Years of Beekeeping in Russia.&f=false

Added:
On the free preview on Google - do scroll all way down and look at a short preview of CHAPTER 11: DARWINIAN BEEKEEPING - this is a must-read, potentially.
I feel this particular book is worth buying, actually.
The latest pretty much includes anything worthy from the past and much more.
The author also is much more seasoned now - always a good thing.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregV said:


> The more I study about the primitive beekeeping, the more I question Seeley's conclusions.
> 
> He never once clarifies that his studies are really done in relatively new growth forest (typical of North America where the old growth is hard to come by).
> Hence some of the conclusions made in the "The nest of the honeybee".


Hi Greg V, Caught a swarm yesterday, one of my own. The interesting part. "bees prefer X Size hive/nest" I have a NUC 5 deep over 5 medium, that do to my own mis management, swarmed. So if a common Lang deep is about 40 liters then a common medium is 2/3 of that so lets say 26 liters for easy math. the source hive was 20+13 for 33 liters. it swarmed, I seen the bees emerge and land way up in a pine tree. I had a "decoy" out (5 deep with 5 medium and 5 medium) 3 box NUC of used comb and a squirt of Swarm commander. so that is 20 +13 +13 for 46 liter. this is what I set up based on the Tom Sealey articles. So once I seen the swarm up in the tree, I said, Self lets set out another decoy for 2 times the chance to catch it. so all I had was a deep and a medium 10 frame, I had 5 deep frames and 6 medium frames of dark used comb, the rest I tossed in new foundation less frames, size 40 + 26 or 66 liters. Now as the swarm emerged from a 33 liter hive and had the choice of a 46 and a 66 liter hive, either would hold it, this was a somewhat interesting "test" I fully expect the swarm to "fly away" I had good scout activity at each decoy 5-20 bees at a time. both decoy were appx 4 feet off the ground, one on a barrel and one on a kids swing set. Both facing south, the NUC had full (8 inch) opening, and the 10 frame had the full (16 inch) opening. slowly the 66 liter had more and more activity, up to 50 bees at times. The 66 liter decoy had the swarm land and take ownership appx 6pm in the evening. Swarm emerged 10am or so. so for me this was a clear indication that bees preference is hard to judge, and if a swarm from a NUC preferred the 66 liter then a swarm from a full size hive would likely not prefer the NUC, so IMO the NUC is a secondary/ multi cast swarm catcher. Prime Swarms will want a prime space. the 40 liter hive IMO will swarm more than one time a year.
GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> Hi Greg V, ......
> GG


Thanks for sharing, GG.
I need to chew on your observations a bit later.

Hopefully, this weekend I do my round and see if anything landed in the out yards.

Meanwhile, I have backyard trapping observations to note as well. 
While I did not land anything lately in the backyard (was a near miss for the swarm #2), I still have interesting observations as I get to watch the back porch daily and even hourly.
Will post details/pics into the swarming area..


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> I just found the latest book by T. Seeley - published 2019 (relevant to the Darwinian Beekeeping - hence posting).
> *The Lives of Bees: The Untold Story of the Honey Bee in the Wild*


GregV:

Thank you for your post- glad to see the book is out now. Dr. Seeley spoke with Mr. Kim Flottum in February on the _Beekeeping Today_ podcast on this subject, and it was well-worth the hour invested: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...-in-the-wild-019/id1402749634?i=1000429186500


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Gray Goose said:


> The 66 liter decoy had the swarm land and take ownership appx 6pm in the evening. Swarm emerged 10am or so. so for me this was a clear indication that bees preference is hard to judge, and if a swarm from a NUC preferred the 66 liter then a swarm from a full size hive would likely not prefer the NUC, so IMO the NUC is a secondary/ multi cast swarm catcher. Prime Swarms will want a prime space. the 40 liter hive IMO will swarm more than one time a year.
> GG


Gray Goose:

This is a helpful observation. While my cumulative hived swarm count is no-doubt less than yours, I did observe that hived swarms in my locale showed a strong preference for larger volumes this year, regardless of the overall size of the swarm. While I look forward to further vetting this hypothesis, I am beginning to think that GregV is on to something when he suggests that the 'ideal' swarm trap size is in the 60 - 70 liter range as opposed to the 40 liter range.

That said, it seems logical that the ideal hive volume likely differs based on one's local climate and foraging availability relative to the optimal peak colony size and winter stores to maximize the prospect of overwintering successfully.


----------



## Kathleen Bourn (Oct 31, 2014)

Another update on my Darwinian adventure.

Last year when I started my move toward Darwinian Beekeeping, I had 13 colonies. Most were in 8 frame medium Langs, 2 in Warres and 4 in top bars. I said I was going to stop buying treated bees even if I end up with only one hive. Well, after euthanizing high mite count hives and the rest not making it through the winter, I ended up with only one hive. So, I'm working with it.
Right now I'm back up to 14 hives. I split my survivor, caught a great swarm that came out of a house, did more splits, caught good colonies in bait hives and got colonies from a friend who does bee removals and did more splits. No, I can't guarentee that these bees are treatment free but the chances are good considering they've been in buildings for more than one season. I also haven't taken any honey from them this year. 

I've made a couple compromises to Seeley's layout of evolutionary beekeeping. The biggest one is the placement of the hives. I decided to put all the Langs in a circle in my pasture. Jennifer Berry mentioned to me that the University of Georgia Bee Lab did an experiment and found out that the drifting problem was reduced if the hives were in a circle with the entrances facing out. My circle is about 75' in diameter (with 11 hives) and the hives are about 20' apart. I like working them in this layout so I hope it works.
My top bars and Warres are semi-permenant so they stayed lined up against a tree line and 20'-30' apart. 

The other compromise I've made is a top entrance. I have screened inner covers that have an inch and a half opening that can be reduced or closed off. I also give them an inch and a half entrance at the bottom board. The hives are in full Georgia sun so I like that they have the ventilation. Each colony seems to have a different entrance preference.

I'm done splitting for the summer and getting ready to do mite counts. The Langs will get no more than 3 mediums and the top bars have no more than 32 (medium sized) bars. I still have bait hives up if anyone is interested in moving in. We'll see what the fall brings. 

Please let me know if anyone else is going the Darwinian route and what your experiences are. Thanks


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> Another update on my Darwinian adventure.
> .............
> Please let me know if anyone else is going the Darwinian route and what your experiences are. Thanks


I am and I said so few times.
Since you took the time to describe your location setup, I will describe mine a little.

Currently I have 7 locations, roughly placed along a driving route (some places I drive up to the very hives; the other places this is 300-400 feet walk, carrying the stuff - not much fun, but the sites are worth keeping strategically; I got stuck and yanked by a tractor another day - not too fun).
6 sites are currently active; 1 site is only a trap (I need a swarm captured to get this site going).
I intend to keep each yard population to a maximum of 3-4 units (if more, I will move extra units elsewhere).
If I have all my sites full, that will amount to about 20 units - my max # as anything above is not reasonable for me to manage.

Each one of the sites is simultaneously a trapping location too. 
That makes it seven (7) swarm trapping locations.

Imagine a rectangle, 5 miles by 2 miles, the long side oriented North to South - that would be my beekeeping route.
Yes - it is a hassle to get to all the hives at once (have to be strategic with your time and effort).
Yes - it helps to stay out of the bees (some units I don't open 3-4 weeks in a row) - oh well and maybe for the better (set it and forget it).
But even my backyard resource unit I only open a couple times a month.
Granted I am not around daily and weekly even, I have to be proactive and efficient with my visits (and am doing pretty well on that).

I have the "Northern" cluster (4 sites) and the "Sourthern" cluster (3 sites).
The yards within each cluster are close enough to be within a mating range.
But the "northerners" and "southerners" are rather sufficiently separated to consider them not-mating.
Of course, there are other bees are around outside of my control (but no large commercials exist).
Currently my southerners are the dump-grounds/testing-grounds for the captured swarms with the focus on honey crop (for this year).
The northerners are largely a project on pseudo-feral population creation and my TF lines' propagation and cross-mating.
The northerners also overlap with a TF beek that we try to collaborate and maintain a common TF drone flying sector.

Why all of these?
Because this is how initially my bee-yards turned out (original owners who let me in just happened to be that way).
Then later the ideas described above came to mind.
With the ideas in the head, I seeked out and got me more strategic locations so to fit the existing program.

Will see how the season goes!
I feel I again will have more bees that I can manage (and less honey that I may want).


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> I ended up with only one hive. So, I'm working with it.
> Right now I'm back up to 14 hives.


Kathleen:

Great update. I really enjoyed reading about your efforts to build your apiary back up. I applaud you for your persistence. I sincerely hope it pays off for you.



Kathleen Bourn said:


> The other compromise I've made is a top entrance. I have screened inner covers that have an inch and a half opening that can be reduced or closed off. I also give them an inch and a half entrance at the bottom board. The hives are in full Georgia sun so I like that they have the ventilation. Each colony seems to have a different entrance preference.


While anecdotal, I like you have a mix of Langstroth and Warre hives and I have observed that many of the colonies give strong preference to an upper entrance. Based on a small sample size last year, I hope to supply all the Langstroth hives with upper entrances prior to final winter preparations as it seemed to confer an overwintering and spring build-up advantage to those hives that had it last year (at least here in the mid-south). 



Kathleen Bourn said:


> The Langs will get no more than 3 mediums and the top bars have no more than 32 (medium sized) bars. I still have bait hives up if anyone is interested in moving in. We'll see what the fall brings.


Personally, I am thinking about maintaining the Warre colonies as 'genetic resources' and leaving them 4-tall year-round (approximately equivalent to 2 Langstroth deeps or 32 frames as you allude to with your top bars). On the Langstroth production hives, I am still thinking through the implications of varying cavity volumes. Assuming you are interested in harvesting surplus honey, have you put much thought into the scope and timing of honey harvest in a Darwinian model? I am genuinely curious to know other's thoughts on this.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> .....Assuming you are interested in harvesting surplus honey, *have you put much thought into the scope and timing of honey harvest in a Darwinian model?* I am genuinely curious to know other's thoughts on this.


Trying to develop a solution along this line too.
I want to limit my honey hives to 4-5 Land medium 10-frame boxes in size (or compatible volume) - this is somewhere you need to call it a compromise between building the strong enough hives for harvest but also expanding apiary/replacing the losses at once.

My typical Darwinian site should look like this:
- a honey hive 
- 1 or 2 replacement/recovery/mating nucs
- a swarm trap nearby (out of picture)


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> My typical Darwinian site should look like this:
> - a honey hive
> - 1 or 2 replacement/recovery/mating nucs
> - a swarm trap nearby (out of picture)
> View attachment 49661


GregV:

This makes good sense to me- seems to strike a good compromise between isolating colonies from a disease perspective and affording you enough resources (both bees and equipment) to handle on-the-spot contingencies (i.e. failed supercedure, catching an errant swarm, etc.).


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregV said:


> Trying to develop a solution along this line too.
> I want to limit my honey hives to 4-5 Land medium 10-frame boxes in size (or compatible volume) - this is somewhere you need to call it a compromise between building the strong enough hives for harvest but also expanding apiary/replacing the losses at once.
> 
> My typical Darwinian site should look like this:
> ...


I am a bit Skeptical on the Darwinian size, models. What country, What State?, What kind?(Italian Russian, Mutts) Seems with generalizations you have a Beekeeping 1 size fits all. In General, I give them room when they need it, I have some on 2 deeps and a Medium for brood with excluder and 4 supers on top (medium),, a few at 1 deep and 1 medium with 1 super. Mine will NOT be size limited, that for me, would toss a swarm. I have started spacing hives 50 to 100 feet apart as I start new ones. In My Humble Opinion to get bees to "stay in" small hives you would swarm away the good queens until you got "substandard" queens only able to fill your small hive with brood, then you would claim "Success" . The bees tell me when they need room, some are big and some are small, I propagate from the biggest survivors. And add in some swarms.
GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> I am a bit Skeptical on the Darwinian size, models. What country, What State?, What kind?(Italian Russian, Mutts) Seems with generalizations you have a Beekeeping 1 size fits all. In General, I give them room when they need it, I have some on 2 deeps and a Medium for brood with excluder and 4 supers on top (medium),, a few at 1 deep and 1 medium with 1 super. Mine will NOT be size limited, that for me, would toss a swarm. I have started spacing hives 50 to 100 feet apart as I start new ones. In My Humble Opinion to get bees to "stay in" small hives you would swarm away the good queens until you got "substandard" queens only able to fill your small hive with brood, then you would claim "Success" . The bees tell me when they need room, some are big and some are small, I propagate from the biggest survivors. And add in some swarms.
> GG


Well, GG, this Darwinian model is not an absolute template but rather a general set of idea.
So I do some of the ideas best I can.
Small, well spaced-out yards is one idea that I am taking seriously enough to spend the time/effort, as I have shown.

However - I would immediately say 1 Lang deep and 1 Lang medium in total are more hassle than worth it.
The ideas of equipment Seeley keeps using are.... not great (if even satisfactory at all).
For me to have the "set it and forget it" way working - 1 deep + 1 medium - are a non-starter not worth the hassle.
Clearly, I do my own adjustments (large horizontal hives being the choice equipment - but these require building time that I do not have).
So - when I lack my favorite equipment - I improvise/compromise with what is laying around (Lang boxes).

What I put up on the sample yard picture is what I have at the moment at a couple of locations and hope will work out.
Basically, a honey unit (a reasonably big and strong unit) and a couple of resource/mating/contingency units.
The support units could be of any size - as we speak I have 1-frame nuc just created last night and 6-frame nucs (and anything in between as things develop).
In short, "3-unit + a trap" yard is a way to go that I am trying out.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> GregV:
> 
> This makes good sense to me- seems to strike a good compromise between isolating colonies from a disease perspective and affording you enough resources (both bees and equipment) to handle on-the-spot contingencies (i.e. failed supercedure, catching an errant swarm, etc.).


Have to have on-the-spot contingencies.
Last night that saga with the "swarm-to-be" continued.
I concluded - the "swarm" somehow went queen - less (they attempted last-ditch type emergency QCs).
Well - immediately on-the-spot - I combined in a nuc with freshly hatched virgin queen.
Them immediately on-the-spot I broke up another nuc with STILL unhatched QCs into two even smaller nucs (just to have contingency mating progressing).
So yes - each small site must have a contingency built-in.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregV said:


> Have to have on-the-spot contingencies.
> Last night that saga with the "swarm-to-be" continued.
> I concluded - the "swarm" somehow went queen - less (they attempted last-ditch type emergency QCs).
> Well - immediately on-the-spot - I combined in a nuc with freshly hatched virgin queen.
> ...


agree, running site to site to fix an issue would waste time. My smaller size sites are also due to the bears around here, 3 times I have been hit and was totally affected, every hive torn apart. so having all your eggs in one basket is not good either.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Gray Goose said:


> In My Humble Opinion to get bees to "stay in" small hives you would swarm away the good queens until you got "substandard" queens only able to fill your small hive with brood, then you would claim "Success" . The bees tell me when they need room, some are big and some are small, I propagate from the biggest survivors. And add in some swarms.
> GG


GG:

For what it is worth, I am philosophically-aligned with you at present in adopting the hive spacing aspects of this approach but not necessarily the volume limitations in whole-cloth. 

That said, I had never considered cavity-filling capacity to be a selectable trait... makes me wonder if I should reconsider my 'set-it-and-forget-it' approach to the Warre resource hives in the apiary. 

If I understand your premise, you conclude that a persistent small cavity size will inevitably lead to genetics that can generally only fill a given volume?


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> Have to have on-the-spot contingencies.
> Last night that saga with the "swarm-to-be" continued...


Sounds like you have your hands full with this one- I too had a contingency arise last night that reminded me why it is good to have other colonies with consistent hive set-ups close-at-hand. Hopefully this one will turn out o.k. for you.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> ...... the *bears *around here, 3 times I have been hit and was totally affected.......


Bear - a big, strong, very quick and effective "mega-mite".
Now this requires some redundancy for sure.
Forget sugar rolls, oxalic acid regiment and other toys.
Serious business takes some serious measures.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I got a swarm call for bees moving into an outside speaker....... those bees definitely didn't calculate their space requirements other than they all fit inside. The speaker is 14" tall and about 4" in depth and width.... Not all the inside space was usable either.... They've surprisingly built up very fast and we're trying to get the queen to move out onto proper frames but she really likes it inside the speaker apparently but the workers are occupying 3-4 deep frames now and using it for stores....


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

JRG13 said:


> I got a swarm call for bees moving into an outside speaker....... those bees definitely didn't calculate their space requirements other than they all fit inside. The speaker is 14" tall and about 4" in depth and width.... Not all the inside space was usable either.... They've surprisingly built up very fast and we're trying to get the queen to move out onto proper frames but she really likes it inside the speaker apparently but the workers are occupying 3-4 deep frames now and using it for stores....


That's a neat story, JRG13. I appreciate you sharing it.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

GregV said:


> I just found the latest book by T. Seeley - published 2019 (relevant to the Darwinian Beekeeping - hence posting).
> Apologies if this is a repeat (but the book is really fresh - Publisher: Princeton University Press (*May 28, 2019*)).
> 
> *The Lives of Bees: The Untold Story of the Honey Bee in the Wild*
> .....


Got me a paper copy for $20.
Upon a very brief scan found many familiar pictures and diagrams.
But regardless, I think I ought to pay my dues to Tom Seeley - he rediscovered what used to be field naturalists and observational scientists (most everyone into the labs, stats and math modeling now days). Just the reference pages are worth reviewing for Tom's sources.
Should be a good bedtime story book.


----------



## Kathleen Bourn (Oct 31, 2014)

OK, here is the continued "evolution" of my Darwinian experiment. 

With bait hives, caught swarms from houses, cut-outs, and splits, I'm up to 16 hives. 1 Warre, 4 Top Bars (medium lang frame size) and 11 - 8 frame medium Langs. 

The Langs are in a circle (with the entrances facing out) that's about 50' in diameter. The top bars and warre are in a row but 30' apart. 
I haven't taken any honey from them this year and I probably won't unless there is a tremendous fall flow. I'm not in a great honey producing area (a lot of pine trees and pasture) but it's my own property and I really don't want out yards. 

I am working a 10 frame hive for some friends that have never been treated. They are in a good honey area and the girls crank it out. I just split them but haven't had a chance to do a mite check yet.

All the hives are the size of 32 medium frames/bars and I plan to keep them that way. Some have room to spare and some are full. My understanding is that a big part of Seeley's approach is to keep the size limited and let them swarm. I know that kills most beekeepers but I think the idea is that it's better for them (not us). That's why my plan includes a ton of bait hives. 

I just did mite checks (alcohol wash) and everyone is under 3/100. That's the threshold I'm going with. If they climb higher they'll get a soapy water bath. 

Once again, I'm going to work with whatever I have coming out of winter.
I'll let you know how it goes.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> OK, here is the continued "evolution" of my Darwinian experiment.
> 
> With bait hives, caught swarms from houses, cut-outs, and splits, I'm up to 16 hives. 1 Warre, 4 Top Bars (medium lang frame size) and 11 - 8 frame medium Langs.
> 
> ...


How and what do you do for the soapy water bath, Make a mix and dunk them in? how long in the bath until you remove the frames?
GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> .........
> All the hives are the size of* 32 medium frames/bars* and I plan to keep them that way....


I feel this is way too small to be practical and you basically end up with no produce for yourself while creating too much work for yourself (continuous swarm management and normal workflow interruptions due to non-stop splitting or swarming). 

I seriously think T. Seeley does not understand how the bee hives work so to strike a practical compromise, usable by the practicing beeks (I guess he just does not care - he is a naturalist by trade).
And so if you rigidly follow his advice you are, basically, neither here nor there and only going to frustrate yourself.
Eventually you will dump this approach as unpractical OR start modifying it to actually make it useful.

Mel D.'s formula is actually much more practical (all the while still running lots and lots of smaller hives - the start ups - quite a Darwinian approach too).

I use modified T. Seeley's idea as in running a mix of *big *hives and *small* hives at once (which is nothing new - you always want to produce AND expand/replace at once).

* biggish honey production hives I got are compatible to 5 medium boxes (upwards 150 liters = 30L x 5) - IF these die off in late season, I just get more resources to myself then
* medium-to-big resource hives I got are compatible to 3-4 medium boxes (upwards 120 liters = 30L x 4) - these I use to generate splits from and steal resources as needed (best TF lines)
* small hives - current season startups - compatible to 2-3 medium boxes when ready for winter.

Issue with "Seeley's approach" - it is very unpractical to run a bunch of little hives (too busy - too little pay back).
Have to have several larger hives also (just medium to large in size are sufficient - not the giants people are bragging about).


----------



## Kathleen Bourn (Oct 31, 2014)

Gray Goose, a big part of the Darwinian concept is to be willing to euthanize any colony with high mite counts. 
Last year I had to do that to a couple of colonies by using a big restaurant bussing tub filled with soapy water. I just shake the bees in the water and the soap soon suffocates them. I feel that these hives were dead already . . .they just didn't know it. 

Greg V, I don't need to get a lot of honey from my bees which is one of the reasons I wanted to try this method. If you keep the hives small and don't worry about how much honey you take, you don't have to worry about swarm management. Once again, the idea is that it's healthy for the bees to swarm.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> Gray Goose, a big part of the Darwinian concept is to be willing to euthanize any colony with high mite counts.
> Last year I had to do that to a couple of colonies by using a big restaurant bussing tub filled with soapy water. I just shake the bees in the water and the soap soon suffocates them. I feel that these hives were dead already . . .they just didn't know it.
> 
> Greg V, I don't need to get a lot of honey from my bees which is one of the reasons I wanted to try this method. If you keep the hives small and don't worry about how much honey you take, you don't have to worry about swarm management. Once again, *the idea is that it's healthy for the bees to swarm*.


We understand the idea of swarming (i.e. natural bee colony propagation and the mother colony "cleansing" as a side-affect).
I myself just do it on my own terms via planned (or emergency) splitting.

Speaking of euthanizing the bees, I got this idea - don't kill them.
Use them as a resource to the max via forcing them through the shook swarm.

1)Shake them ALL into a completely empty hive.
2)Give them empty frames and nothing else.
3)Take all the frames and use as you wish 
- store/extract honey and pollen 
- freeze the brood (or use it some other way - I would use it differently), but still kill the brood as it is the mite propagation factory (this is what you mean to do when euthanizing the worker population anyway)
4)Bees/queen in the completely empty hive will rebuild the best they can and will generate some comb/honey again and maybe will rebuild completely (depending on the timing)
they will go via the shock and forced brood break; 
they may or may not die in the end (BUT - only after you got them to produce more resources to your benefit)

I would not kill them.
I would use the potentially doomed workforce IF it is strong enough to produce.
Another reason for this is - you decided to kill them upon artificially determined number (3/100) - well, on this exact TF forum it has been shown how certain bees are doing fine with higher mite counts (this is how they operate).
So - I am not qualified to kill any bees myself based on some theory (be it even from T. Seeley) - it is up to the bees to die (my job is to prevent robbing if possible).


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> Gray Goose, a big part of the Darwinian concept is to be willing to euthanize any colony with high mite counts.
> Last year I had to do that to a couple of colonies by using a big restaurant bussing tub filled with soapy water. I just shake the bees in the water and the soap soon suffocates them. I feel that these hives were dead already . . .they just didn't know it.
> 
> Greg V, I don't need to get a lot of honey from my bees which is one of the reasons I wanted to try this method. If you keep the hives small and don't worry about how much honey you take, you don't have to worry about swarm management. Once again, the idea is that it's healthy for the bees to swarm.


Kathleen, I will support you to keep as you wish. I only ask the same back. For me if there was no honey to take then I would not do it. I need a crop to compensate for the time. Same as most folks would not have chickens if they did not get any eggs. For me in Northern Mich. 3- 8 frame mediums is on the edge of too small to make the winter. so losses may just be due to cavity size, As well IMO if "YOU" have picked the cavity size the Darwin thing is out of the picture, you are breeding for queen that can only make use of 32 Medium frames, in "time" you will be successful, you will just need to Swarm off all the Queens that need more space, until you get a few happy with that space. I also understand there is a difference in "allow" to swarm and "force" to swarm At some size, be it a mailbox, you are more or less forcing them to swarm. At some other size like a Semi trailer you are allowing them to swarm. So you are in between, IMO force is not Darwin either. Hopefully you started with local stock, else you may have brought in some non Sustainable bees and are spitting out swarms like mad and affecting the local stock. At any rate carry on, Interesting to hear of your experiences. Another item i do not see much comment on is the "Habitat" So with a Horse, we would not expect them to survive in a Desert as they do not eat sand. I would not expect them to survive in Alaska as they do not eat snow. I would not expect them in South Dakota in the badlands as they do not eat rocks.. So presumable you are on the same page here. I mentally partition the USA into 3 mile squares, and it would be like a checker board. In each square the bees need water, pollen, and nectar and of course a cavity , and water. You State " I'm not in a great honey producing area (a lot of pine trees and pasture) but it's my own property and I really don't want out yards." So one could conceivably argue that in a poor site maybe 1 bee tree or none would exist. By Having several and Understanding that you may need to feed or water or wrap from the cold you also are not very Darwin, So I am somewhat mystified why in a poor site you would place bees that you worked to cut out and then kill them when some "human" set threshold is reached. Again, I support you to do it, I just do not understand why. Ideally you will end up with low egg count laying queen able to thrive in Pine and pasture, with little or no honey crop, as that is the "Habitat" you are working in. what is then your next step? I look for the best site possible, Some of mine are several hour drive. If sites are on a 1-10 scale I want a 10 or 11 to put my bees there.. For my time on earth I want the best outcome. I give them all the room they want, I get some that produce 300 pounds of honey, I do it to sell to people to defray the cost and I give away a lot of gifts. I am trying to get a 40 deep frame Colony produce lots of surplus as I am a Capitalist. Interesting to see the variance in keepers. we are somewhat on the opposite ends of the keeper spectrum. All the best to you.
GG


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Kathleen Bourn said:


> Once again, the idea is that it's healthy for the bees to swarm.


Kathleen: Thank you for your update. It is encouraging to hear that your apiary is doing so well. Congratulations. I echo Gray Goose's sentiment that I make no judgment as to how you choose to manage your bees. I too have been considering cavity size as it relates to long-term success. One aspect of this that was insightful to me was to watch the two-part "Honey Bees in the Wild" presentation given by Patterson and Seeley that GregV recently posted. What I took from this is that Seeley in particular believes that swarming is a necessary component to successful TF operations. What seems less established is what role does cavity size itself play in this equation, assuming swarming is the reason for the small cavity? I think Gray Goose makes an astute observation when he concludes that there is a fairly clear-cut means by way of volume limitation to force swarming, but is there a clear-cut means by way of volume alone to prevent swarming?

Meaning, keeping colonies in small cavities will certainly incite swarming, but keeping colonies in big cavities (in-and-of-itself) will not prevent swarming.

So, I wonder if part of the discussion might include striking a balance whereby colonies are allowed to swarm naturally, but are maintained in sufficient volumes which allow for adequate natural winter stores and a modest surplus for the beekeeper, with the swarming 'penalty' built-in?

I am still thinking through the implications of all this, but just wanted to toss out the observation that I think the whole big volume = bad / small volume = good paradigm is a bit oversimplified, at least as it relates to swarm issuance (or lack thereof).

I appreciate your updates, and I do hope you will continue to keep us posted.

Russ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> ..... I think the whole *big volume = bad / small volume = good paradigm is a bit oversimplified,*.......
> 
> Russ


+1

Somehow the simple assumption is made as if the only way:
* small volume --> swarming --> pest population control

This is true in 100% natural, human-absent setting.
Also true in most primitive ways of beekeeping (log hives/bee trees/skeps).

But we have more options and yet can achieve similar results:
* desired volume --> artificial swarming --> pest population control

PS: I already made comments earlier about assumption as-if the long distance between the hives is only way to prevent horizontal transmission.

Basically,Tom S. states that:
* vertical pest transmission is OK and done via swarming only (agree, but NOT about swarming being the only option; strategic artificial swarming works too)
* horizontal pest transmission is NOT OK and the hives must be separated by a distance to mitigate it (agree, but NOT about the distance being the only option; distinct hive placement works too)


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Kathleen: 

I do apologize for appearing a critic. 
I am more into criticizing the so called "qualified content providers" because they supposedly know something and teach others.
Well... 
There is much to be said of that - that's what I am doing.

Yes - do share.
We are here to learn from each other so we all (the TF crowd) succeed in the end (maybe even convince the others).

I share all the time; too much even.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Fascinating discussion with equally fascinating insights and opines...Applause to all participants!!

I've not been too active around here despite my deep interest in Seeley's methods, particularly Darwinian beekeeping as a means to keep bees alive and hopefully thriving. 

Our summers are short and our winters are long in Northern WI, so our summer days are mostly filled with the many outside farm activities accumulated over the winter, lots of time scratching things off the never ending list B4 snow fly (but days are getting shorter).

I've noticed that some of you contributors to the discussion continue to use 'top' (and bottom) entrances as I have too, while we're experimenting with Seeley's methods and I was wondering if any of those who do still use top entrances have ever experienced a Queens return to the top entrance 'above' the queen excluder, after mating, and (at least twice in my case) resulting in a 'two queen' colony separated only by the still in place excluder, and one or 2 honey supers. This has happened to us twice until we began following Seeley's advise and started blocking the top entrance once we knew the colony had swarmed, forcing the returning queen to only use the bottom, below the excluder. 

Both times this occurred we were able to split them before any fighting or robbing took place, lucky heh? In both cases we were pulling honey supers, not even looking for brood, but there it was just the same

Anyhow I was just wondering whether anyone else still using both top and bottom entrances and is experimenting with these ideas has had similar experience and how they dealt with it.

Thanks again for continuing this discussion. I'll try to add more as winter closes in. I personally believe keeping bees using these methods will only benefit bees, along with our understanding of them in the long run.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

drummerboy said:


> I've noticed that some of you contributors to the discussion continue to use 'top' (and bottom) entrances as I have too, while we're experimenting with Seeley's methods and I was wondering if any of those who do still use top entrances have ever experienced a Queens return to the top entrance 'above' the queen excluder, after mating, and (at least twice in my case) resulting in a 'two queen' colony separated only by the still in place excluder, and one or 2 honey supers. This has happened to us twice until we began following Seeley's advise and started blocking the top entrance once we knew the colony had swarmed, forcing the returning queen to only use the bottom, below the excluder.


Drummerboy:

Glad to read your post- and while our summers down here in Kentucky are no doubt longer than yours, we still deal with the problem of more work than hours in the day (or days in the season) so I understand your need to make that proverbial hay while the sun is shining.

While my beekeeping experience is limited (so please discount my observations accordingly), I observed a very similar situation in an overwintered colony with both top and bottom entrances a few weeks ago. Specifically, it is a stack of 8 eight-frame medium boxes and there was brood in the bottom three boxes, two boxes of solid nectar and then the three top boxes had brood in them as well. I decided to leave it alone to see what happens. I should also point out that this stack does not have a queen excluder.

Currently, they are hauling in nectar and pollen frenetically like the early days of spring (we have an oddly-timed flow going on here locally) to an extent that I would not be at all surprised if they swarm in the next few weeks.

The funny thing is that they started using the upper entrance in the Winter and have never really gone back to using the bottom entrance. I see guard bees and fanners at the lower entrance, but very little in terms of returning foragers.

Given that you have now had this occur multiple times, do you conclude that having two entrances is the primary contributor to this issue manifesting itself?


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

drummerboy said:


> Fascinating discussion with equally fascinating insights and opines...Applause to all participants!!
> 
> I've not been too active around here despite my deep interest in Seeley's methods, particularly Darwinian beekeeping as a means to keep bees alive and hopefully thriving.
> 
> ...


yes i have had queens in the top, i assumed the hive superseded, and a queen returned in the top. There was brood also in the bottom. I removed the excluder, placed all the partial filled frames back and trapped out the full honey frame after a shake of 75% of the bees, i was looking for queen and or brood. Not sure if both queens survived, it was a strong hive as you can understand. I now lean toward unlimited brood nest (no excluder) and the first 2 supers are brood sized cells. once the top box is full add the drone cell sized supers, or smile and call it a "breeder" hive


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

drummerboy said:


> ......
> Anyhow I was just wondering whether anyone else still using both top and bottom entrances and is experimenting with these ideas has had similar experience and how they dealt with it.
> .


I use all entrances (top, bottom, in between) in the hybrid hives.
No excluders. 
This problem is not familiar to me then.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Litsinger said:


> Drummerboy:
> 
> Glad to read your post- and while our summers down here in Kentucky are no doubt longer than yours, we still deal with the problem of more work than hours in the day (or days in the season) so I understand your need to make that proverbial hay while the sun is shining.
> 
> ...


Since this has only occurred twice I cannot make any absolute conclusions but I am leaning toward the '2 entrances' as a possible cause (I' ain't complaining, just wondering) I believe that even without the excluder in place the same may have occurred based on the filled honey supers keeping the 2 queens apart, much like you described.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Gray Goose said:


> yes i have had queens in the top, i assumed the hive superseded, and a queen returned in the top. There was brood also in the bottom. I removed the excluder, placed all the partial filled frames back and trapped out the full honey frame after a shake of 75% of the bees, i was looking for queen and or brood. Not sure if both queens survived, it was a strong hive as you can understand. I now lean toward unlimited brood nest (no excluder) and the first 2 supers are brood sized cells. once the top box is full add the drone cell sized supers, or smile and call it a "breeder" hive



Yes, our experience is similar. We also used to run 'unlimited' brood nests....until we discovered Seeley's Darwinian Beekeeping, which brought about this particular issue.....not necessarily a bad thing, just something to watch for if using 2 entrances with an excluder...or perhaps its not the excluder???, its the honey. Although we never had the same experience before when running wide open, non-restrictive colonies.

Only the bees know and I'm good with that.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Hi Drummerboy, GregV stated he does not use excluders, I have only seen it with an excluder on.

Hence IMO the excluder "allows" this to "sometimes" happen. I do have 5/8 or 3/4 inch holes in a lot of my supers, for air flow , however.
GG


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

There is quite a lot of chatter about this subject on Bee-L right now- so much so I am having a hard time keeping up. At lot of the 'heavy hitters' are weighing-in on both the philosophy and practicalities of this approach, and it is interesting to follow the discussion:

https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=bee-l


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Gray Goose said:


> Hi Drummerboy, GregV stated he does not use excluders, I have only seen it with an excluder on.
> 
> Hence IMO the excluder "allows" this to "sometimes" happen. I do have 5/8 or 3/4 inch holes in a lot of my supers, for air flow , however.
> GG


Yep, same experience. I've had excluders around here for several years but never used them until I began using Seeley's methods.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

One reason I don't use excluders - with the tall frames the queen is supposed to just stay in the first tier and never go up.
Well, that my be true for the folks with strictly bottom-only entrances.

I now know this is NOT true for me.
My queens laid up into the first super above the main brood chamber - not a problem.
Bad or good - what it is.
I think availability of the upper entrances allows the queen to go everywhere she pleases to go (plenty of air - everywhere).
I have no idea how the nests are organized in my hybrids at the moments (been 1-2 months since I ever looked down inside).

My hybrids look like this at the moment (deep brood chamber of the 3 fused boxes with asymmetric entrances; 2 Lang supers stacked on the top for honey).


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregV said:


> One reason I don't use excluders - with the tall frames the queen is supposed to just stay in the first tier and never go up.
> Well, that my be true for the folks with strictly bottom-only entrances.
> 
> I now know this is NOT true for me.
> ...


Hi Greg, IMO and from what I have read, the bees place the brood, close to the Air source, (somewhat move toward the air in the spring and away in the fall, with max air needed mid summer) this would make sense with the bottom entrance model. As you add entrances ,you change the dynamics a bit. For an experiment try to use low entrance until the first super is filled, then when adding the second super open the second super air hole so there is a honey barrier. if you keep sequentially, opening a hole higher, you have the chance of the queen moving up to the new air source. Unless it really does not matter. I played with this a bit in the 80's with 2 queen hives they each "need" an air hole to pull it off the best. If I ever do the 2 queen again it would be in a side by side setup, 8 to 10 foot stacks of langs are a pain to work, late season. try playing with a full deep on a ladder.
GG


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Gray Goose said:


> Hi Greg, IMO and from what I have read, the bees place the brood, close to the Air source, (somewhat move toward the air in the spring and away in the fall, with max air needed mid summer) this would make sense with the bottom entrance model. As you add entrances ,you change the dynamics a bit.


Interesting, GG. I did not know this, so I appreciate you outlining the principle.

Russ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Right; I know about "the queens sticking close to the entrance".
Pretty much no one is doing what I am trying to do - hence different outcomes are always a possibility.
Shorter frame should allow for smaller increments (and more control over where I want the honey stores placed for wintering).
This is how I now dislike the long Lang frames (they are not fitting into the square-tall structure I would like to construct for the wintering - inside the hybrid hive).

Most of the advice given around is always attached to some context.
My own context is different that way.
So when the tall frame keeps swear the queen will only stay on the tall frames - they neglect to mention their own entrance configurations (assuming everyone is doing the same).


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

Time to reawaken the thread? How are the Darwinians doing? I don't mind swarming. It costs honey but if I am too far behind I can't complain of they go.... I do overwinter many smaller colonies, like the equivalent of 8 deep langs, there are always a few on 5 deeps. This is not for Darwinian purposes but just because I think many smaller units works better and gives more potential. Each year I have some 5s that do not require any feeding and just boom when the weather is right. For my upstate NY location we need 5/8 honey, some pollen and about 1.5-2 empty frames for cluster space. That's about 30-50# honey per colony going in to winter. They boom in the spring. The ones I keep ahead of are productive, the ones that swarm are Darwinian! 🙂
Happy beekeeping every one. Spring is here ... Ish...


----------



## Fivej (Apr 4, 2016)

I am not a Darwinian, but have been checking it out. Just watched Tom Seeley's talk on it on youtube. Awfully quiet over here in the TF forums. Where is everyone? J


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Social benefits require a community: the influence of colony size on behavioral immunity in honey bees

Abstract
Emergent properties of eusocial insect colonies (e.g., nest architecture and defense) highlight benefits of group living. Such emergent properties, however, may only function as a benefit if the group is large enough. We tested the effect of group size on colony-level fever in honey bees. When a colony is infected with Ascosphaera apis, a heat-sensitive brood pathogen, adult bees raise the temperature to kill the pathogen and keep brood disease free. In relatively large colonies, we show a rhythm to honey bee fever: colonies inoculated with A. apis generated a fever in the afternoon and at night but not in the morning. In comparison, relatively small colonies did not generate a fever following inoculation, although they invested more in thermoregulation on a “per bee” basis than control colonies. Thus, in small colonies, honey bee fever could be regarded as a cost of group living: individuals futilely exerted valuable energy towards fighting a pathogen.

Bonoan, R.E., Iglesias Feliciano, P.M., Chang, J. et al. Social benefits require a community: the influence of colony size on behavioral immunity in honey bees. Apidologie (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-020-00754-5

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-020-00754-5#Sec8


----------



## Fivej (Apr 4, 2016)

Interesting and timely post Bernhard. J


----------

