# The Mighty Mite Bomb...



## deknow

This is a topic that seems to come up more and more often, and one that I've given a great deal of thought to.

The assumption is that treatment free beekeepers are maintaining 'mite bombs' that negatively impact the 'responsible' beekeepers by robbing/drift....act as a reservoir for mites that re-infest the hives of those who have recently and responsibly treated their bees.

....when I hear people make these claims, the first thing that comes to mind is 'bee trees'. I don't know a beekeeper that doesn't have a warm spot in their heart for a bee tree...most of the time (unless there is a nuisance issue or the tree is coming down for another reason), beekeepers are happy to leave them be (and maybe setup a swarm trap or 3). ...but why is this? Why is the bee tree not just another (eliminateable) mite bomb?

...more to the point (and I'll use conservative numbers here), there are about 2.5 million migratory bee colonies in the US. Let's assume an _average_ (some will be much less, some will be much more) escaped swarm rate of 1% migratory colony/year.

That 'deposits' 25,000 unmanaged colonies into our environment per year. ...but unlike the 'bombs' being maintained by beekeepers using a TF approach, these swarms are from stock that is idealized for migratory beekeeping (mites are presumed to be kept down by treatments while early/ready brooding for almonds and/or package production are among the primary selected traits).

Certainly not all hives being maintained TF are from mite resistant stock, but there is certainly a strong bias in that direction.

So, there are 1 or 2 thousand migratory commercial beekeepers in business that are responsible for 25,000 'mite bombs' that are more suited for the role of 'mite bomb' than most TF colonies...they've even been exposed to all the emerging pathogens at the annual pox party before being shipped around the countryside casting off swarms.

If 'mite bombs' were really a concern, we would be talking about these aprox 25,000 swarms/year. 

Whereas a TF beekeeper is generally 'loosing' when their hive collapses, the 'cost' of these swarms is already (by the fact that more rigorous swarm prevention isn't common practice) been determined to be just a cost of doing (profitable) business.

I'm not out to criticize anyone or any particular approach....my criticism is with the lack of 'big picture thinking' that goes on when TF beekeepers are accused of being the problem.


----------



## thehackleguy

That is not what I thought everyone was talking about when they say "mite bomb". My understanding was a mite bomb was when a hive population was booming, therefore the mite population is booming. When the fall comes and the bee population start to decline the mites are still reproducing. That creates a situation where the mite:bee ratio is much higher than the summer. If not treated some hives will die under the pressure.

Learn something new everyday. Plus now I have someone to blame for my mites!


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

deknow said:


> ...act as a reservoir for mites that re-infest the hives of those who have recently and responsibly treated their bees.


I think this is an oxymoron


----------



## jwcarlson

It'd be a lot of pencil whipping and still then just an estimate. 

All I know is here in Iowa survey says...
Close to 60% of people don't treat and they're losing 50-70% of their colonies depending on the winter compared to roughly half that for treating keepers (all according to our state apiarist). All varroa related, surely not... but I'd bet a good amount of money that varroa is the main cause. These people aren't using proven stock, but whatever you buy with packages. Most local suppliers get their packages from California.

I also don't know how many of those die before winter. I suppose a mite laden colony that dies in February doesn't really hurt anyone except the bees and their keeper. It's the ones who have all summer to build them up and crash during fall when robbing is prevalent. Just a couple miles up the road from one of my outyards there's a guy that puts out 15 colonies every spring. These boxes have been dead every spring for the last two years. He collects them and either splits into them from other colonies or shakes packages in... I suspect packages because it'd be pretty early to be splitting here.

I've talked to the lady who owns the land. This guy has about 400 colonies and is considering giving it up because he can't keep them alive. Regardless of what's killing them... this guy obviously doesn't know what he's doing in these "modern times" of beekeeping. They probably pose some unquantifiable hazard to my bees and any other bees around. Who knows what kind of ripple affect that has on bees in the area... kept or feral.


----------



## enjambres

I think of mite bombs as a small group of hives owned by a backyard beekeeper who never treats and regularly allows them to collapse from a florid mite infestation within the first 12-18 months. These beekeepers are often pretty clueless about beekeeping in general, and consistently blame these collapses on Monsanto, GMO, neonics, CCD, winter weather, etc. And never on their own choices, or mistakes. 

(All of the really good beekeepers that I know are always pondering how they can do better, improve their skills, or interpret their bees' needs more accurately.)

I don't know what to make of them. I think they are TF not so much out of conviction but more out of both intellectual and physical laziness, and they seem to subscribe to the self-serving notion that it's best to just "let bees be bees." You can certainly be TF, or at least not use any chemical measures to kill varroa mites, and not be a mite bomb. But there's a selfish, defeatist attitude about the mite bomb apiaries. The current, sappy, "Save The Bees" propaganda has given a fair number well-meaning, but ill-suited, people the idea that they can make a difference, one hive at time. 

When beekeeping turns out to to the kind of hard, sometimes intense, work that it is, they fall prey to internet nonsense. And they latch on to a half-baked version of TF that allows them rationalize doing nothing to care for their livestock as a more pure, holistic form of beekeeping. What rubbish!

This year I lucked out, because after living a little over a mile from a mite bomb apiary, with the predictable results, the mite bombs' owners have thrown in the towel and didn't buy any more bees this spring. They have been keeping bees for eight years and never had a single colony survive the winter.

I also have about five or six (that I know of, there may be more) long-occupied feral colony sites within a two mile radius, including one I just discovered this spring that's about 1000 feet from my beeyard. Are they mite bombs? Perhaps, but I think feral colonies tend to ebb and flow, and are replaced when they are vacated, for whatever reason. (One large colony about a mile away that had been occupied, without winter loss for four consecutive summers, simply vanished in early August this year. I have no idea what happened.),

I have no migratory beekeepers in my area, so the only sources of fresh mites come with packages or nucs that replace lost colonies. I almost hesitate to share my enthusiasm for beekeeping with my neighbors for fear that they, too, will take up the hobby.

I don't think "mite bombs" include people trying conscientiously and thoughtfully to manage their bees in a TF-manner (even if they do experience severe losses.) I have little expectation that they will succeed, but I am sympathetic to their efforts. What I have no time for are people who get bees and then don't bother to give them the care they need, because actual bee-care is somehow not pure enough, besides it being hot, heavy, time-consuming, sting-y _work_.

These are the people who refused my offer to provide them with robbing screens (to keep _my_ girls out - my colonies all have robbing screens to _their_ girls out) on the grounds that robbing screens weren't "natural". Pffui!

Enj.


----------



## gnor

The treatment free beeks that are doing it properly aren't really "treatment free." They just use other tools like resistant stock, good husbandry, etc., to make sure they have healthy stock. I think they have to find another name for themselves that frames it better, because "treatment free" also includes those that throw their bees out in a field and let them live or die no matter what. We can't control what the feral bees do, but we all have a responsibility to look after our own stock.
jwcarlson: – If your guy up the road goes out of business, you should buy his extractor. Very low mileage!


----------



## clyderoad

what next? AFB Bombs.
mites are easy, how many are able to ID AFB?


----------



## jwcarlson

I'd love a crash course on the early signs, especially if there are good pictures. Most of the references seem to be pretty old and bad pictures, people have lost the focus on AFB... maybe in part because it's tough to keep bees alive long enough to worry about AFB for most? If I ever see a cell that looks suspicious I always take a stick - poke, spin, and pull just to check. Hasn't been anything yet. Got some soupy brood when mite infestation were high this spring, but nothing ropey.


----------



## deknow

A properly done inspection of brood frames will always include looking for AFB. This doesn't happen automatically, it requires that one practice inspection procedure the way that a piano student practices scales...to commit some of this procedure to 'muscle memory' so that you can use your attention performing each step rather than thinking about what the next step should be.

Looking for AFB should include looking as 'suspicious' cells (perforated capping, visible 'larval tongue'), but when one looks at a brood frame, one should (out of habit), look in the bottom back corner of cells looking for 'AFB scale'...a dark, hard to remove mass attached at that back/bottom corner. You have to hold the frame in a particular way to see that spot.



jwcarlson said:


> I'd love a crash course on the early signs, especially if there are good pictures. Most of the references seem to be pretty old and bad pictures, people have lost the focus on AFB... maybe in part because it's tough to keep bees alive long enough to worry about AFB for most? If I ever see a cell that looks suspicious I always take a stick - poke, spin, and pull just to check. Hasn't been anything yet. Got some soupy brood when mite infestation were high this spring, but nothing ropey.


----------



## kilocharlie

Interesting thread topic, DeKnow.

Randy Oliver ( www.scientificbeekeeping.com ) has been working with the issue of mites for a number of years. He is a strong proponent of IPM until we have stocks that handle mites on their own. He has recently came up with a simple alcohol wash system for monitoring mite levels. His website is a fantastic place to begin understanding the issues with _varroa destructor_, the mite about which we speak.

He readily admits that, by treating, we are essentially creating treatment-resistant MITES, and that the goal should be treatment-free bees, but also that it is not a practical approach for a medium to large apiary until the stocks of bees have been found to handle the mites.

I'd suggest a "propaganda" campaign to urge beginning beekeepers to start out as IPM beekeepers until they are actually ready to become Treatment-Free beekeepers. This might require a certification not unlike Great Britain's.

***********************************************

Another approach that seems to be working is Lauri Miller's setup. Worker-size cell foundation wax sheets are cut in half (vertically) and mounted in the frames with only the vertical wires. Bees are allowed to build larger "Drone / Honey"-sized cells in the outer 4" of each frame in the broodnest. 

In the Springtime, the bees make "Drone" cell - sized comb and the queen lays drone brood in these areas. Before they hatch, she cuts the drone brood out with a knife, and places it in the solar wax melter. No Mites!

Over the summer, the wax is re-drawn, again large cells. Some is drone brood, this gets removed along with the mites and goes into the wax melter, but much of it is now filled with honey. As the Fall season approaches, almost no drones are laid in the large cells. Honey gets packed into the large cells, right where the bees will have easy access to them when they need it for the winter.

So, it is a 3-way winner. Save half the cost of foundation, easy to kill the varroa mites by cutting out the drone brood, and puts honey where it is needed for winter.

So, her method depends on your definition of "treatment-free", but it is not "management-free". You gotta' visit every hive with your knife and keep those wax melters hot. It does seem to be working for her quite well, and I would not consider her apiary a "Mite Bomb".


----------



## jwcarlson

deknow said:


> A properly done inspection of brood frames will always include looking for AFB. This doesn't happen automatically, it requires that one practice inspection procedure the way that a piano student practices scales...to commit some of this procedure to 'muscle memory' so that you can use your attention performing each step rather than thinking about what the next step should be.
> 
> Looking for AFB should include looking as 'suspicious' cells (perforated capping, visible 'larval tongue'), but when one looks at a brood frame, one should (out of habit), look in the bottom back corner of cells looking for 'AFB scale'...a dark, hard to remove mass attached at that back/bottom corner. You have to hold the frame in a particular way to see that spot.


Thank you!

I did know this and do this when inspecting. Just didn't know if there were earlier signs.


----------



## kilocharlie

Regarding AFB, there's also the sniff test...Whew, rotten = AFB, sour milk-like = EFB. Suspicious? There's the toothpick test for "ropiness" - the goo will make quite a "string" connected to the toothpick if it's AFB.


----------



## clyderoad

guys running bees for profit inspect for afb, many others have no idea what it looks like.
or what to do about it. 
abandoned hives and unworked hives never get inspected.


----------



## kilocharlie

clyderoad said:


> guys running bees for profit inspect for afb, many others have no idea what it looks like.
> or what to do about it.
> abandoned hives and unworked hives never get inspected.


Another excellent case for certification of beekeepers. And a third one would be that the education level would prevent many colony losses by beekeepers below 3 years experience, let alone a lot of frustration.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> the annual pox party


Love these threads!


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Love these threads!


..my expectation is that when we next hear of Beeologics and dsRNAi for honeybees, it will be in the form of a rapidly produced formulation based on sampling the bees in Almonds. It would be a near ideal proof of concept/research goal for broader (beyond bees, beyond agriculture) uses...but the quick and inexpensive turn around is likely where the R&D $$ is being spent, and the Beeologics past work (as well as other Monsanto hires...like Jerry Hayes) makes it likely bees will be the proof of concept.

Could you imagine a 'flu vaccine' for the bees...taylord to whatever is found in the almonds...from Varroa to AFB to DWV? The implications (in the relationship between agriculture and the environment) are staggering.


----------



## deknow

OT, I want to make sure there isn't a cultural gap here. When I say 'pox party', I'm talking about chicken pox in children, not a deadly smallpox outbreak.

Most here get vaccinations now, but when I was a kid, when one kid got chickenpox, they had a party for all the neighborhood kids to catch it while they are young. It seemed to me that 'pox party' might have a different connotation on the other side of the world


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Could you imagine a 'flu vaccine' for the bees...taylord to whatever is found in the almonds...from Varroa to AFB to DWV?


No I couldn't. For a long time yet we will live with these things.

My previous post Deknow I was not poking fun at you, just having a giggle at your terminology. And you are correct, pox has different connotations here thanks for explaining. I agree with the general idea you were trying to get across, about how the almond migration is a major stressor and disease spreader among bees. It is an incredible testament to the skills of these commercial guys that they even keep their bees alive. Must be so aggravating for them to continuously be dispensed advice about how stupid they are and how they should be treatment free, from guys with 2 sometimes alive hives in their back yard that are not subjected to close contact with other bees.


----------



## Oldtimer

With high bee density where I am I've never worried about other peoples mites, can't, or I'd go crazy. I accept there will always be mite pressure so ensure it is not an issue to me if I'm aware of the surroundings and running my own hives properly.

AFB is another story though, several times in my life I have had nearby idiots lose hives to AFB followed by the hive / hives getting robbed, and then get it in my hives. Only a couple of months ago I had to burn 17 hives due to the actions of an idiot who plonked AFB infected and dying hives only 800 yards away from my apiary.

From what I read, at one time AFB was a big problem in the US. Which forced people to get serious about it and now it is extremely rare. This comes with it's own problems though, hardly any of the new crop of hobby beekeepers have any experience with it, and some TF beekeepers including at least one who is regarded as a guru, are actually saying on their web site that if they ever got AFB their bees should be able to "deal with it". If an AFB epidemic does hit an area with a good spread of TF beekeepers of this persuasion, I predict a long haul and expensive losses before it is brought back under control.


----------



## johnwratcliff

As a new beek treatment free is relative. I split my hives giving them a break in broad cycle. I've also used some EO's. But I will not use any chemical that requires me to remove all honey or that I have buy a fogger. I also let my bees build their own comb and run mostly foundationless allowing them to build their own natural cell size.


----------



## clyderoad

oldtimer-- very glad you edited your post #19 my hope is that many read it and understand what it means.


----------



## deknow

Well, I've seen an operation that both tolerates AFB (at or below 1%/year as best I can tell...I haven't seen every hive every year, but I did see all a few times over 6 or so years), and moves equipment (including broodcomb) from yard to yard.

I always (when doing hive openings for beekeepers...not the general public) show how to (and that I am) looking for scale as part of the inspection...it is a difficult habit to instill mostly because it is so seldom seen by a hobbyist.

Unfortunately, we have antibiotics that get used that cause the real problems here. TM is used as a preventative and Tylan is used as a cure (there is a new one also). There is AFB that is resistant to both of them, and they both get used to supress infections and as a propholactic...which is why there is now a third antibiotic to use (we have bred resistance to the first two).

In my area, the biggest threat to spread AFB is nucs from operations that treat with antibiotics....and sell to hobbyist beekeeepers that shouldn't need to treat, and aren't told.


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> And you are correct, pox has different connotations here thanks for explaining.


Ha! I'm pretty sure I know what your connotation would be. And it ain't the small or chicken variety. Leave it to Dean.......


----------



## deknow

:scratch: I don't remember ever telling 'these commercial guys' that they are stupid or told them 'what to do'? I hope you weren't referring to me.

The point of the OP (which no one seems to have commented on) is that if the concern is the damage done by TF beekeepers to others because of their 'neglect', then how can one ignore the many thousands of swarms cast off by commercial beekeepers (a quantifiable number) and their likely nature (relying on chem treatments to deal with mites rather than mite resistance) as being a similar problem...probably on the whole larger in scope than the 'TF beekeeper problem'?




Oldtimer said:


> No I couldn't. For a long time yet we will live with these things.
> 
> My previous post Deknow I was not poking fun at you, just having a giggle at your terminology. And you are correct, pox has different connotations here thanks for explaining. I agree with the general idea you were trying to get across, about how the almond migration is a major stressor and disease spreader among bees. It is an incredible testament to the skills of these commercial guys that they even keep their bees alive. Must be so aggravating for them to continuously be dispensed advice about how stupid they are and how they should be treatment free, from guys with 2 sometimes alive hives in their back yard that are not subjected to close contact with other bees.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I hope you weren't referring to me.


Of course not. 




deknow said:


> Well, I've seen an operation that both tolerates AFB (at or below 1%/year as best I can tell...I haven't seen every hive every year, but I did see all a few times over 6 or so years), and moves equipment (including broodcomb) from yard to yard.


Which explains Dees ongoing, low level, infestation. It is also clear her bees are more AFB resistant than most, call it the bees, the small cell, or whatever. But they do not defeat it entirely and I am sure glad she is far away from me. Experienced small cell guy from overseas who just started beekeeping here has recently burned 4 hives due to AFB, after announcing on the local internet forum that his small cell bees would never get it.

Point being, for most bees in the USA an AFB infestation is terminal, and expensive. Mites are a comparative walk in the park. Drugs? People moving away from that and with good reason. But it does have to be said that the problems of the past were cleaned up mostly by use of drugs.


----------



## clyderoad

most beekeepers I know with skin in the game are to some degree weary of TF, commercial, hobbyist, bee tree, abandoned and unmanaged hive swarms. Especially if they have an inkling something is not right 'over there'. And I am as well.
why choose only 2 for comparison?

Maybe the point of the op is not clear and contains to many assumptions.
Frankly, it feels like you threw out the bait for others to take. Although I could be wrong and have been on more occasions than I care to admit.


----------



## MichiganMike

I do not view TF beekeepers as a threat to my hives. I began last year with four spring packages, and hived a swarm in August, I treated with OAV (4 aps one week apart) beginning in late September and managed to get all my hives through to spring. This year I treated once in the spring for the survivors and treated 2 swarms caught in late June with one treatment. Last Saturday I began this years series of fall treatments and have seen significant mite drops. I don’t care where they came from, I plan on killing them regardless. I expect mites. I do not concern myself with things or people I have no control over. 

I have not seen any criticisms of TF keepers in the threads I have been reading for some time but just a day ago two newbees to the forum(april & june) took jabs at Enj because she suggested that a keeper seeking wintering advice should consider mite treatment.


----------



## squarepeg

here's a mite bomb for ya.

i sold a dozen nucs to a beekeeper last year (2014) that had started beekeeping the year prior (2013). he spent a small fortune getting started in 2013 by purchasing 20 nucs from a 'reputable' supplier and all the new equipment to put them in. turns out that 19/20 of those 2013 starters died out by the spring of 2014, and the remaining one that still had a few bees in in was queenless.

this beginning beekeeper shared with me how he had see a lot of robbing and did as he was told and put his entrance reducers in but to no avail. basically what had happened was a domino collapse of the whole yard in which the mites successively got more concentrated as one hive after the other collapsed and got robbed out.

when he came to buy the nucs from me last year he brought some of the drawn comb left over from his dead outs. i've never seen so much mite frass concentrated in the brood cells as i saw on those combs.

the 'reputable' supplier told the beginner that his bees died because he didn't feed them in the fall and they starved to death which was a crock of bull. he also mentioned that should probably consider fogging with mineral oil this year, another crock. the beginner decided to look elsewhere for bees and found me.

the nucs he got from me last year overwintered well with a couple of losses, and i showed him how to make splits from the survivors this year which he did. his colonies are looking great and he even got a pretty decent honey harvest this year.

now this guy wasn't treatment free due to some ideological bias but rather because he was a beginner who frankly did not have good mentoring and just didn't know better, but the impact on any nearby bees of these 20 collapsing colonies all in one yard would have to be greater than the same 20 colonies dispersed out as escaped swarms, would it not?


----------



## Vance G

Why didn't you post this in the treatment free area? Most untreated colonies are maintained by that ocean of beginners who are rolling the dice and thinking that they are the ones who can have the magic bees! Most indeed turn into mite bombs and are an easily controllable category that bee trees are not. Why so aggressive?



deknow said:


> This is a topic that seems to come up more and more often, and one that I've given a great deal of thought to.
> 
> The assumption is that treatment free beekeepers are maintaining 'mite bombs' that negatively impact the 'responsible' beekeepers by robbing/drift....act as a reservoir for mites that re-infest the hives of those who have recently and responsibly treated their bees.
> 
> ....when I hear people make these claims, the first thing that comes to mind is 'bee trees'. I don't know a beekeeper that doesn't have a warm spot in their heart for a bee tree...most of the time (unless there is a nuisance issue or the tree is coming down for another reason), beekeepers are happy to leave them be (and maybe setup a swarm trap or 3). ...but why is this? Why is the bee tree not just another (eliminateable) mite bomb?
> 
> ...more to the point (and I'll use conservative numbers here), there are about 2.5 million migratory bee colonies in the US. Let's assume an _average_ (some will be much less, some will be much more) escaped swarm rate of 1% migratory colony/year.
> 
> That 'deposits' 25,000 unmanaged colonies into our environment per year. ...but unlike the 'bombs' being maintained by beekeepers using a TF approach, these swarms are from stock that is idealized for migratory beekeeping (mites are presumed to be kept down by treatments while early/ready brooding for almonds and/or package production are among the primary selected traits).
> 
> Certainly not all hives being maintained TF are from mite resistant stock, but there is certainly a strong bias in that direction.
> 
> So, there are 1 or 2 thousand migratory commercial beekeepers in business that are responsible for 25,000 'mite bombs' that are more suited for the role of 'mite bomb' than most TF colonies...they've even been exposed to all the emerging pathogens at the annual pox party before being shipped around the countryside casting off swarms.
> 
> If 'mite bombs' were really a concern, we would be talking about these aprox 25,000 swarms/year.
> 
> Whereas a TF beekeeper is generally 'loosing' when their hive collapses, the 'cost' of these swarms is already (by the fact that more rigorous swarm prevention isn't common practice) been determined to be just a cost of doing (profitable) business.
> 
> I'm not out to criticize anyone or any particular approach....my criticism is with the lack of 'big picture thinking' that goes on when TF beekeepers are accused of being the problem.


----------



## deknow

I don't think I'm being aggressive. I didn't post this in TF forum because it mostly is discussing treated bees and I didnt want to limit the scope of the discussion.

The discussion appears to be limiting itself. Do the 25,000 untreated mite suceptable swarms per year not exist? Are my numbers and assumptions wrong?


----------



## Vance G

Many commercial beekeepers seem to have stock that is at least mostly resistant to AFB. The state bee inspector here says that the test kits from Dadant NORMALLY show a positive result on any hive tested. Common practice commercially out here on the plains is to destroy the really bad frames of dead and dying larvae and set the remainder on their strongest hive. They have a low level of infection but mostly don't do anything else about it. Those who put the terrimyacin on every year as a phrophylactic are the ones that end up with 100 of their equipment pox ridden. I started thirty nucs on equipment bought from an old guy who swore he had no AFB and EVERY ONE of them became symptomatic. 



Oldtimer said:


> With high bee density where I am I've never worried about other peoples mites, can't, or I'd go crazy. I accept there will always be mite pressure so ensure it is not an issue to me if I'm aware of the surroundings and running my own hives properly.
> 
> AFB is another story though, several times in my life I have had nearby idiots lose hives to AFB followed by the hive / hives getting robbed, and then get it in my hives. Only a couple of months ago I had to burn 17 hives due to the actions of an idiot who plonked AFB infected and dying hives only 800 yards away from my apiary.
> 
> From what I read, at one time AFB was a big problem in the US. Which forced people to get serious about it and now it is extremely rare. This comes with it's own problems though, hardly any of the new crop of hobby beekeepers have any experience with it, and some TF beekeepers including at least one who is regarded as a guru, are actually saying on their web site that if they ever got AFB their bees should be able to "deal with it". If an AFB epidemic does hit an area with a good spread of TF beekeepers of this persuasion, I predict a long haul and expensive losses before it is brought back under control.


----------



## ToeOfDog

deknow said:


> So, there are 1 or 2 thousand migratory commercial beekeepers in business that are responsible for 25,000 'mite bombs' that are more suited for the role of 'mite bomb' than most TF colonies...they've even been exposed to all the emerging pathogens at the annual pox party before being shipped around the countryside casting off swarms.
> 
> .


Convincing argument. The largest commercial beekeeper in the state no longer goes to the Almonds because of all the disease and the hassle of getting drawn comb back into this state. Migratory beekeepers are the problem<GG>

I thought the "conventional wisdom" was that second year TF colonies died from mites.

I'm so excited I just have to tell somebody. A buddy just did a cut out 6 weeks ago but didn't recover the queen. He recovered the uncapped brood and gave me 2 queen cells. I now have a new nuc and queen. The homeowner admits that the bees have been there for over 5 years and that he didnt treat for mites<GG>. He did say there was a goodly number of SHB but no mites.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good story Squarepeg, and I'm sure there is plenty of that goes on. It should be very important in TF discussions that nubees can read, that it is emphasised they cannot go treatment free if they purchase bee strains that will die if not treated. There are so many sad stories, money wasted, and disappointed people because that was not properly explained to them. What's worst of all is seeing people heart broken, but still clinging to the idea that it could not have been mites that killed their hive because they did not see any, and they read somewhere that if you want to be treatment free, stop treating and they think that's it. Also of course not understanding the need to take any sensible advice about changing the plan next time around, so they are just lining up for another bad experience and more money down the toilet.

At least you were able to rescue this particular person. But I think if there was more consistent info on the net, we would see a lot less of this anyway.



Vance G said:


> I started thirty nucs on equipment bought from an old guy who swore he had no AFB and EVERY ONE of them became symptomatic.


Wow, that would have been rough. A lot of people would have thrown in the towel after something like that. It's also a good case in the argument against the use of antibiotics. Having said that though, if antibiotics are used properly (if there is such a thing), I don't think that situation would have arisen. My suspicion is that the "old guy" probably did not use antibiotics sensibly, but instead practised no quarantine and just swapped gear around willy nilly, and then threw some drugs at the hives when afb was flaring up more than he liked, but mean time he spread it through all his gear. Problem then, he can never stop treating.

Plus, if he ever did lose a hive for any reason, and it got robbed, he'd be a menace to anyone else.


----------



## dsegrest

kilocharlie said:


> Interesting thread topic, DeKnow.
> 
> Randy Oliver ( www.scientificbeekeeping.com ) has been working with the issue of mites for a number of years. He is a strong proponent of IPM until we have stocks that handle mites on their own. He has recently came up with a simple alcohol wash system for monitoring mite levels. His website is a fantastic place to begin understanding the issues with _varroa destructor_, the mite about which we speak.
> 
> He readily admits that, by treating, we are essentially creating treatment-resistant MITES, and that the goal should be treatment-free bees, but also that it is not a practical approach for a medium to large apiary until the stocks of bees have been found to handle the mites.
> 
> I'd suggest a "propaganda" campaign to urge beginning beekeepers to start out as IPM beekeepers until they are actually ready to become Treatment-Free beekeepers. This might require a certification not unlike Great Britain's.
> 
> ***********************************************
> 
> Another approach that seems to be working is Lauri Miller's setup. Worker-size cell foundation wax sheets are cut in half (vertically) and mounted in the frames with only the vertical wires. Bees are allowed to build larger "Drone / Honey"-sized cells in the outer 4" of each frame in the broodnest.
> 
> In the Springtime, the bees make "Drone" cell - sized comb and the queen lays drone brood in these areas. Before they hatch, she cuts the drone brood out with a knife, and places it in the solar wax melter. No Mites!
> 
> Over the summer, the wax is re-drawn, again large cells. Some is drone brood, this gets removed along with the mites and goes into the wax melter, but much of it is now filled with honey. As the Fall season approaches, almost no drones are laid in the large cells. Honey gets packed into the large cells, right where the bees will have easy access to them when they need it for the winter.
> 
> So, it is a 3-way winner. Save half the cost of foundation, easy to kill the varroa mites by cutting out the drone brood, and puts honey where it is needed for winter.
> 
> So, her method depends on your definition of "treatment-free", but it is not "management-free". You gotta' visit every hive with your knife and keep those wax melters hot. It does seem to be working for her quite well, and I would not consider her apiary a "Mite Bomb".


It seems that her method would yield a nice crop of wax. That is valuable too.


----------



## beemandan

To my thinking there are any number of swarms that end up being 'mite bombs' as well as any number of collapsing untreated hives. Is your argument that there are more of one than the other? Guesswork at best and apparently driven by one's personal philosophy.
Personally, I work to keep my bees healthy. If somebody dropped a truckload of sickly hives across the road from some of mine....I'd be hot. Otherwise I don't have any way to know how many mites were manufactured in my hives and how many were delivered from elsewhere. And unless those failing hives are stuck under your nose....I don't think anyone else does either.
So...to my thinking it is all just like discussing religion and politics; useless except to create an argument.


----------



## jim lyon

beemandan said:


> To my thinking there are any number of swarms that end up being 'mite bombs' as well as any number of collapsing untreated hives. Is your argument that there are more of one than the other? Guesswork at best and apparently driven by one's personal philosophy.
> Personally, I work to keep my bees healthy. If somebody dropped a truckload of sickly hives across the road from some of mine....I'd be hot. Otherwise I don't have any way to know how many mites were manufactured in my hives and how many were delivered from elsewhere. And unless those failing hives are stuck under your nose....I don't think anyone else does either.
> So...to my thinking it is all just like discussing religion and politics; useless except to create an argument.


Well stated Dan. There is no way of knowing what level of mite invasion comes from where. I don't obsess about things I can't control. I would hope neighboring beekeepers would make an effort to be responsible in their beekeeping practices, including placement of hives, regardless of their philosophy. One is best served worrying more about their own hives and less about others.


----------



## Ian

Like a livestock farm neighbouring a wild life refuge with residend elk plagued with TB, infection pressures are always higher than farms a few miles away. 
I had a neighbouring beekeeper who's natural mite control was terrible for keeping my hives levels of mites high... Until he went broke and the problem disappeared.
But usually TF beekeeps are only one or three hives... Not a beginner starting with 1200 mite producing bombs!
Up here winter kills of the swarms, our landscape is clean...


----------



## beemandan

Remember when Sol complained that the queen producer down the road was the cause of all his hives failing? Made me wonder how many of the producer's collapsed. I bet if we'd heard his side of the story it'd have been a bit different. 
At the end of the day...it is all simply opinion....and you know what they say about that.


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> One is best served worrying more about their own hives and less about others.


There's a fellow down the road that has a saying he often repeats....and I've taken to using it as well.
'I have a twenty four hour a day job minding my own business.'


----------



## Vance G

Wow, that would have been rough. A lot of people would have thrown in the towel after something like that. It's also a good case in the argument against the use of antibiotics. Having said that though, if antibiotics are used properly (if there is such a thing), I don't think that situation would have arisen. My suspicion is that the "old guy" probably did not use antibiotics sensibly, but instead practised no quarantine and just swapped gear around willy nilly, and then threw some drugs at the hives when afb was flaring up more than he liked, but mean time he spread it through all his gear. Problem then, he can never stop treating.

It is an argument to not continue the use of TM to which there is huge immunity. It at best masks symptoms or maybe that is the worst thing it could do. I successfully shook the bees on to foundation and let them rebuild but after I had one colony die over winter and get robbed out by the rest of my bees, I treated with tylan and that was several years ago and I have not seen any sign of AFB since and I of course have not treated. That said, there are still people in positions of authority who treat with TM 50.


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> That 'deposits' 25,000 unmanaged colonies into our environment per year. .


Deknow, is it known how many untreated managed hives there are per year and what the concentration is in the country?

I can vouch for 3 in Utica but I know of no others that do not treat. Most people in our club are brain washed right from the get go.


----------



## m1ke05

kilocharlie said:


> Another excellent case for certification of beekeepers. And a third one would be that the education level would prevent many colony losses by beekeepers below 3 years experience, let alone a lot of frustration.


I'm at two years. I would love something like this, cos guess what? I walked out to my apiary a few days ago after not inspecting them for three weeks ( I over booked my self ) and 2 of my 5 hives were dead.


----------



## Robbin

Deknow, please tell me what "The bee tree" means in the context of your quote. I assume it doesn't mean a real live bee tree?

I reread it a couple of times, I'm thinking that you meant a tree that has bees living in it. I was thinking of the actual tree called Bee Tree, so it didn't make sense to me.

Thanks
Robbin



deknow said:


> This is a topic that seems to come up more and more often, and one that I've given a great deal of thought to.
> 
> The assumption is that treatment free beekeepers are maintaining 'mite bombs' that negatively impact the 'responsible' beekeepers by robbing/drift....act as a reservoir for mites that re-infest the hives of those who have recently and responsibly treated their bees.
> 
> ....when I hear people make these claims, the first thing that comes to mind is 'bee trees'. I don't know a beekeeper that doesn't have a warm spot in their heart for a bee tree...most of the time (unless there is a nuisance issue or the tree is coming down for another reason), beekeepers are happy to leave them be (and maybe setup a swarm trap or 3). ...but why is this? Why is the bee tree not just another (eliminateable) mite bomb?
> 
> ...more to the point (and I'll use conservative numbers here), there are about 2.5 million migratory bee colonies in the US. Let's assume an _average_ (some will be much less, some will be much more) escaped swarm rate of 1% migratory colony/year.
> 
> That 'deposits' 25,000 unmanaged colonies into our environment per year. ...but unlike the 'bombs' being maintained by beekeepers using a TF approach, these swarms are from stock that is idealized for migratory beekeeping (mites are presumed to be kept down by treatments while early/ready brooding for almonds and/or package production are among the primary selected traits).
> 
> Certainly not all hives being maintained TF are from mite resistant stock, but there is certainly a strong bias in that direction.
> 
> So, there are 1 or 2 thousand migratory commercial beekeepers in business that are responsible for 25,000 'mite bombs' that are more suited for the role of 'mite bomb' than most TF colonies...they've even been exposed to all the emerging pathogens at the annual pox party before being shipped around the countryside casting off swarms.
> 
> If 'mite bombs' were really a concern, we would be talking about these aprox 25,000 swarms/year.
> 
> Whereas a TF beekeeper is generally 'loosing' when their hive collapses, the 'cost' of these swarms is already (by the fact that more rigorous swarm prevention isn't common practice) been determined to be just a cost of doing (profitable) business.
> 
> I'm not out to criticize anyone or any particular approach....my criticism is with the lack of 'big picture thinking' that goes on when TF beekeepers are accused of being the problem.


----------



## Harley Craig

gnor said:


> The treatment free beeks that are doing it properly aren't really "treatment free." They just use other tools like resistant stock, good husbandry, etc., to make sure they have healthy stock. I think they have to find another name for themselves that frames it better,!



If you are using the " definition" this forum uses then yes, I would agree most aren't really " treatment free", If you use the definition in the strictest sense like I do, then I would say it's the folks that use excessive brood breaks, sugar shakes, or any other " natural" method are the ones that don't fit the "treatment free" definition because with out them " doing something" their bees will die just as much as the guy trying the bond method on commercial stock. IMO most folks here in this sub forum should use the label " chemical free" AGAIN IMO and what I CONSIDER treatment free is folks who let the bees handle it, and if the bees can't handle it replace them ( hopefully before the hive dies) with better genetics that can. I feel the goal of TF is to breed bees that if mankind dies, the bees will live on without their intervention.


----------



## jwcarlson

Harley Craig said:


> if mankind dies


As long as it's only most of mankind and I'm not part of the die off... I'm all for it. 

I could use a change of pace. 

Regarding bees surviving... if we all croaked tomorrow bees will survive just fine. It's not like humans have ruined the honey bee... they've just tamed it for their uses. Like a pig. If they get loose for long enough they go right back to doing what they do. And in reality you could argue they never really changed.


----------



## BeeBop

Question for the TF folks...

If you have children in public school and they come home infested with head lice because one or more of their classmates has lice, do you treat them for the lice or do you leave them be under the theory that kids who grow up with a lice infestation will produce offspring that are more resistant to head lice?

Just curious.


----------



## squarepeg

i generally wouldn't respond to such an idiotic question, (the question mind you, not name calling here), but since you list '0 clue' in your signature i'll make an exception.

it's an apples and oranges comparison beebop, and treating for mites is not a black or white issue.

consider trying to keep an open mind about it, and perhaps spend some time here:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/articles-by-publication-date/

you might gain some appreciation for why it's important to understand both sides.


----------



## Ian

I think that was the first time I read an angry tone from squarepeg .


----------



## JWChesnut

A more apt analogy would be heartworm in dogs.

Heartworm is a disease of the southern states, and with urbanization and mobility has spread into other areas -- all 50 US states. (Hurricane Katrina is implicated as a cause as New Orleans pets were "adopted" throughout the country). Its vector is a southern swamp mosquito. 

Heartworm was absent from areas that formed the population core of ferret, wolf and coyote populations. The population of these animals were in dynamic equilibrium with the likelihood of heartworm infection. More heartworm == absent or dwarf populations of ferret, wolf and coyote. Absent heartworm == healty aboriginal wolf, coyote and ferret population.

I was surprised to learn there is an identifiable and very vocal sub-group of pet owners that refuse to apply heartworm preventative to their pets in the belief that they are "breeding" better, more resistant dogs. 

The analogy with AFB could be served by Rabies vaccines in dogs. Again, I was shocked to learn in the "natural" dog sub-culture, there are anti-rabies vaccine cultists that have adopted the loony-tune anti-vaxx position and refuse rabies vaccines for their pets.


----------



## Acebird

Ian said:


> I think that was the first time I read an angry tone from squarepeg .


Wasn't it warranted? Squarepeg has been one of the most civil posters on both sides of an argument that any one has been on this forum. My hat goes off to Squarepeg. I envy his qualities. I wish I could meet him and shake his hand.:thumbsup:


----------



## BeeBop

Haha, OK, thanks squarepeg. I'm aware of Mr. Olivers website and have already spent quite a bit of time reading there.
And yes, I fully admit that I still feel mostly clueless when it comes to bees. But I'm learning something every day and trying to form my own opinions about what's reasonable and what's not.
In case you haven't noticed there's a lot of conflicting info and a lot of different philosophies about how bees should be kept. And yes, I do have an open mind about it but having an open mind means listening to BOTH sides of the argument, not just the TF folks.

I've been using OAV on my hives this fall and the number of mites that drop has been ENORMOUS. I believe that without treatment they probably won't last through the winter. My treatments may already be too little too late. I don't know, but I think it would be foolish not to treat them because dead bees *don't* produce offspring that is more resistant.

Apples and oranges or not, I'm curious how far folks go with the treatment free attitude and whether it's just about bees or whether the TF philosophy extends to other aspects of their lives or not. And why.

And thanks JWC, yes your analogy is probably more appropriate.


----------



## BeeBop

Ian said:


> I think that was the first time I read an angry tone from squarepeg .


It does seem that I've struck a nerve, doesn't it?


I'll add here that I've read a lot of squarepegs posts and I have a great deal of respect for him and his opinions. So thanks squarepeg.

Oh, and Ace, I've read a lot of your posts also. I'll just leave it at that...


----------



## squarepeg

awesome beebop, i commend you for taking my comment in the spirit in which is was intended.

if you've spent much time reading randy's stuff you'll know that he is very concerned bees developing natural resistance to mites; he points out that treatments have a way of becoming ineffective over time; he points out that the use of treatments in the commercial production of bees is impeding their development of natural resistance; and he speaks favorably of those who are making strides with keeping bees off treatments.

yet randy concedes that in his location, (southern california), he has yet to come up with a simple management technique or strain of bee that allows him to sustain his apiaries off treatments.

you might be in the same boat there in sonoma county, and i would be the last one to tell you not to treat your bees if that's what it takes.

as far as philosophy, it's not about that with me. i make my living diagnosing diseases and prescribe treatments on a daily basis. i was fully prepared to do the same with my bees but by a great stroke of fortune i ended up with bees that didn't need it. i feel that it would irresponsible to interfere with what these bees are doing by introducing treatments, and i am trying to be a good steward with what i have been given.


----------



## johno

This thread has now got me scratching my head, LOL
Johno


----------



## Ian

BeeBop said:


> It does seem that I've struck a nerve, doesn't it?


Love it, lay it on the line, let er buck
Teachable moments


----------



## Acebird

BeeBop said:


> Oh, and Ace, I've read a lot of your posts also. I'll just leave it at that...


And so will I. Squarepeg is doing a wonderful job.


----------



## BeeBop

Acebird said:


> And so will I. Squarepeg is doing a wonderful job.


He is, and I appreciate that.





> yet randy concedes that in his location, (southern california), he has yet to come up with a simple management technique or strain of bee that allows him to sustain his apiaries off treatments.
> 
> you might be in the same boat there in sonoma county, and i would be the last one to tell you not to treat your bees if that's what it takes.


Of the few beeks I've talked to in Sonoma county, some treat and some don't.
The guy who runs the local bee supply shop is a TF advocate, but he also sells bees and if peoples bees die he can probably sell them more at least once or twice.

I have a neighbor about 1/4 mile away that has a small orchard (~50 trees) and he says he tried to keep bees for a while but the first batch died after 2 years. He bought more bees and they also died in 2 years. He spent about $700 just for bees, not including equipment and finally just gave it up as not worth it. I asked him about "pests", varroa, wax moth, etc and he had no clue what I was talking about. His "mentor" said nothing about those things. His mentor also sells bees...

Honestly I would love to be able to go TF but I'm not willing to blindly walk into that trap without a lot more experience and knowledge because living bees that have been treated > untreated bees that are dead.

I respect and admire the folks who successfully do TF but I think it's a disservice to newbs to just tell them that TF is THE way to go because like so many other aspects of beekeeping a lot probably has to do with specific location and I have to wonder how many of the TF folks would do if they were in a different part of the country.

As far as wild colonies being "mite bombs", I have no idea if that's true or not but either way there's nothing I can do about it. I can only worry about my bees.

Anyway, I'm grateful for the good folks here on BS that are willing to share their experience and opinions regardless of which side of the fence they are on. Thanks!


----------



## squarepeg

interesting question about the swarms escaping and how much or how little impact they may be having.

beekeeping has been alive and well in my area for many decades. in fact my neighbor across the road and his partner supposedly were one of the biggest suppliers of early season packages to canada back in the 70's.

i figure that just about every conceivable strain of bees has at one time or another been brought into this area and their swarms undoubtedly ended up taking residence in the trees and old barns around here.

if you buy into the notion that hybridization is good and the greater the genetic mix the better the chances of having beneficial traits expressed then maybe that's why the feral population here wasn't wiped out by the varroa invasion. having lots of habitat and an abundance of diversified flora probably didn't hurt either.

at any rate, the swarms that end up unmanaged out in the wild are subject to natural selection and nature's winnowing leads to hybridized strains that have resistance. in the long run it doesn't really matter too much from what stock they came from to start with.


----------



## Vance G

I don't understand why this is not an on point question, except headlice are not lethal.


BeeBop said:


> Question for the TF folks...
> 
> If you have children in public school and they come home infested with head lice because one or more of their classmates has lice, do you treat them for the lice or do you leave them be under the theory that kids who grow up with a lice infestation will produce offspring that are more resistant to head lice?
> 
> Just curious.


----------



## jwcarlson

It may not be lice, but people are experimenting with their kids as guinea pigs probably more than ever. When some of these diseases become common again...

Not to lump too much, but you know there are people thinking this about their kids and their bees... "Well measles isn't that big of a deal." "My grandma has mumps and she is fine."


----------



## Ian

Exposure gives disease the upper hand


----------



## Harley Craig

JWChesnut said:


> A more apt analogy would be heartworm in dogs.
> 
> .



I think this is a poor analogy as well. you don't treat your dog to "save the dogs" you treat him because he's a member of your family, and if everyone would stop treating their dogs, there will always be more dogs, but you might only get to keep him for 8 yrs instead of 12. Nobody is treating the local coyote population and there is no shortage of them.... I would compare our commercial bees to our commercial turkeys who are bred in such a way that they can no longer survive on their own. It takes man's intervention to make more butterball turkeys. While their wild or heritage counterparts can fend for themselves provided they are given the habitat to do things that turkeys do. FWIW every book on goats tells you how to rotate wormer and different antibiotics because of developing resistance to them. When I raised goats, I didn't treat them with anything but a fresh source of water and plenty of weedy pasture. Never lost a single one to illness, but I didn't get them at a sale barn either.


----------



## BeeBop

Harley Craig said:


> I think this is a poor analogy as well. you don't treat your dog to "save the dogs" you treat him because he's a member of your family, and if everyone would stop treating their dogs, there will always be more dogs, but you might only get to keep him for 8 yrs instead of 12.


Isn't it the same with bees? There will always be more bees, but if you don't treat them you might only get to keep them for a year or 3 instead of for many years?


----------



## Harley Craig

BeeBop said:


> Isn't it the same with bees? There will always be more bees, but if you don't treat them you might only get to keep them for a year or 3 instead of for many years?



sure, but the people who treat ( at least locally ) seem to have the same avg loss or worse than those who don't I don't know anyone who treats that has had the same queen through the 3rd winter, most don't make it through their second because they requeen the next yr. If you can avg 3-4 yrs out of a colony, you have a very sustainable apiary and with the addition of a few nucs to your production hives you shouldn't have to treat so why do it?


----------



## Acebird

Harley Craig said:


> If you can avg 3-4 yrs out of a colony, you have a very sustainable apiary and with the addition of a few nucs to your production hives you shouldn't have to treat so why do it?


Who are you asking? A commercial endeavor has to produce x amount of salable goods per y amount of investment. The term sustainability changes when you are dealing with the x/y formula. I don't sell anything so my x value is zero. That makes my y value unimportant.

And yes, I believe you are correct. If you can avg 3-4 yrs out of colony, you can have a sustainable apiary. I think in my area you only need 2 years out of a colony if you split a third of your colonies every year.


----------



## Ian

>>my bees but by a great stroke of fortune i ended up with bees that didn't need it. i feel t<<

squarepeg, have you had Deformed Wing Virus observed in your apiary?


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> squarepeg, have you had Deformed Wing Virus observed in your apiary?


yes ian. a few weeks ago there were a couple of colonies hauling out a few devitalized drone pupae and some of them had deformed wings. i was only able to observe 2 worker bees crawling on the ground with deformed wings. that lasted for a couple of weeks and then stopped. i haven't seen any more for about the past 10 days. 

i've yet to do any in depth fall inspections and haven't looked at the brood nest in some of the hives since march. i went down to brood in the 5 or 6 hives that i harvested honey from in recent weeks until i saw nice patterns of solid capped brood and stopped there.


----------



## Ian

What are your mite counts?


----------



## jwcarlson

How many people are averaging 3-4 years per colony TF? Average across the apiary...


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> What are your mite counts?


i sampled 3 hives last fall, and the counts were 8.9%, 10.7% and 13.4%. they all overwintered and the one with the highest count was my second most productive hive this year. i'll sample those again this year along with one that isn't producing as much honey as the rest for some reason.


----------



## Ian

Wow, my treatment thresholds are 2-3% with deformed wing virus present. I find that years when levels rise over 5% my hives CRASH over winter with viral load.


----------



## squarepeg

understood ian. astrobee here on the forum has been working hard at breeding for resistance and i believe has reached a treatment threshold of about 17%. host/parasite equilibrium?


----------



## Ian

With viral loads considered? Within a closed operating system or with normal apiary dynamics ?


----------



## Ian

Just so I'm clear, that's 17 mites per hundred bees average? That would be considered a mite bomb in my eyes.


----------



## squarepeg

my counts are per hundred bees and i actually counted the bees. here's the post from ab:




AstroBee said:


> My threshold is slightly creeping upward, but I don't allow things to get crazy. One exception was last Fall when an Italian colony that tested 50+ in a sugar roll. That particular colony never really impressed me, so I decided to let it go as an experiment. That colony crashed during winter. Yes, some may say that was irresponsible to allow that colony to perish, but I was attempting to probe the threshold boundaries. In my area, I'm seeing anything in the high teens (>17) as a candidate for further investigation. Other considerations? Yes, a general inspection after a high mite count is done. I'm looking for DWV, uncap some brood, general brood pattern, overall appearance of the colony (activity, stores, motivation <- yeah subjective!!). If DWV is found I treat immediately with MAQS. I treated one colony last fall. I do allow bees with >17 to remain untreated if things look good. I did loose some bees last winter, but I had a late season pesticide spray that seemed very hard on queens. Others in my area reported similar issues. The primary farmer near me has been much better with his application techniques this season and my bees look great. Just wish all farmers near me would follow along and play as nice.


sounds like he is reporting numbers of mites per sample and not percentages. thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> With viral loads considered? Within a closed operating system or with normal apiary dynamics ?



sorry ian, you lost me there. 

my gut feeling is that either the viruses here aren't as virulent, the bees have some advantage with immunity to the viruses (perhaps something unique in the forage or propolis), or perhaps some combination of those and/or some other unknown factor(s).

i.e. i honestly don't know why they are surviving what would in other locations be 'death sentence' infestations rates.


----------



## Ian

squarepeg said:


> sorry ian, you lost me there.
> 
> my gut feeling is that either the viruses here aren't as virulent, the bees have some advantage with immunity to the viruses (perhaps something unique in the forage or propolis), or perhaps some combination of those and/or some other unknown factor(s).
> 
> i.e. i honestly don't know why they are surviving what would in other locations be 'death sentence' infestations rates.


That's the humble nature I can respect from a beekeeper looking towards treatment free. With many adopting such a strategy principal belief becomes to weigh heavier than actuals and facts. Murky waters need to be treated lightly 
Thx for the input


----------



## Ian

squarepeg said:


> my counts are per hundred bees and i actually counted the bees. here's the post from ab:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like he is reporting numbers of mites per sample and not percentages. thanks for pointing that out.


He must be counting the mites against a 100 bee sample. Otherwise the count has no reference


----------



## Ian

squarepeg said:


> sorry ian, you lost me there.


I buy queens from the Sakatraz project up here in Saskatchewan. 
It's a closed breeding project, a survival breeding strategy but closed all the same. Targeting those specific traits is the goal. 
This kind of breeding can't be done in an apiary ( I meant normal production practices) type of management program where yards are typically mixed within areas of other beekeepers and feral populations. Kinda what the original theme of this topic started out as, how much interference does outside factors play (in mite counts and spread) coining the phrase "mite bomb"

Soon as those Saskatraz queens hit a production apiary all the survival pressures change and their performance from the breeding project shifts.


----------



## enjambres

@HarleyCraig:

I treat (generally OAV, also last year with MAQS, and the year before with Apiguard).

Of my three original queens from 2013 (they are marked) I still have two which are laying well and taking large, vigorous colonies into winter, at the end of their third summer (or fourth as they were all swarms when they arrived here in the early spring swarm period in 2013, so may have overwintered from the previous summer). The third one was superceded in August of this year. But she left behind a strong colony. 

I have made splits from all these bees, both last year and this, and those open mated queens seem vigorous as well. But if I didn't treat I would have mite-disease and DWV, as I can see that in nearby unmanaged apiaries and in feral colonies.

Though my apiary is small (2013= 3; 2014 =4, and this summer I'm up to eight) I have had no losses, for any reason.

So when you say you don't know of anybody who treats _and_ still has laying laying queens in three (or four) summers, well, now you do. 

I have no intention of re-queening simply because my queens have reached a certain age. The bees can make that choice and I will play along. It will interesting to see how this unfolds next spring as I know I am bumping up against the "natural" life span of a queen. I will not surprised if the bees in the remaining original queens' colonies supercede. If not, I will make some more splits from them as back-ups. Not looking forward to losing my old girls, though. I am still mourning for my beloved Queen Buttercup.

Enj.


----------



## Oldtimer

Over the years of keeping bees both before mites, and after mites, it's been noticeable that queen lifespan is fairly closely correlated to mite associated damage, or lack of.

I can still get queens into their third year, if they were raised in a hive with (tested) low DWV and _N. Cerana_, and live their lives in hives with mites well controlled. Queens raised in infested hives and living with a mite load are often close to the end of their life, and look it, by beginning of second season.

There are so many pathogens around now that sometimes the best guide to what hives might have the lowest levels and should be used as cell raisers, is just the vibes the hive gives off. Some hives have an energy and vitality, against other hives that seem listless in comparison. Those high energy, go getter, type hives, will likely raise the longest lived queens.


----------



## Arnie

3 or 4 years for the lifespan of a colony of bees? The queen , maybe. 

Perhaps I am living in the past, but with a little care the lifespan of a hive of bees should be almost unlimited. Back in my first incarnation as a beekeeper (before mites) I had hives that would have the boxes disintegrate before the colony died. I almost never re-queened. The bees did a fine job of that on their own. I managed the hives, but unless a colony was a poor performer I let them take care of business.

Now, with proper management and mite mitigation the same should be true.


----------



## Acebird

Arnie said:


> Now, with proper management and mite mitigation the same should be true.


But it isn't. If you are treating your bees then two years is about all you can expect. If you plan on letting your treated hives raise their own queens I think you will run into problems.

Buying queens from queen breeders is something else. I don't think they are so heavily treated.


----------



## Arnie

Acebird said:


> . If you are treating your bees then two years is about all you can expect. .


I will find out.
After several years of disaster Treatment Free, I am now using OAV. I'll let you know in a couple years.


----------



## enjambres

Acebird wrote:



> But it isn't. If you are treating your bees then two years is about all you can expect. If you plan on letting your treated hives raise their own queens I think you will run into problems.


I don't think this is true and it has not been my experience, so far. I don't think there is anything special about my bees, and I am a beekeeper of very modest experience (just ending my third year). But I do treat to control varroa, and that makes all the difference - my bees, both queens and colones, have already exceeded your estimated life span. And they show no sign of petering out.

Perhaps you meant to write "........ If you are *NOT* treating your bees then two years is about all you can expect"? (my emphasis added).

The idea that failing to treat results in longer-lived colonies is just not borne out in my part of NY. What's the basis of your belief that treatment yields shorter life spans?

Enj.


----------



## jwcarlson

Acebird said:


> But it isn't. If you are treating your bees then two years is about all you can expect. If you plan on letting your treated hives raise their own queens I think you will run into problems.


And how long have your untreated ones survived? What causes this 2nd year death of treated colonies? We're all dying to know how a 0-3 hive non-treating beekeeper knows this to be the case.


----------



## beemandan

Acebird said:


> If you are treating your bees then two years is about all you can expect. If you plan on letting your treated hives raise their own queens I think you will run into problems.


Why do you feel the need to make this sort of tripe up? If everybody just invents 'facts' to suit their opinions Beesource would be worthless.


----------



## Acebird

beemandan said:


> Why do you feel the need to make this sort of tripe up?


Dan, how often do you replace your queens and what do you replace them with? Judging from what I read hear on BS beekeepers that have money at stake they are replacing queens within two years, some do it every year. I can only assume that the chemicals are taking a toll on the queen where the third year is a crap shoot. I do not posses the ability to find a queen so I don't know how long my queens last before they are superceded. But it has been said prior to fighting varora queens could last 4 or 5 years. Isn't it a logical conclusion that the scheduled treatments have some side effect that is not immediate?


----------



## beemandan

I rarely replace any queens. I have colonies that are ten years old that have replaced their own queens as needed...with success. I've had queens that I knew were in their fourth season (marked) before they were superceded. 


Acebird said:


> Judging from what I read hear on BS.....I can only assume.....Isn't it a logical conclusion


And from your translation of what you've read on Beesource, your assumptions and conclusions, you believe you can make statements of 'fact'?
OK...I've got to go. It's a bit before 8am on Sunday and I've got a hundred mile drive and a river to cross so that I can do my second treatment on my mountain hives.


----------



## maudbid

There are a lot of conclusions that could be made from a string of "facts" (facts is in quotes since you stated nothing more than hearsay). Isn't it possible that queens lasted longer before Varroa presence, with treatment a demonstrated way to increase hive longevity now? (Again, assuming there is any basis in the "facts" presented.)


----------



## jwcarlson

Acebird said:


> Isn't it a logical conclusion that the scheduled treatments have some side effect that is not immediate?


The concensus is that your queens are being replaced every 6-8 months. Since you don't look at your bees you'll never see that happening and will pretent that your queens last "years". 

How can you possibly believe your 0-3 hives can in anyway be translated to guys running commercial operations making their livelihood from their operations? The ego... 

If Ace's bees don't make honey and die during winter it is just Ace's average and he shakes a new package in. If beemandan failed at your rate, Ace, he probably would have been out of beekeeping decades ago.


----------



## Acebird

beemandan said:


> And from your translation of what you've read on Beesource, your assumptions and conclusions, you believe you can make statements of 'fact'?


Dan, take a look at this website.

http://www.waywordradio.org/can-facts-be-false/

The irony of the web cast is they speak of words changing meanings over time and I actually remember learning the distinction between fact and opinion back in the third grade. I was taught exactly as the teacher is teaching the child... and that was well over 50 years ago.


----------



## D Semple

jwcarlson said:


> How many people are averaging 3-4 years per colony TF? Average across the apiary...


I've been able to get 2 or 3 productive seasons out of most and have a few hives that have done well for 5 years. 


Don


----------



## Acebird

And you are treatment free Don? That is what I see reported for people that treat so it is hard to tell what difference the treating is making unless you are measuring pounds of honey.


----------



## dsegrest

I treat my bees with OAV, which is supposed to have little effect on the bees. I believe what Brian says about treatment shortening the life of queens however. Mites do too. I lost both of my hives to mites (I believe) the first year. Since then I have only lost 2 hives and I don't believe that was the fault of mites, but the fault of a clumsy beekeeper. 

I have lost 3 queens in addition to those 2 hives. I feel certain that the queens have a shorter life than I was taught to expect in bee school.


----------



## beemandan

dsegrest said:


> I believe what Brian says about treatment shortening the life of queens however. Mites do too.


There aren't many who would disagree with the idea that anything that adds stress reduces the lifespan of every bee in the hive....queen included. I'm glad you added that 'mites do too'.
Brian suggests that only treated bees have these shortened life spans. And worse...he puts a number to it, making it appear as though it came from some reliable source. 

I would suggest that bees in varroa infested hives have greatly reduced life spans as well.....but I won't invent a number to support my opinion.


----------



## dsegrest

beemandan said:


> There aren't many who would disagree with the idea that anything that adds stress reduces the lifespan of every bee in the hive....queen included. I'm glad you added that 'mites do too'.
> Brian suggests that only treated bees have these shortened life spans. And worse...he puts a number to it, making it appear as though it came from some reliable source.
> 
> I would suggest that bees in varroa infested hives have greatly reduced life spans as well.....but I won't invent a number to support my opinion.


Let's face it any information gleaned from production hives by producers is "anecdotal". Unfortunately the information gained by researchers in carefully controlled situations is artificial. By combining both approaches, we get a pretty good idea of what's happening, but only the bees really know, and they won't tell.


----------



## Acebird

beemandan said:


> Brian suggests that only treated bees have these shortened life spans.


Now Dan this is just another case where people try to speak for me, or worse they pass it through their filter and only hear what they think I said.

Never did I say mites don't shorten bees lifespan. What they will do is kill off the bees that do not find a way to survive them. The survivors are the winners.

BTW the hive that came from a package (almonds) is now raining down mites and the split I made from my surviving hive is not. It wouldn't surprise me if the package doesn't make it through the winter. Yes, it is just anecdotal comparisons but there is no getting around it the package hive is a mite bomb within 16 inches of my other two hives. We will see what happens in the spring.


----------



## beemandan

Acebird said:


> Never did I say mites don't shorten bees lifespan.


No...you didn't state it...you conveniently ignored it. Pretty much the same.


----------



## Arnie

dsegrest, when you say you lost 3 queens, did the hives go suddenly queenless or did they supersede? If the bees decide to replace their queen that is a normal behavior, although if it is happening every year that is unusual. But if the queens are just dying that is cause for concern.

Brian, am I correct that you are saying a treated colony will die after 2 years? Not that the bees will replace their queen, but the whole hive will die after 2 years?


----------



## jwcarlson

dsegrest said:


> I have lost 3 queens in addition to those 2 hives. I feel certain that the queens have a shorter life than I was taught to expect in bee school.


Most research indicates queens being replaced every 6-8 months.

What did they teach you in "bee school"?


----------



## dsegrest

Arnie said:


> dsegrest, when you say you lost 3 queens, did the hives go suddenly queenless or did they supersede? If the bees decide to replace their queen that is a normal behavior, although if it is happening every year that is unusual. But if the queens are just dying that is cause for concern.
> 
> Brian, am I correct that you are saying a treated colony will die after 2 years? Not that the bees will replace their queen, but the whole hive will die after 2 years?


When I did my examination on those colonies, I could not find a queen or young brood. 2 were early enough in the year that I added a frame of young brood and the situation corrected itself. Either the queen was still there and started laying or the bees made a new one. I did see queen cells (empty) in one of them. The other was 1 week ago. There was no brood at all. I bought a queen. Friday was the day I would have inspected to see if she was out of the cage. It has been raining since then so I haven't gone in. The bees are bringing in pollen so I am hoping for the best.


----------



## Arnie

That's a concern. You think that is due to the OAV?


----------



## Acebird

Arnie said:


> Brian, am I correct that you are saying a treated colony will die after 2 years? Not that the bees will replace their queen, but the whole hive will die after 2 years?


No I don't want to give that impression either. What I am trying to say is treated hives take a toll on the queen so most people will requeen the hive in two or less years. A queen is groomed so it is unlikely that a colony will let mites feed off their queen. If you let a treated hive requeen itself (and it can) the offspring is coming from a weakened queen. Not that great an idea IMO. We have learned through the years that there are certain things that a pregnant mother should not do like smoke and drink. Although it may not show any health risks to the mother in the short run. Her offspring can have many immediate health risks associated with the behavior.

I think treatments in general give an immediate positive outcome on the present generation at the expense of future generations.


----------



## Arnie

Oh, now I see where you are going with that. I will find out next spring when we raise some queens from the best ones we have. We already have a daughter who is having great success, but I'll see how she winters over and go from there.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> The assumption is that treatment free beekeepers are maintaining 'mite bombs' that negatively impact the 'responsible' beekeepers by robbing/drift....act as a reservoir for mites that re-infest the hives of those who have recently and responsibly treated their bees.


I'm not saying that every TF colony is a mite bomb, but I can tell you, from experience, that it can be a problem.

NY State samples all my NY apiaries. That's something like 25 apiaries spread out across the eastern half of Clinton County. They sample for varroa, nosema, AFB, and whatever. In 2011 or 12, my mite count in July was 0-2...across my NY operation. In Beekmntown, a new beekeeper...attempting to be TF....set up a home apiary between 2 of my apiaries that were two miles apart. These two apiaries rolled 13 and 15 for mite counts. They wintered poorly due to varroa/virus. 

I don't know about your bees Dean. Yours or any other TF beekeeper's bees. You may be maintaining honey bee colonies, TF, that have low mite loads and don't crash in the Fall. But I would say with confidence that if you are allowing your colonies to perish with high mite loads, your are polluting the neighborhood with varroa mites. Fact of Life.


----------



## Michael Palmer

jwcarlson said:


> Most research indicates queens being replaced every 6-8 months.
> 
> What did they teach you in "bee school"?


I go to bee school every day, and I haven't learned that about my queens. 2-3 years is more like it.


----------



## jwcarlson

Acebird said:


> If you let a treated hive requeen itself (and it can) the offspring is coming from a weakened queen. Not that great an idea IMO. We have learned through the years that there are certain things that a pregnant mother should not do like smoke and drink. Although it may not show any health risks to the mother in the short run. Her offspring can have many immediate health risks associated with the behavior.


More implying now that treated colonies for some reason cannot raise queens? And it isn't the same as a mom smoking and drinking. The queen in any colony is being fed food from virus infected bees. The beekeeper chooses how sick those bees are by a varroa control method. Your control method of kicking the box at Thanksgiving and putting 2" of foam on top means your queens are likely replaced annually at least once possibly twice. You may know that if you cared to take a peak at your bees. 



Michael Palmer said:


> I go to bee school every day, and I haven't learned that about my queens. 2-3 years is more like it.


Exactly, you're taking care of yours and the mites with them. Ace was implying (regardless of him lying about it afterward) that a treated queen doesn't survive but a treatment free queen does. When the evidence is the opposite. As a 0-3 TF bee hive haver Ace is the utmost authority when comparing them to his zero treated colonies to form his opinion. 

And now he is implying that a treated colony cannot requeen itself... Which he will deny doing just like he always does... And in the meantime pretend splitting a colony isn't requeening.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Well, I've seen an operation that both tolerates AFB (at or below 1%/year as best I can tell...I haven't seen every hive every year, but I did see all a few times over 6 or so years), and moves equipment (including broodcomb) from yard to yard.


About that, my understanding is that if the comb has less than some number of infected cells, from memory 4 or 6, she will re-use the comb. But what happens to combs with bigger infections than that? Burned? Melted down? What does she do?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

jwcarlson said:


> Most research indicates queens being replaced every 6-8 months.
> 
> What did they teach you in "bee school"?


I agree many commercial queens don't last very long. In my experience 8 months is pushing it for many of the commercial Italians I have purchased. I think it comes from a combo. (like most things in beekeeping)

Queens that are borderline inbred on the queen side and the drone side. Drones that could be shooting blanks. Queens that are not allowed to lay for weeks before they are removed and shipped. Which could mean Low pheromone production equaling early supersedures. 

We don't even graft from a queen that is not atleast into her 2nd or 3rd season.


----------



## Oldtimer

Why not?


----------



## Slow Drone

Oldtimer said:


> Why not?


I want to hear why also OT:scratch:


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

typo


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh OK I see the correction.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> We don't even graft from a queen that is not atleast into her 2nd or 3rd season.


Nor would I. I want good records on my breeder queens, at least 3 seasons...2 years.


----------



## Oldtimer

Just for context the question I asked was to a statement that was later edited and the meaning changed. Most would consider breeding from a queen aged at least one full season to be normal practise.


----------



## Acebird

The real question is how do you know what you are getting? There are no pedigree papers with your purchases and no system of control.


----------



## Slow Drone

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> typo


Understood thanks.


----------



## jwcarlson

Acebird said:


> The real question is how do you know what you are getting?


With your eyes, hive scale, and mite counts?

How do you know what you're getting, Ace?


----------



## Acebird

jwcarlson said:


> With your eyes, hive scale, and mite counts?


You mean you don't have to carve the things up and then buy another one hoping it will be the same?

Shees, after I spent all that time sharpening up the Ginsu.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Well there are important tests that only the guruest....(that's a word right?) beekeepers use to gauge their queens.

1. The HAWT queen test: beekeep in your boxers
2. The disease test: where the smeller is the failure
3. The honey production test: when your chiropractor makes bank.
4. The hygienic test: yup this one has less mites.... Nuke it anyways.

This method, known as the Kentucky method has proven true time and time again for breeding the finest queens.


----------



## jwcarlson

Acebird said:


> You mean you don't have to carve the things up and then buy another one hoping it will be the same?
> 
> Shees, after I spent all that time sharpening up the Ginsu.


What are you talking about...?


----------



## Oldtimer

The problem in these mite bomb discussions is that folks divide into groups then throw mud at each other.

As an ex commercial beekeeper I know that if my hives swarmed, and the swarm established successfully, then at a later date it would die of mites and therefore become a "mite bomb".

So I'm not sure about some of the math that has been thrown around such as 170,000 mite bombs created annually, or whatever. But in any case the principle is correct, commercial beekeepers create a lot of mite bombs. 

Hobbyists who treat their bees also create mite bombs when their hives swarm if their bees are a line that will succumb to mites if not treated.

Treatment free beekeepers also create mite bombs when their hives swarm because the last survey found that loss rate for treatment free hives averages close to 50% annually, or in other words the average lifespan of a treatment free hive is around 2 years. Since the difference with TF hives is they are not treated for mites we can assume this short life span is down to mites, therefore when these hives swarm, the swarm will become a mite bomb in an average of 2 years. (Average of course, means some go faster than that and some go slower). 

So I am going to hypothesise that the mud slinging that goes on between the various factions is a waste of ink. All factions be it commercial beekeepers, hobbyists, TF people, are guilty as charged.

I do understand the frustration of someone trying to run bees while he has a close neighbor with bees collapsing of mites, but the neighbor not only allows it but keeps making more hives to replace them and keep the infestation ongoing, always having some collapsing hives, every season. But apart from these extreme type situations, all of us contribute in some way to creating mite bombs, none can point the finger.

My 2 cents


----------



## Acebird

OT you should have been a politician and made big bucks. Wow, Barry did a whole lot of hacking and I wasn't a part of it.

Seriously though OT, if you get a lot of colds and I am next to you would I get your cold? In all seriousness the thing that makes people vulnerable is the mindset that you can sterilize your environment and remain healthy. I am familiar with the need to sterilize an operation room procedure to insure someone undergoing surgery limits their exposure to a staff infection. But when you carry that concept to everyday life you create a much greater risk of infection. The worse thing ever conceived is antibacterial washes.
The only reason that a mite bomb is of any concern is because commercial beekeepers and other beekeepers that they have convinced have a sterile mindset instead of concentrating on building immunity to the parasite. If your hives had immunity to the parasite would you be concerned? Work on that.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sure, but there is still a lot not known about how to keep bees treatment free. The few who do get good results mostly don't know why, and cannot transfer their bees or their methods successfully to a different place or beekeeper. Like Solomon Parker said, Colorado killed his bees.

And then there is just a lot of misguided lack of knowledge. This, taken from Solomons TF website today, shmuck blogger don't even know what a bee looks like so how valuable are the rest of his opinions?


----------



## deknow

As far as I know, this thread (and maybe some mention I made at an earlier date) is the first place this issue has been even considered here on beesource...and I don't think it has come up on the other forums and lists either.

The accusation towards TF beekeepers wrt mite bombs is near universal.

I've just reread my original post in this thread. Mud slinging was never the point (although it was a reaction to mud slinging that motivated my to think it out and do the numbers).

I presented rough (but close) numbers so that it wouldn't be mud slinging...and if my numbers or assumptions were wrong, or disputed we could address things on that level rather than mud slinging.

The question is one of impact..and I don't know how to evaluate that without some numbers.

If the concern is TF beekeepers in the area, or if the concern is one or two 'bombs' within the apiary.....it seems to me that the probability of 1 or more 'feral' hives in close proximity to a commercial yard is very, very high....and that if the models are looking to qualify and/or quantify the impact of 1 or 2 'bomb' hives _in_ the apiary, then one would have to account for the impact of 1 to many unmanaged colonies _very near_ the apiary.

If you don't do that, then the actual impact of the unmanaged colonies gets ascribed to the colonies with the highest mite loads in the apiary, and any non treating neighbors.

Many people talk about mite bombs, some even build models. I've never heard anyone talk about the impact of the 'commercial swarms'. I'm not sure how I could have approached it without being accused of mud slinging.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well it's still blame game, isn't it.

Saying TF beekeepers only have 2 mite bombs, while commercial beekeepers make many. 

Commercial beekeepers probably make thousands, cos they have thousands of hives. What's your answer, what do you propose doing about that? You like saying - I'm not slinging mud or laying blame or anything, but it's your fault.

My previous post could be interpreted that if someone feels it essential to lay blame, we all have a proportionate hand in it.


----------



## Acebird

Blame is the wrong term. Adopting practices because they show an immediate positive result is hardly blame. Understanding and accepting the long term result is hard to deal with when the short term result was so positive.


----------



## gnor

I suppose feral colonies are a significant reservoir of mites, and it doesn't really matter how they got there. If they don't come from domestic swarms, the feral colonies will swarm enough to fill the void.
Mites are everywhere. All we can control is what happens in our own apiary. 
However we decide to keep bees, a mite monitoring program should not be optional.
For those that have managed to be treatment free, that's great, but for most of us, it makes economic sense not to allow a valuable colony to die because we are hung on a principle. That said, I think the TF beeks are the pioneers in the way the industry will go, and someday we will all have bees that can manage Varroa mostly by themselves.


----------



## lharder

Oldtimer said:


> Well it's still blame game, isn't it.
> 
> Saying TF beekeepers only have 2 mite bombs, while commercial beekeepers make many.
> 
> Commercial beekeepers probably make thousands, cos they have thousands of hives. What's your answer, what do you propose doing about that? You like saying - I'm not slinging mud or laying blame or anything, but it's your fault.
> 
> My previous post could be interpreted that if someone feels it essential to lay blame, we all have a proportionate hand in it.


Isn't that the same as saying that the group that practices "safe" sex is equally responsible for sexual disease as the group that doesn't? If we follow the science we know that isn't true. With beekeeping there are practices that introduce new pests and disease to a system, make disease/parasite dynamics worse than they should be, and diminish genetic diversity that is the bedrock of resilience, eliminate selection for more adapted stocks on a continent wide basis, and disrupt whatever adaptation is taking place by moving unselected genetics everywhere. 

There may be a scientific argument about the effect of collapsed hives on near neighbors. Enough of one that I am looking at adopting some measures to reduce hive to hive mite transfer. But the interesting science and long term solutions is weighted heavily on the tf side of argument, if other ecological factors are also considered.


----------



## johno

When I look at successful beekeeping money talks and BS walks. When I need technical or financial advice I don't go looking for a homeless guy to help, I look for someone who is successful in the area I am looking at. This is the same with beekeeping, I will try to emulate the practices of beekeepers who make a living from the products of their hives, those that keep their apiaries alive year after year, those who have actually made a living from bees not just talking about them hence when you want sensible answers I would be better to ask the organ grinder than his monkey. As far as I am concerned that just about covers this thread .
Johno


----------



## FlowerPlanter

"I suppose feral colonies are a significant reservoir of mites"

True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites.


----------



## beemandan

FlowerPlanter said:


> True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites.


Is this opinion stated as though it were an irrefutable fact or do you have some empirical evidence?


----------



## clyderoad

FlowerPlanter said:


> True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites.


Is that a fact?


----------



## Harley Craig

True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites.[/QUOTE said:


> what did I just read? What is a " true feral colony" ? If a commercial hive swarms and lives in a tree, is it not now " Truly Feral" You appear to be mixing " survivor feral stock " with feral stock. Besides, even survivor stock will crash from mites from time to time but the good ones it takes 4-6 yrs as apposed to 4-6 months seen in some untreated commercial stock.


----------



## gnor

FlowerPlanter said:


> "I suppose feral colonies are a significant reservoir of mites"
> 
> True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites.


The entire paper (beesource.com) http://is.gd/yqQRu1



> By their extermination of feral honey bee colonies that had existed previously, perhaps for many years, the tracheal and Varroa mite invasions eliminated a primary pollination source for most urban gardeners and other growers – who suddenly lost virtually all pollination services taken for granted earlier. However, cavities in which those “wild” bees formerly resided can repeatedly become filled with swarms from nearby managed colonies, feral colonies that will weaken and die with time from their combined parasite load. Robbin Thorp, a California bee researcher, refers to this rather rapid reoccupation of cavities and subsequent death as “annualization” of feral populations.


----------



## deknow

This particular phrase jumps out at me:


> urban gardeners and other growers – who suddenly lost virtually all pollination services taken for granted earlier.


...that really (strongly) implies something of which I'm not aware, which is the loss of production of 'urban crops' in the 80's.


----------



## gnor

deknow said:


> This particular phrase jumps out at me:
> 
> ...that really (strongly) implies something of which I'm not aware, which is the loss of production of 'urban crops' in the 80's.


Seems to me that when Varroa hit, both feral and domestic colonies took a hit. Everybody lost production, urban and rural.


----------



## deknow

> Well it's still blame game, isn't it.


Well, I suppose it becomes one if I keep getting blamed for 'slinging mud' or 'playing a blame game'.

If there is a serious issue with 1 or 2 untreated colonies around other apiaries (this is what we are told), then it seems like in order to properly evaluate and address the problem, one has to explore what the causes of the issue (untreated colonies) are, and evaluate what the contributing factors are and how they relate.

Again, what we are told is that the issue is 1 or 2 untreated colonies in the vicinity of other beekeepers (large or small) who are being 'responsible' and treating.

...but when beekeepers find a bee tree, they generally try to grab swarms off of it, or capture the entire thing..rather than doing the easy thing to reduce the impact of a 'mite bomb', which is to destroy it. None of the 'experts' seem to be telling us we should do otherwise...I've never seen advice from a beekeeper that bee trees should be eliminated because of their potential to spread mites (well, NZ did try to do this some years ago...poison all feral bees to try and elimiate the varroa...thankfully the maker of the pesticide wouldn't sell it for this purpose, and the project was scrapped...OT, do beekeepers in NZ wish this had gone forward?).

...and following that, any largish commercial yard (stationary or migratory) is likely to cast off a swarm or an abscond from time to time, and by definition, these are likely nesting in the vicinity of the commercial yard.

Again, the issue as presented is the presence of 1 or 2 untreated hives in the vicinity. Either it is true and eliminating all beekeepers who don't treat won't have an impact on the problem, or it isn't quite true and it is an excuse to villify the 'them'.

If this were really a serious concern, I would expect that those making spreadsheet models would be factoring the commercial swarms into the models (I haven't seen that), I would expect those trying to figure out how to solve the problem propose things like more extreme swarm prevention measures (clipped queens? magnets on queens?), and perhaps the rise of the professional bee liner (equiped with GPS, LYDAR, and RFID) who travels from yard to yard and eliminates all the stray colonies that are dragging these commercial yards down.

I just don't see a genuine interest in the problem.


----------



## deknow

gnor said:


> Seems to me that when Varroa hit, both feral and domestic colonies took a hit. Everybody lost production, urban and rural.


...but honeybees have the most impact on moncrop and monocropish environments (lots to be pollinated at one time, nothing blooming the rest of the time to support pollinators).
Urban envrionments are very diverse, and there is very little that is 'high density pollination' that needs to help. were people in cities complaining that their apple trees weren't producing?


----------



## Fusion_power

> ...that really (strongly) implies something of which I'm not aware, which is the loss of production of 'urban crops' in the 80's.


Change that to the late 80's and early 90's and it will be accurate. We were hit hard with tracheal mites between 1986 and 1989. I lost all of my bees in 1988. There was a measurable difference in fruit set in orchards throughout the area I lived at the time. I replaced my bees by buying some bees from a "leave em alone" beekeeper who had bees in boxes with no frames. His bees were thriving because they had enough genetic diversity to get over tracheal mites. I bought 10 hives from him, moved them to my equipment, requeened with Buckfast queens, and produced the best crop of honey ever in 1991. Varroa first showed up in the U.S. in 1990 and I again lost every colony I had in 1993/1994. I was able to re-establish from a single colony that survived, purchased some queens, made splits, and in a couple of years was back up to 20 or so colonies. I treated regularly with Apistan to keep the mites under control. Fast forward to 2004 and I caught a swarm and realized that they were the first mite tolerant bees I had seen. I then used that colony as the starting point to convert entirely to mite tolerant genetics. I have not treated for mites in any way at all since the fall of 2004. Between 1993 and 2004, native pollinators increased in importance filling the role honeybees had filled in the past. Now that feral colonies are increasing, I am seeing fewer native pollinators with the exception of various mason bee species. Mason bees are thriving here, regularly pollinating my tomatoes, beans, and squash.


----------



## deknow

At least around here, orchards aren't located in urban areas.


----------



## Fusion_power

The word "urban" is a bit ambiguous in that it refers to a "city or town" but does not specify details. If you are referring to concrete jungles, I would agree. Here in the SouthEast, cities tend to incorporate significant green space and suburban areas have plenty of people with gardens and fruit trees in the back yard. Since I grew up in a very rural area, I tend to think of "urban" as anything associated with a city including the suburbs. You can call me a country hick, just don't call me a *******!


----------



## FlowerPlanter

True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150806/ncomms8991/full/ncomms8991.html#ref-link-37

"Several recent studies have identified quantitative trait loci (QTLs) in bees for a wild population that *evolved resistance*31, or from bees that exhibited behavioural traits that *suppress Varroa*32, 33,"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402190/

"few subpopulations in Europe have survived mite infestation for extended periods of over *10 years without management *by beekeepers and offer the possibility to study their natural *host–parasite coevolution*."
"in fact *evolved resistant traits *that reduce the fitness of the mite (measured as the reproductive success), thereby *reducing the parasitic load *within the colony to evade the development of overt viral infections."

The traits that are successful and traits that Randy Oliver talks about all boils down to reduction of mites;

R Oliver;
*Mite “resistance”* implies active fighting of the mite

Feral bees have resistant to varroa; 

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/wha...fference-between-domesticated-and-feral-bees/

M Bush has said several times his winter losses are low and not due to mites, they die from other reason starvation, split winter clusters...

Here's an old post by MB;
"but there were always still some mites. Two or three in a 24 hour drop for several years. This last year (2007) was the first time I actually couldn't find any mites."

T Seeley;

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-honeybee-colonies-deadly-mites.html

"existing population had undergone strong natural selection and *came out with good resistance*."

"genetics study of wild honeybees offers clues to how a population has *adapted *to a mite that has devastated bee colonies worldwide."

"impacted by the introduction of Varroa destructor, and how, if left alone, they can *evolve resistance *to this deadly parasite," said Thomas Seeley" 

R Oliver:
Is There A Difference Between Domesticated And Feral Bees?
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/wha...fference-between-domesticated-and-feral-bees/



The only "Mite Bombs" come from the domesticated bee either a hive, swarms or drones. Not from the feral population.


----------



## deknow

It really only matters how it was used in the paper...which is unclear (and unclear what data it would be based on).

My general understanding is that 'sub-urban' is something different than 'urban', not a type of urban.


----------



## beemandan

FlowerPlanter said:


> True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites


Totally ridiculous. Nothing in any of that states anything close to your original quote. 
I take that to mean that your comment was only ...your opinion stated as though it were irrefutable fact.


----------



## clyderoad

deknow said:


> This particular phrase jumps out at me:
> 
> ...that really (strongly) implies something of which I'm not aware, which is the loss of production of 'urban crops' in the 80's.


of all the possible discussion points in that paper this is what you choose to discuss? why?


----------



## deknow

...primarily because it was the first thing quoted, and it doesn't ring true to me.


----------



## clyderoad

beemandan said:


> Totally ridiculous.......your opinion stated as though it were irrefutable fact.


This occurs more and more lately. It's diluting the usefulness of BeeSource.


----------



## crofter

You often see material linked to, that is supposedly adding legitimacy to a post, yet if you examine the link, it comes to no such conclusion. It makes you wonder seriously about the posters objectivity. This certainly presents a challenge for newcomers trying to find a path through the swamp of information!


----------



## Harley Craig

crofter said:


> You often see material linked to, that is supposedly adding legitimacy to a post, yet if you examine the link, it comes to no such conclusion. It makes you wonder seriously about the posters objectivity. This certainly presents a challenge for newcomers trying to find a path through the swamp of information!


This is life isnt it? Whether talking with folks online or in person you gotta weed through and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions


----------



## Acebird

clyderoad said:


> It's diluting the usefulness of BeeSource.


I am enjoying these discussions. I don't think BeeSource will ever wear out its usefulness no matter how it gets diluted.


----------



## clyderoad

Most people that visit here enjoy the discussions- that's one of the reasons they visit.
When those visits are for the sake of learning the accuracy of the information posted directly relates to the quality of the learning experience.
That's all. I'm sure you can identify with this.


----------



## deknow

....I didn't look at this particular claim closely enough to have an opinion....but anyone that actually posts links to their source should be commended for doing so.....it makes it much much easier for everyone.


----------



## Arnie

This thread just keeps on going. 
Can we recap?

#1. Mites are here to stay. It's incumbent on us to deal with them while simultaneously working to develop resistant bees. It's not either/or.
#2. Mites are mobile, being able to hitch a ride on a bee.
#3. Some beekeepers, the old hippy Birkenstock types in my area for example, do not treat and routinely kill their bees. Some say this causes THEIR bees to pick up unwanted passengers.
Looks like we are back to #1 again.

There really isn't a lot to say. Guys like squarepeg, Harley Craig, Big G, and others are leading the way in developing resistant bees (At least I hope so). In the meantime the rest of us plod on dealing with the hand we have been dealt. 

We tried TF and it was a disaster for us. But we recently found a couple guys in our area who say they are working with survivor queens. We'll see.

All the studies are great, but at the end of the day we need to take care of our own bees, and if we are in a position to do so, work to get some tough mite-killing bees going.


----------



## Arnie

Double post.


----------



## gnor

First, let's get definitions straight. There is no difference between domestic and feral bees. Domestic bees live in boxes built by humans, but once they swarm and establish themselves in an unmanaged location, they are feral bees. Most of them will die because they aren't mite resistant. I still maintain that the feral bee population, in spite of some colonies developing resistance, is still a significant source of Varroa, and as they weaken and die, Varroa spreads back into the domestic population through robbing and drifting. As long as bees swarm, the feral populations will carry Varroa.
As I said, mites are everywhere, and until we develop enough resistant bees to alter the entire population, we are all responsible for our own bees.


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> anyone that actually posts links to their source should be commended for doing so


Assuming that the links somehow actually support their comments. If they post links in an attempt to lend false credibility to their opinions....not so.


----------



## Acebird

gnor said:


> and until we develop enough resistant bees to alter the entire population,


That is the way you see it happening? We (human beings) will develop a resistant bee and that will fix the entire bee population. I don't ever expect that to happen.


----------



## gnor

Acebird said:


> That is the way you see it happening? We (human beings) will develop a resistant bee and that will fix the entire bee population. I don't ever expect that to happen.


What do you expect to happen, Brian?


----------



## Acebird

gnor said:


> What do you expect to happen, Brian?


Hmm, where is my crystal ball? I will give it a shot. I expect that there will be new chemical bombs being developed while the old ones begin to fail for the commercial beekeeping industry. Developments will always be a little bit late because that is when the cure draws the most money. It will continue to get more and more expensive so there will be less and less small commercial operations leaving only the large and very large operations in existence. I think there will be a few side liners and hobbyist that follow both avenues like there are today (treaters and non treaters). The blame game will continue to the end of the earth.


----------



## Harley Craig

Arnie said:


> There really isn't a lot to say. Guys like squarepeg, Harley Craig, Big G, and others are leading the way in developing resistant bees (At least I hope so). In the meantime the rest of us plod on dealing with the hand we have been dealt.
> 
> We tried TF and it was a disaster for us. But we recently found a couple guys in our area who say they are working with survivor queens. We'll see.
> 
> All the studies are great, but at the end of the day we need to take care of our own bees, and if we are in a position to do so, work to get some tough mite-killing bees going.



I appreciate the warm sentiment, but I'm no where near in the class of Squarepeg and others. I'm just following a model laid out before me by others in my area and still trying to fine tune what does and doesn't work for me. The only thing I have going for me is we do have good feral stock, I know of at least one colony that I have personally confirmed is going through it's 4 th winter, and another that I know of which is going through it's 5th. 2 of those winters we had the biggest die offs in decades in managed colonies due to the long extended extreme winter. Those who have blazed a trail before me here, have colonies that are avg 4-6 yrs old before they have to split them up to re-set them. I don't believe it will ever be like it was in the good ol days where you put bees in a box and as long as they didn't get some nasty infection from you bringing in tainted comb or feed them tainted honey they would live almost indefinitely. I do think we can get to a point of sustainability and can keep them thriving long enough to produce a crop for a handful of yrs before having to re set or replace them


----------



## gnor

Acebird said:


> Hmm, where is my crystal ball? I will give it a shot. I expect that there will be new chemical bombs being developed while the old ones begin to fail for the commercial beekeeping industry. Developments will always be a little bit late because that is when the cure draws the most money. It will continue to get more and more expensive so there will be less and less small commercial operations leaving only the large and very large operations in existence. I think there will be a few side liners and hobbyist that follow both avenues like there are today (treaters and non treaters). The blame game will continue to the end of the earth.


Sadly, I agree that's one scenario.
Me, I would like to get Varroa dealt with before the next disaster hits.
There are some good breeding programs run by universities and commercial beeks that show promise.
I think IPM strategies are gaining ground, along with effective non-medicated treatments. 
In spite of current miticide methods, resistance should spread, even if commercial beeks keep treating. Just more slowly.


----------



## deknow

My prediction....from the forst page of this discussion.



deknow said:


> ..my expectation is that when we next hear of Beeologics and dsRNAi for honeybees, it will be in the form of a rapidly produced formulation based on sampling the bees in Almonds. It would be a near ideal proof of concept/research goal for broader (beyond bees, beyond agriculture) uses...but the quick and inexpensive turn around is likely where the R&D $$ is being spent, and the Beeologics past work (as well as other Monsanto hires...like Jerry Hayes) makes it likely bees will be the proof of concept.
> 
> Could you imagine a 'flu vaccine' for the bees...taylord to whatever is found in the almonds...from Varroa to AFB to DWV? The implications (in the relationship between agriculture and the environment) are staggering.


----------



## gnor

Harley Craig said:


> The only thing I have going for me is we do have good feral stock


That may be key, Harley. Could that be the reason some TF operations succeed, and others don't? It could be that there are pools of resistant feral bees across the country, but they don't exist everywhere.


----------



## jim lyon

My crystal ball isn't as optimistic as it was a few years ago. I see some progress on the breeding front and that is certainly a key component in the fight against the varroa/virus monster but I fear the most mite tolerant bees won't be the type of bee that can survive in the world of commercial migratory beekeeping (I hope I'm proven wrong on this). So you're still left with what do you treat em with. OA vaporization is the latest greatest thing and it certainly beats the heck out of some of the earlier "group think" ideas that have emerged from the commercial beekeeping world but, personally, I think that whatever you are using needs to be incorporated with better management practices such as brood breaks and supplemental nutrition when needed. Even though the beekeeping trend has been toward fewer and bigger operations I'm not at all convinced that bigger is necessarily better in the commercial world. Bees need to be effectively managed and the larger your operation grows the more difficult that becomes. You can have all the new trucks and forklifts in the world but if you don't have people that can look at a hive of bees and know what they are looking at your business is in trouble.


----------



## Harley Craig

gnor said:


> That may be key, Harley. Could that be the reason some TF operations succeed, and others don't? It could be that there are pools of resistant feral bees across the country, but they don't exist everywhere.



it could be.... who knows...... it could be just the fact that we are in the middle of corn everywhere with no real reason for any type of large commercial operations the biggest operation I've heard of near me is only 30 hives.... so I don't think we have a lot of new genetics/ viruses coming in so that we have had a chance to find equilibrium


----------



## deknow

Jim..thanks for your thoughtful contribition.

Industry is never static for long....and the 'low on the social ladder' rag men, scrap dealers, garbage men of yesteryear are today's innovative recyclers, repurposers, environmentally positive composting operations, etc. 

The price of copper changes, and things turn from people tossing old pipes and wiring to people breaking into homes just to steal the copper wiring.

I'm not sure what commercial beekeeping of tomorrow will look like, but I don't think it will look like today's industry...the forces at work (economic, environmental, agriculteral, etc) will force some kind of change. After all, look at the changes in the last 50 years (I think 50 years ago Powers had only recently started his almond migratory model?).


----------



## Kuro

A newbie hobbyist following the thread with interest. I live in a residential area with lots of trees and creeks, and I do not think there is any large commercial operations within a few miles. It seems to me that one way to be environmentally friendly is to buy varroa resistant queens to replace my package queens. That way my hives can release genetically superior drones and queens (if swarm control fails) to the environment but I would still treat if necessary. Mite-resistant traits will not be selected if I treat, but I can buy new queens from a local, successful treatment free apiary every other year instead of raising my own. Does it make sense? With only two hives I do not mind spending extra money on such queens if that helps the local bee environment and support the effort to develop varroa-resistant bees.


----------



## crofter

Your varroa resistant (not varroa proof) queens will pass the same genetics whether you treat them or not so I would not worry about that aspect. If you are actively selecting to breed for resistance in replacement queens, *then* the effects of treatments might mask survival traits you were wishing to select for. The first thing you have to master is successfully keeping bees alive and well before you need worry much about influencing the evolution of resistant bees in the big picture.


----------



## Kuro

Thanks, I might try to requeen one of my two hives if they overwinter. No, I do not think I can do selective breeding with two hives, so I let professionals do it for me . Also I do not really believe my two hives would make much difference in the local environment let alone evolution of resistant bees, but it is somewhat like driving a low-emission vehicle……


----------



## jwcarlson

Kuro said:


> Thanks, I might try to requeen one of my two hives if they overwinter. No, I do not think I can do selective breeding with two hives, so I let professionals do it for me . Also I do not really believe my two hives would make much difference in the local environment let alone evolution of resistant bees, but it is somewhat like driving a low-emission vehicle……


I think you'll do just fine with bees. Lots of the hobby level folks on here would do much better if they had less delusions of grandeur.


----------



## Arnie

jwcarlson said:


> Lots of the hobby level folks on here would do much better if they had less delusions of grandeur.


Awesome! Where's the reputation button?:lookout:


----------



## FlowerPlanter

beemandan said:


> Totally ridiculous. Nothing in any of that states anything close to your original quote.
> I take that to mean that your comment was only ...your opinion stated as though it were irrefutable fact.


Everything about those studies shows fewer mites in feral hives and mite resistance survivors; *"evolved resistance" "suppress Varroa" "host–parasite coevolution" "natural selection and came out with good resistance."....* 

Here's another study that shows both fewer mites and fewer losses. With "host-parasite co-adaptation" And this only after 6 years. One might even say that after 6 years these bees are no longer mite bombs!

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00892212/document

And another;
"The results showed that the overall mite population growth rate was reduced by 82%"

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1051/apido:2007039


I will stand strong with my quote!!! With scientific studies that back it!!!
*"True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites."*


I also believe in "never say never" so I will add that that mites populations can be influenced by the inferior domesticated bee "The Mite Bomb" and the spread of their inferior genes. And this alone may be the sole reason why many can not do TF.



gnor said:


> First, let's get definitions straight. There is no difference between domestic and feral bees.


http://scientificbeekeeping.com/wha...fference-between-domesticated-and-feral-bees/



Kuro said:


> It seems to me that one way to be environmentally friendly is to buy varroa resistant queens to replace my package queens.


This would be better than keeping the inferior queen that comes with the inferior package. But many have said that VSH bees lose there traits after a generation or two, so then they would become mite bombs (their drones and swarms as well) 

I would look for feral survivors in your area. For sale or swam trap them and bee removal call lists. Might also look at beeweaver queens (you will have to check to see if they lose their effectiveness over time).


----------



## beemandan

FlowerPlanter said:


> True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites





FlowerPlanter said:


> fewer mites in feral hives and mite resistance survivors


And you believe that these two quotes say the same thing?


----------



## FlowerPlanter

beemandan said:


> And you believe that these two quotes say the same thing?


When you have a population growth rate reduced by 82% (this after 7 years, the feral bees have been doing it for 20 years). You don't have mite bombs! You don't have a high mite loads! Plus feral bees also show higher resistance to diseases. 

No high mite loads = no hives crashing from mites.

And another;

http://www.beesource.com/resources/...ney-bees-from-locally-adapted-stock-a-recipe/

Carl Hayden Bee Research Center in Tucson;

"*Varroa-tolerant population *was developed in less than 2 years and is now going into its sixth year."
"Our Varroa tolerant population has survived for nearly six years *sustaining a low mean annual infestation level*"
"Varroa-tolerance implies that honey bees and beekeepers can live with a *low level of Varroa infestation*"

And another;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.248/full

"form a complex system of host–parasite interactions. *Coevolution by natural selection *in this system has been hindered for European honey bee hosts since apicultural practices remove the mite and consequently the selective pressures required for such a process."
"*An increasing mite population means increasing transmission opportunities for viruses *that can quickly develop into severe infections, *killing a bee colony*"
"Remarkably, a few subpopulations in Europe have *survived mite infestation *for extended periods of over 10 years"
"thereby *reducing the parasitic load *within the colony to evade the development of overt viral infections. Mite reproductive success was *reduced by about 30%* in both populations."
"A long evolutionary process with natural selective pressures *has shaped this stable host–parasite relationship*."
"these “natural” populations have been *sustainably surviving mite infestation *for extended periods, some over 10 years, without mite control treatments "
"*reduced mite reproductive *success has been observed in this “natural” population"
"the Avignon and Gotland populations have been considered tolerant to V. destructor since mites were still present but the damage of infestation was limited. In other words, *colony mortality did not occur*"
"likely both tolerance and resistance may operate simultaneously to enable the long*-term survival*"

And another;

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-011-0029-5

"the *mite were significantly reduced *in surviving colonies"
"colony-level adaptive traits may limit mite population growth by *reducing mite reproduction opportunities *and also by *suppressing the mite reproductive success*."

And another;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00776.x/full

"we investigate the relationship between the mite load in a colony and the possibility of a virus epidemic occurring within a bee colony."
"APV has only rarely been reported in Varroa-free colonies at levels sufficient to kill a honey bee colony"
"coexistence between mite, virus and bee in the eastern honey bee, has been lost in the western bee host, not simply because of the new transmission route, but also because mite populations in western honey bee colonies has exceeded a critical epidemic threshold. "
"We quantify the critical epidemic mite load for two well-studied bee viruses, acute paralysis virus and deformed wing virus"
"*large mite populations have been responsible for vectoring bee viruses *between honey bees. *The viruses, which previously spread relatively slowly *and caused colony mortality extremely rarely, are now thought to be responsible for the world-wide *death of millions of mite-infested honey bee colonies*."
"mite load that will cause a virus epidemic and colony collapse"
"It has been shown that APV (Ball 1989; Batuev 1979) DWV (Ball 1989; Bowen-Walker, Martin & Gunn 1999) slow paralysis virus (SPV) (Ball 1989) and Kashmir bee virus (KBV) (B. Ball, pers. comm) can all be successfully transmitted between honey bees during mite feeding activities."
"Varroa at a thresholds of between 2000 and 3500 mites. These strategies are based on preventing the mite population in a colony exceeding 2500 during the year (Martin 1998b). Our study shows that the current policy will help control viral diseases in bee colonies (see Table 2 for a summary of the results). Autumn is the time at which the *colony is at greatest risk to viruses *and *maintaining a mite population below 2500 *will prevent APV epidemics and confine DWV to low levels."
"In the *absence of acaricide treatment, the European honey bees’ only defence against virus epidemics would be the evolution*, either by natural selection or artificial breeding, of some form of resistance."



Stand *even stronger *with my quote!!! With *more* scientific studies that back it!!!



*"True feral colonies do not crash from mites. They do not have a significant reservoir of mites."*


----------



## Oldtimer

["Varroa-tolerant population was developed in less than 2 years and is now going into its sixth year."]

IMO this was so quick and involved so few generations that it's probable the varroa tolerant bees already existed in the population rather than being "developed", and what happened was a winnowing out of the less resistant hives. 

Something else to consider with feral bees is they are more widely separated from each other than most kept hives, and are not subjected to many of the other abuses that kept bees, particularly migratory commercial bees, are subjected to.

However we repeatedly hear of TF people losing hives to mites that came from commercial sources, but having success with captured ferals, so there is very strong anecdotal evidence for more resistant ferals, and the idea that bees that have had to fend for themselves for a number of generations would have lost the more susceptible of their numbers would seem reasonable.

There still quite a bit of mystery about the whole thing. For example survivor bees from the Arnot forest were taken and put into regular kept hives, and died of mites. And S. Parker subjected his bees to hard bond for 10 years and achieved a bee that at the time he claimed "just won't die". But after he moved them just 2 times in 2 years, most of them died.


----------



## Harley Craig

Oldtimer said:


> There still quite a bit of mystery about the whole thing. For example survivor bees from the Arnot forest were taken and put into regular kept hives, and died of mites. And S. Parker subjected his bees to hard bond for 10 years and achieved a bee that at the time he claimed "just won't die". But after he moved them just 2 times in 2 years, most of them died.



How far were the Arnot bees moved? I know Sol moved his quite the distance and totally different climates so it makes sense that bees highly adapted to a particular area wouldn't thrive well and be stressed out in an environment that is totally different than what they adapted two. I mean, nobody expects Africanized bees to survive in Alaska do they? Also I believe that he lost several to hightower hives being blown over in the wind due to beekeeper error so in his case it's not just a case of the bees failing to survive, part of that was him failing his bees.


----------



## Oldtimer

Agreed, I haven't been able to get the full picture on exactly what happened to his bees, although it does appear that a general lack of care, or at least provision for the new environment was a part of it, however there has been a lot more bees die than just the ones that got blown over. Deaths seem to be ongoing from the time he first moved.

There is a sort of catch 22 with this, Solomon's hard bond has not just been hard, it has been brutal, I used to cringe when reading him. But to him, it worked, he felt. But he took the same leave it alone beekeeping style (if they can't "deal with it" let them die) to a new environment where they did die. Probably to no advantage to the breed or to Solomon, as he has had to make 25 swarm traps to try to get his apiary going again, rather than breed up again from his existing survivors. So to me that illustrates that a modicum of care, or dare I say, nurturing, could be an advantage even in a hard core breeding program.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

If my memory is correct Solomon lost a number of colonies the winter before he moved. He blamed winter condition and another beekeeper's treated bees, yet, here in a comparable location, treatment free beekeeper's losses were very light to none.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes the first 7 hives lost were right before he moved. So it's possible the whole thing is just an example of the cyclical nature of good times followed by crash, that can happen. 

Also he didn't move African bees to Alaska, he moved average mutts to Colorado LOL. But wasn't wanting to make this especially about Solomon other than his experience was an example of what the previous post had talked about.


----------



## crofter

If you had to borrow money to fund the proposition I think you would have to shop around for a banker who was extremely optimistic. Not traveling for pollination seems a basic requirement and without that would be a game killer economically for most all large beekeepers. I guess the hope of payoff would be if a person could develop a truly, day in day out, anywhere, treatment free bee to sell at a premium price. Honey prices seem to be heading down the same route that oil has taken.


----------



## Acebird

Harley Craig said:


> Also I believe that he lost several to hightower hives being blown over in the wind due to beekeeper error so in his case it's not just a case of the bees failing to survive, part of that was him failing his bees.


Back in the day ... Solomon use to bead up on me pretty bad. I pictured him as a young lad full of piss and vinegar ready to take on the world. I am very sorry if he sustained losses and I really mean that. I wish him well and hope that he can recover and keep bees the way he wants to. I have nothing bad to say about him. How many of us would love to go back with the wisdom we have acquired and do it all over but different?


----------



## Harley Craig

Oldtimer said:


> Yes the first 7 hives lost were right before he moved. So it's possible the whole thing is just an example of the cyclical nature of good times followed by crash, that can happen.
> 
> Also he didn't move African bees to Alaska, he moved average mutts to Colorado LOL. But wasn't wanting to make this especially about Solomon other than his experience was an example of what the previous post had talked about.


Ha ha , I was using Africans in Alaska as an extreme example but there is real evidence that taking bees from the warm south and try to overwinter them in the cold is a crap shoot at best even experienced bekkeppers with miticulious treatment strategies have trouble keeping southern bees alive here in IL and Colorado is a lot colder for a lot longer. And I agree about not making it about him, I was just wanting to make clear that in that example you used it wasn't just about about the bees not surviving.


----------



## Oldtimer

:thumbsup:


----------



## Harley Craig

." I guess the hope of payoff would be if a person could develop a truly, day in day out, anywhere, treatment free bee to sell at a premium price.*"...... 

Oh Lord could you imagine? Who cares about honey sales with bees like that you would make a fortune selling bees!


----------



## crofter

Harley Craig said:


> ." I guess the hope of payoff would be if a person could develop a truly, day in day out, anywhere, treatment free bee to sell at a premium price.*"......
> 
> Oh Lord could you imagine? Who cares about honey sales with bees like that you would make a fortune selling bees!


Exactly, and the anticipation of all that _filthy lucre_ is nothing compared to the fame! The Fame! The idea is unresistable; like the big lottery but are the odds much different?


----------



## gnor

crofter said:


> Exactly, and the anticipation of all that _filthy lucre_ is nothing compared to the fame! The Fame! The idea is unresistable; like the big lottery but are the odds much different?


IMHO, the fame would last until the next plague came along. With my luck, it would only be long enough to prove Warhol was right.


----------



## lharder

I want to respond to an earlier comment disparaging "hippie" and other new beekeepers who were adopting tf methods. 

The idea of tf is not that some breeder is going to come up with resistant bees and everything is going to be rosy. Rather we are interested in implementing bottom up approaches that mimic natural processes of adaptation to new challenges. So rather than being the orchestrator of a new bee breeding program, newbies are simply trying to become participant in the natural processes that happen around them. The more people that participate, the more numbers nature has to deal with. So my ignorant neighbor down the street who wants to be tf is desired, not to be disparaged. But maybe some guidance is needed to move them from stock with little chance of success.

This kind of bottom up approach doesn't need "brains" as there is no grand orchestrator in nature that organizes everything just so. It takes numbers, filters them, then builds on survival. It really needs lots of dummies that provide habitat and propagate bees. It doesn't presume a solution. Solutions won't be optimized at the beginning, but eventually expect multiple ones. Our presumptions can get in the way of the process. It also doesn't guarantee success, not right away, not everyone, maybe not for a long time. But resistance cannot be obtained without going through this process.


----------



## clyderoad

lharder said:


> I want to respond ...


Natural processes? with an imported insect, dealing with varroa, in a box, in a apiary and managed by a beekeeper?
Some challenge you've decided to take on.
It appears your idealism is clouding your judgement.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

clyderoad said:


> Natural processes? with an imported insect, dealing with varroa, in a box, in a apiary and managed by a beekeeper?
> Some challenge you've decided to take on.
> It appears your idealism is clouding your judgement.


I believe the key word was "mimic."

John


----------



## crofter

Iharder:
I think the clue to what will be the biggest obstacle to this process is right within your mission statement. "<approaches that mimic natural processes of adaptation to new challenges. So rather than being the orchestrator of a new bee breeding program, newbies are simply trying to become participant in thenatural processes that happen around them>"

The environment the bees are being asked to adapt to is so weirdly different than anything natural. The rate of change was meteoric! Manny, many, of what would be normal coping aids for an organism, have been removed by our actions. Seems like a quantum leap in their defenses would be required; this is not in the category of a simple gradual adaptation to a new ploy by an old competitor.

Is it not fairly apparent that success so far is dependant upon isolation or some anomaly of location? Some of the traits experimented with were dependent upon recessive genes in both male and female lines; that is not something self sustaining "naturally". That is something like what is done to keep 4 separate breeding stocks alive to create the hybrids for some of our wonder meat birds.

It has been said that all is fair in love and war so I guess when troops are being recruited it is Ok to overstate the ease and *certainty* of the mission.


----------



## squarepeg

lharder said:


> My take on it is genetics and hive ecology. If you get a local tf overwintered nuc you get bees that have a history of surviving varroa and your winter. You want those bee genetics. You will also get some mites along for the ride. Those mites didn't kill the nuc and hopefully the queenline it came from. You want those mite genetics. There are viruses that are associated with varroa. Those also didn't kill the nuc, so you want those viral genetics. There are symbionts and hangers on both on the bees and in the comb. They may or may not have a role in hive survival. You want those as well. As the tf nuc wasn't treated, the types of hangers on are likely to be different compare to where a hive was treated. So instead of building the winning formula from untested genetics from scratch, and likely failure, you much more likely to get a head start in the tf game. If you get a package, you may get lucky, but those bees are not selected for survival in your situation.





lharder said:


> The idea of tf is not that some breeder is going to come up with resistant bees and everything is going to be rosy. Rather we are interested in implementing bottom up approaches that mimic natural processes of adaptation to new challenges. So rather than being the orchestrator of a new bee breeding program, newbies are simply trying to become participant in the natural processes that happen around them. The more people that participate, the more numbers nature has to deal with. So my ignorant neighbor down the street who wants to be tf is desired, not to be disparaged. But maybe some guidance is needed to move them from stock with little chance of success.
> 
> This kind of bottom up approach doesn't need "brains" as there is no grand orchestrator in nature that organizes everything just so. It takes numbers, filters them, then builds on survival. It really needs lots of dummies that provide habitat and propagate bees. It doesn't presume a solution. Solutions won't be optimized at the beginning, but eventually expect multiple ones. Our presumptions can get in the way of the process. It also doesn't guarantee success, not right away, not everyone, maybe not for a long time. But resistance cannot be obtained without going through this process.


lharder, i just wanted to say that in my view the content of these last two posts of yours is right on the money and i am in complete agreement with them. with so many variables at play it should surprise no one that tf successes and failures vary tremendously from here to there and so on.

the bottom up approach you describe is what we are trying to accomplish in my neck of the woods and all indications are 'so far so good'. might we be susceptible to some novel pathogen or other pressure that wipes us out in a season as kirk webster has experienced from time to time? perhaps. only time can tell.

in the interim i think we just have to keep plodding along and keep making as much increase as possible all the while increasing the genetic footprint of our survivor stocks. not all on the treatment side of the fence are as derogatory, condescending, and vocal as some are here. to the contrary, most with vested interest are supportive and see the merit in whatever long term progress can be made by our efforts.

as for 'mite bombs', i honestly haven't seen any indication that happening here and i do pay careful attention. i have however always been a proponent of all beekeepers treating or not managing their hives in a responsible way that they don't become a problem for neighboring bees.


----------



## clyderoad

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> I believe the key word was "mimic."
> 
> John


Of course!


----------



## deknow

From KirkWebster.Com


> But the best testimonial to the success of this apiary is probably its continued strength and resilience during the years since 2005, when conditions for bees have been much less favorable, and included the two disastrous seasons of 2011 and 2013---by far the worst I've seen in my whole career. During all this time I still had bees for sale every year and also produced honey crops above the local colony average. Weather, industrial ag, mites, and the beekeeper's efforts to control those mites have conspired together to kill the world's supply of surplus bees and honey. The rising value of these commodities enabled me to make economic progress almost every year, despite the poor beekeeping conditions. At the peak of the beekeeping slump (2011-2013) I moved to a new home base and built two buildings; and yet still emerged with no debts and plenty of bees to fill my locations and to sell. After the chaos, neglect and disruption caused by construction and moving, the apiary is now being run almost exactly the way it was in 1990---with larger winter losses, but with plenty of potential to replace those losses, sell bees and queens, and take advantage of good conditions when they come along.


----------



## squarepeg

i stand corrected, thanks dean.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes. I see Kirk being mentioned from time to time as an example of how TF operations have crashes. 

But in fact although Kirk is a totally different type of guy to me, mostly as a result of his Buddhist beliefs, and some of the things he says make me cringe, he is one of the few TF beekeepers I have read that I would have no problem at all with him working my own bees, I believe he knows his stuff and understands bees.

He is referenced re crashes and other issues merely because he has no issue at all reporting exactly what has happened. Other people you often have to read between the lines or do math. IE, some folks will say they have 30 hives, and later announce they made 15 increase through the season. Come spring they announce they did well and only lost 2 hives over winter. Later they announce they have 32 hives. The math says all is not as they portray. But you don't get anything like that from Kirk.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> From KirkWebster.Com "I moved to a new home base and built two buildings; and yet still emerged with no debts"


Nice when someone gives you the land on which you build your two buildings. It does help one stay out of debt, doesn't it.


----------



## Acebird

Now now Mike concern what God has given you and not what he has given someone else and your anguish will turn to happiness.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Buddy, I was born happy.


----------



## Acebird

Michael Palmer said:


> Buddy, I was born happy.


Well than don't ever change and life will never be a disappointment.


----------



## Arnie

Uh-oh, looks like I should clarify my "Birkenstock hippie" comment.

First off, 'Birkenstock hippie' around here is not a pejorative, it's a descriptive term. They're everywhere and they wear the mantle proudly.

Second, these neighbors of mine do these types of things:
Neighbor #1. Owns 3 hives. Every year he puts packages of bees in the hives and then does nothing to manage them. Predictably, they have died each year. Doesn't bother to feed them when first hived, never checks the queen to see if she was accepted. Nothing. 

Neighbor#2. Caught a couple swarms and put them in home-made TBH. Never really does much with them because he doesn't know what to look for. He thinks he will not have to worry about mites until after year 2 because the mites won't kill his bees for 2 years. 

Neighbor #3. Another TBH. Dumped in a package. Put a "Give Bees a Chance" bumper sticker on the Subaru. Done! Haven't talked to them recently, but I see no activity from the hive on warm days when I walk by the yard. 

I'm sorry, but these are not TF beekeepers. They are not beekeepers at all. 

Unless it's just a pure numbers game, and you think these folks might by dumb luck stumble upon the mite resistant bee, these folks are a disgrace to TF beekeeping. IMO

We all start off in beekeeping ignorant. I get that. But to continue blindly, making no effort to learn or practice good management is unforgivable. 

There are a couple guys I have discovered recently who ARE making an effort to develop resistant bees. But it's tough row to hoe in Colorado. Heavy, heavy losses. Too bad those guys are not my neighbors, we could work together.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

Arnie said:


> I'm sorry, but these are not TF beekeepers. They are not beekeepers at all.
> 
> Unless it's just a pure numbers game, and you think these folks might by dumb luck stumble upon the mite resistant bee, these folks are a disgrace to TF beekeeping. IMO
> 
> We all start off in beekeeping ignorant. I get that. But to continue blindly, making no effort to learn or practice good management is unforgivable.


I would hope that no one here, on either side of this issue, would challenge your opinion on this, Arnie.

John


----------



## squarepeg

my sentiments exactly john, excellent post arnie.


----------



## jim lyon

Love Arnie's post as well. All packages should come with a "save the bees" bumper sticker. It gives you a lot more street cred.


----------



## johno

I would rather "enslave the bees" if they have commercial value I will use whatever method to keep them alive and paying for themselves and some.
Johno


----------



## squarepeg

johno said:


> I would rather "enslave the bees" if they have commercial value I will use whatever method to keep them alive and paying for themselves and some.
> Johno


i'm with ya on exploiting the bees for our benefit johno but not so much on using 'whatever method', (the evils of coumaphous has been mentioned recently in another thread).

this seems applicable:

"Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." genesis 1:28

along with this:

"Animal husbandry, Controlled cultivation, management, and production of domestic animals, including improvement of the qualities considered desirable by humans by means of breeding. Animals are bred and raised for utility (e.g., food, fur), sport, pleasure, and research." from: http://www.britannica.com/science/animal-husbandry

the point i wish to make that we humans (by nature and providence) are in a unique position to exploit the resources of the animal kingdom for our benefit.

my personal view is that we should do so responsibly and be good stewards with what we have at our disposal. given the complexity of the bee, the ecosystem of the hive, interactions with the environment, and thinking about the longer term it makes more sense to me to let nature sort this out as much as possible.

i'm not saying treatments have no place in the overall scheme of things but rather we should treat the bees as any other natural resource. my view is that management methods need to balance our exploitation of the bees with the bolstering of what is good for them as a species, realizing of course that breeding for utility may be at odds with breeding for survival qualities.

for me it's about getting what i want from the resource but leaving in better shape than how i found it.


----------



## Acebird

Arnie said:


> Neighbor#2. Caught a couple swarms and put them in home-made TBH.


Where are the swarms coming from neighbor 1 & 3?


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> All packages should come with a "save the bees" bumper sticker. It gives you a lot more street cred.


Or...one of my personal favorites that says 'give bees a chance'.


----------



## Arnie

Acebird said:


> Where are the swarms coming from neighbor 1 & 3?


Haha, good one. Nah, he said he found them in a park about a quarter mile away. I haven't seen a bee tree there so I don't know if they are feral or from some other person's hives.

I offered to work with #1 to try and help him keep the bees going. He's out of town for large portions of the summer. We'll see how that goes. I cringe when I think of all those dead bees.


----------



## Acebird

Have you seen them? Are they all dying? My feeling is if they are throwing bees in a box and walking away some have to be in the trees. Maybe then they die but that is not a given for sure.


----------



## Arnie

Perhaps, Ace. but why bother tossing them in a box when they'll just end up in the trees anyway; or dead? My point was these people are not beekeepers. Don't get too hung up on whether the bees abscond or die. Either way, the person's objective was not met, and they are doing TF beekeepers no favors.


----------



## Acebird

Arnie said:


> but why bother tossing them in a box when they'll just end up in the trees anyway; or dead?


There is no way I can answer that especially if the person continues to keep doing it. If he stopped after one attempt I might think he found out that it was more then he bargained for.


----------



## Oldtimer

johno said:


> I would rather "enslave the bees" if they have commercial value I will use whatever method to keep them alive and paying for themselves and some.
> Johno


Yes I'm thinking an "Enslave The Bees" bumper sticker would look good on the back of my bee truck, could get a few laughs.

That's till it got photographed and showed up on one of those Vegan internet rants that go viral. Then they'd really have something to be dogfaced and angry about LOL.


----------



## johno

I though these vegan types were always dogfaced and angry, shucks I would be if my wife dished up what they seem to eat all the time. LOL
Johno


----------



## lharder

But would it be a disgrace to provide habitat to feral bees? If it isn't, then how is hipster a disgrace? He is taking bees that if some selection was done, tf or randy oliver style, he would have a reasonable expectation of still having bees in that box through the first winter without intervention. Shouldn't some condemnation be reserved for those who provided those bees in the first place?

If you look at it from a potential genetic contribution point of view to varroa resistance, a failed experiment has no effect on the local genetic makeup. No genetic distortions have occurred (we talk about economic distortions all the time with reference to subsidy which is analogous to propping up with treatment). Take those same bees, prop them up and they are making a genetic contribution when they shouldn't. So how many feral hives suffer out of sight because of these genetic distortions? The hipsters greatest sin is probably bringing in bees from an outside source with the inherent disease risks associated. But other than that his uninformed efforts will result in nothing, the genetic response is indifference. 

But what happens if by blind luck he gets bees that do OK without intervention? Then he is supplying survivor drones the next year, which is a positive genetic contribution. Take 4000 moron beginning beekeepers who do the same thing, and you would probably get a survivor stock out of it. Its not about brains, just numbers. Brains get in the way.


----------



## Arnie

lharder,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We have, as Thomas Sowell would say: A conflict of visions.


----------



## johno

We should really get some of these theories to ARS Baton Rouge I am sure they will help in their maybe 20 year old research to breed mite tolerant bees. After all that time maybe they have been doing it all wrong.
Johno


----------



## Harley Craig

Arnie said:


> My point was these people are not beekeepers. Don't get too hung up on whether the bees abscond or die..



yup bee have'rs and you have nicely pointed out the difference. Well Done.


----------



## Harley Craig

lharder said:


> Shouldn't some condemnation be reserved for those who provided those bees in the first place?
> .


Why would you blame the supplier of a demand? The market Demands bees that swarm less and produce a lot of honey. That is what most commercial breeders provide, it's not like they want to sell you bees that won't survive on their own.... If someone could produce commercial quantities of survivor stock, do you not think that their door would be beaten down?


----------



## lharder

I watched one of Randy Oliver's presentation on his bees. He uses an IPM approach with selection and is making progress based on his histograms of mite counts. Its not tf or not, but applying resources to the problem and having high standards. Its why he spends so much time finding ways of surveying more efficient. I suspect a solid percentage of his bees would survive the first year without intervention and they would probably make some honey. He has a quality program and that's what I'm comparing poor outcomes to.


----------



## lharder

Arnie said:


> lharder,
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We have, as Thomas Sowell would say: A conflict of visions.


I dunno, a vision (I would prefer "world view", or "scientific model" is based on something. Mine is based on population genetics and natural selection, with a touch of complexity theory thrown in for fun, as far as I understand them. I haven't been able to piece together a viewpoint based on scientific principle of those that treat.


----------



## lharder

squarepeg said:


> lharder, i just wanted to say that in my view the content of these last two posts of yours is right on the money and i am in complete agreement with them. with so many variables at play it should surprise no one that tf successes and failures vary tremendously from here to there and so on.
> 
> the bottom up approach you describe is what we are trying to accomplish in my neck of the woods and all indications are 'so far so good'. might we be susceptible to some novel pathogen or other pressure that wipes us out in a season as kirk webster has experienced from time to time? perhaps. only time can tell.
> 
> in the interim i think we just have to keep plodding along and keep making as much increase as possible all the while increasing the genetic footprint of our survivor stocks. not all on the treatment side of the fence are as derogatory, condescending, and vocal as some are here. to the contrary, most with vested interest are supportive and see the merit in whatever long term progress can be made by our efforts.
> 
> as for 'mite bombs', i honestly haven't seen any indication that happening here and i do pay careful attention. i have however always been a proponent of all beekeepers treating or not managing their hives in a responsible way that they don't become a problem for neighboring bees.


Thanks for the kind words. I'm very envious of your situation. Especially having some buddies in your adventure. Broadens the base and spreads the risk, as it should be. Looking forward to hearing about your next year.


----------



## Arnie

lharder said:


> I dunno, a vision (I would prefer "world view", or "scientific model" is based on something. Mine is based on population genetics and natural selection, with a touch of complexity theory thrown in for fun, as far as I understand them. I haven't been able to piece together a viewpoint based on scientific principle of those that treat.


Well then, perhaps you should look up the word 'myopic'.


----------



## Riverderwent

lharder said:


> I dunno, a vision (I would prefer "world view", or "scientific model" is based on something. Mine is based on population genetics and natural selection, with a touch of complexity theory thrown in for fun, as far as I understand them. I haven't been able to piece together a viewpoint based on scientific principle of those that treat.


Our world view begins with the world we view.


----------



## jim lyon

Ah yes, scientific principle, that's all neat and tidy, at least until it translates itself into a big pile of dead hives.


----------



## lharder

jim lyon said:


> Ah yes, scientific principle, that's all neat and tidy, at least until it translates itself into a big pile of dead hives.


We use scientific principle all the time to keep ourselves from getting killed. The beekeeping industry has ignored basic principles of ecology and epidemiology and that has resulted in ongoing importation and spread of new challenges resulting in "a big pile of dead hives". Scientific ignorance has got us where we are. So more is going to be ok?


----------



## jim lyon

lharder said:


> We use scientific principle all the time to keep ourselves from getting killed. The beekeeping industry has ignored basic principles of ecology and epidemiology and that has resulted in ongoing importation and spread of new challenges resulting in "a big pile of dead hives". Scientific ignorance has got us where we are. So more is going to be ok?


So give me an example of how you would have applied these long ignored principles of ecology and epidemiology to a commercial beekeeping operation. If you feel our collective "scientific ignorance" is the problem please give us the blueprint for how to proceed.


----------



## johno

Just go to one of these malaria hot beds in Africa and apply your scientific principles and see how you go.
Johno


----------



## Arnie

Jim,
As far as I can tell, having read some of lharder's posts, his solution is to stop hauling bees all over the place, stop treating, let genetics weed out the weak and prop up the strong. 
This viewpoint sees piles of dead bees as a necessary component of the cure. By importing mites and then treating for them we have created an unsustainable system. So if we let it crash and build it back from the survivors we can stop the madness. And then we can stop importing more problems. 

In theory, that could work. The problem is what to do while all this is going on? Was it foolish to import mites to the USA and Canada? Sure. But that ship has sailed. We move onward. We deal with it. 
Folks like squarepeg are working to develop the super bee. In the meantime life goes on.

I better shut up. I'll be stirring up a hornets nest here.


----------



## beemandan

Arnie said:


> In theory, that could work.


Or not work. What if it failed miserably?
This is the thing about theories.


----------



## Arnie

beemandan said:


> Or not work. What if it failed miserably?
> This is the thing about theories.


Yup


----------



## jim lyon

Arnie said:


> Jim,
> As far as I can tell, having read some of lharder's posts, his solution is to stop hauling bees all over the place, stop treating, let genetics weed out the weak and prop up the strong.
> This viewpoint sees piles of dead bees as a necessary component of the cure. By importing mites and then treating for them we have created an unsustainable system. So if we let it crash and build it back from the survivors we can stop the madness. And then we can stop importing more problems.
> 
> In theory, that could work. The problem is what to do while all this is going on? Was it foolish to import mites to the USA and Canada? Sure. But that ship has sailed. We move onward. We deal with it.
> Folks like squarepeg are working to develop the super bee. In the meantime life goes on.
> 
> I better shut up. I'll be stirring up a hornets nest here.


Yes, well that would not only mean the collapse of most of commercial beekeeping but the almond, apple, cranberry, blueberry, cherry, avocado, cucumber, pumpkin and melon industries as well, along with seed pollination requirements of many others. 
Yes, you are quite right, squarepeg is the type of beekeeper that gives us all hope. Whether his results could be replicated on a large migratory scale is where it gets dicey. 
I take no satisfaction in the problems of others but lets not forget we had a tf mainstay on Beesource who wasnt afraid to tell all of his successes with "bond" beekeeping. After 2 migratory moves in a year (pretty minor compared to what many do) the last of his bees, at last report, were questionable to make it to spring. I've heard the theory many times that if everyone would stop treating for a year or 2 that the strong survivors would make the industry healthier in the long run. Perhaps, but then would the survivors be a bee that can withstand the rigors of migratory beekeeping and would they be plentiful enough and build up in time for the needs of pollination customers. In any case lots and lots of folks would be declaring bankruptcy and looking for jobs.


----------



## Oldtimer

Glad you mentioned that Jim, this is where theory meets reality. Commercial beekeepers must get weary of being told they are "unsustainable", and to "stop the madness", etc etc....

I remember Sol going to the commercial area and arguing with commercial beekeepers, saying he could run their businesses for them better than they could, "just do what I do, times 30", he said. And he seriously offered himself as a manager. 

The request was politely declined, I recall one guy saying as politely as he could, he relied on his bees for a living and liked doing it himself.

The thing about all that was, we are told the commercial beekeepers just need to go TF for some time frame, sometimes numbers are given such as 5 years or whatever, and after that all will be well. It's all so simple.

Sol has disproved this. He did TEN years of hard bond, then after just a few stressors on his bees that are minor compared to what commercial bees do as routine, his operation exterminated itself. Had he been given a job managing someone's business, the results would have been devastating, and I mean it is INEVITABLE he would have wiped out the business. 

The other thing about that event was that at each stage of Sol's bee die offs, he offered excuses. To me, excuses are the signal of a failing beekeeper. Hackenburg has a bunch of them. But for most beekeepers excuses do not pay the bills the beekeepers who do not make excuses are the ones most likely to succeed.


----------



## Oldtimer

And on the subject of excuses there is ALWAYS an excuse. I know this because every time some major thing has gone wrong for me I manage to think of some excuse. It's human nature.

Last year 6 of my hives got AFB. I blamed a beekeeper with a known AFB issue who moved more than 100 hives to 800 yards away from my apiary. A few months later 6 of my hives had AFB.

My excuse of blaming the other guy was likely correct, but the point is that blaming someone else doesn't help me at all. What helped was taking the appropriate action, which in this case was destroying the affected hives, moving the rest and quarantining them, they are still in quarantine and will be for another year. 

It's blaming and excuse making to avoid making any personal changes, that is a dangerous thing.


----------



## lharder

jim lyon said:


> Yes, well that would not only mean the collapse of most of commercial beekeeping but the almond, apple, cranberry, blueberry, cherry, avocado, cucumber, pumpkin and melon industries as well, along with seed pollination requirements of many others.
> Yes, you are quite right, squarepeg is the type of beekeeper that gives us all hope. Whether his results could be replicated on a large migratory scale is where it gets dicey.
> I take no satisfaction in the problems of others but lets not forget we had a tf mainstay on Beesource who wasnt afraid to tell all of his successes with "bond" beekeeping. After 2 migratory moves in a year (pretty minor compared to what many do) the last of his bees, at last report, were questionable to make it to spring. I've heard the theory many times that if everyone would stop treating for a year or 2 that the strong survivors would make the industry healthier in the long run. Perhaps, but then would the survivors be a bee that can withstand the rigors of migratory beekeeping and would they be plentiful enough and build up in time for the needs of pollination customers. In any case lots and lots of folks would be declaring bankruptcy and looking for jobs.


Does there have to be migratory beekeeping? I mean in the large scale moving bees across the continent? If it creates chaos on the disease front, should it be continued? IF, the answer is no then the practice should be discontinued. Does this mean beekeeping would end or that food would stop being produced and people would stop working. I would say no, though how its done would change. Look I'm not advocating a overnight change in the system, but I think a reasonable model based on data could be worked out over time, probably by working at the edges of the system. Meanwhile I suspect restrictions on bee movement will become more rather than less over time. The business model is already under pressure. 

When I did my applied ecology course work we looked at difficult problems in fisheries. The easiest solutions were often smaller boats, different gear types, less concentrated fishing efforts. Just changing the scale of each operation. There may be an optimal range of size for beekeeping as well.


----------



## lharder

Oldtimer said:


> And on the subject of excuses there is ALWAYS an excuse. I know this because every time some major thing has gone wrong for me I manage to think of some excuse. It's human nature.
> 
> Last year 6 of my hives got AFB. I blamed a beekeeper with a known AFB issue who moved more than 100 hives to 800 yards away from my apiary. A few months later 6 of my hives had AFB.
> 
> My excuse of blaming the other guy was likely correct, but the point is that blaming someone else doesn't help me at all. What helped was taking the appropriate action, which in this case was destroying the affected hives, moving the rest and quarantining them, they are still in quarantine and will be for another year.
> 
> It's blaming and excuse making to avoid making any personal changes, that is a dangerous thing.


funny you should mention AFB. When our local education opportunities were announced our last meeting, it was all about mites. I was hoping for more hands on experience with AFB and other brood diseases. That is something I want to stay on top of. Is something getting lost with all the focus on mites?

I think I am in general agreement, if the broadest possible scientific viewpoint is taken. Our collective actions do have an effect that can push the system one way or another. We may suspect somethings, in which case some hard data shoud be gone after to form proper risk assessment models to base policy on. In an ideal world, mistakes should be learned from, but when the same mistakes are made over and over again, then what is to be done?


----------



## Oldtimer

Your solutions would go some way to helping with bee disease issues. 

The downside being bees cannot just be left permanently to pollinate some crops such as almonds, many of these are monocultures unsuitable for permanent hive placement.

The price of honey is down and going lower. Take away pollination income and many of these businesses will be hard placed to survive. Including the bee pollinated crops.


----------



## Oldtimer

lharder said:


> funny you should mention AFB.


Wasn't very funny at the time.

But I know what you mean. 

AFB is a thing that can strike anyone, anytime. All that can be done is remain vigilant, then act quickly if needed. Hopefully many hobbyists will go through their entire life and never see the disease, but don't get complacent.


----------



## ShiftyCrow

Not to complicate the matter further, but if everyone who treated bees simply stopped, wouldn't we end up with hundreds (if not thousands) of mite-bomb colonies? I mean, even survivor stock can't fight a Zerg-rush of varroa. Simply stopping treating could condemn the few bloodlines developing resistance. Treating may not be the end-all, be-all answer, but stopping cold turkey may actually be worse.


----------



## jim lyon

lharder said:


> Does there have to be migratory beekeeping? I mean in the large scale moving bees across the continent? .


In the context of the current pollination demand the answer is yes. In the case of almonds, they grow in an irrigated desert that blooms for about a month a year. Neither the beekeeper or the grower wants them there the other 10 to 11 months. If they didn't starve they would be subjected to numerous spraying events and their very presence would be a nuisance. In apples they often want them removed as soon as the king blooms are pollinated. Each crop has its own requirements and rarely does it work for either party to leave them there on permanent location and in pretty much every case bee placement in and out are contingent on avoiding as much spray as is feasible.


----------



## Acebird

ShiftyCrow said:


> stopping cold turkey may actually be worse.


I don't think stopping cold turkey is a serious solution for the beekeeping industry but limiting the chemical usage to a minimum might be a goal. It doesn't make sense to me to treat every hive whether it needs it or not. This has never proven to be good in the long run.


----------



## johno

I think a bigger threat to survival of our honey bees is the falling price of honey and almonds.
Johno


----------



## Acebird

Common now john do your bees read the wall street journal?


----------



## johno

No my bees don't Brian, but common sense tells me if commercial and sideline beekeepers cannot be profitable what do you think will happen to the USA's hive count.
Johno


----------



## Acebird

John beekeepers produce a non perishable food item they can sit on their inventory until the dollar goes in the dumper. Now if you were growing tomatoes or apples you don't have that luxury.


----------



## jim lyon

There is some truth to this. The downside is honey color does tend to degrade some over time and of course bills must be paid in cash. 700 lb drums of honey aren't a very good barter currency.


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> 700 lb drums of honey aren't a very good barter currency.


Cash flow is a B isn't it? That is why I suspect the industry will go bigger not smaller like agriculture did as a whole. If you had Trumps money would you be worried? You could spout off about the Chinese just to pee them off.


----------



## johno

Ace you live in a dream world, time to get your feet on the ground.
Johno


----------



## lharder

jim lyon said:


> In the context of the current pollination demand the answer is yes. In the case of almonds, they grow in an irrigated desert that blooms for about a month a year. Neither the beekeeper or the grower wants them there the other 10 to 11 months. If they didn't starve they would be subjected to numerous spraying events and their very presence would be a nuisance. In apples they often want them removed as soon as the king blooms are pollinated. Each crop has its own requirements and rarely does it work for either party to leave them there on permanent location and in pretty much every case bee placement in and out are contingent on avoiding as much spray as is feasible.


Yes I know this in the short medium and who knows how much longer term. Who knows water issues may make farming in the desert obsolete with a shift (healthy in my opinion) away from California. I know in BC we are starting to make a push for habitat allowance for native pollinators who are often better anyway. I know that my garden has not needed my honeybees to prosper as I have diverse and interesting mix of natives. Also have some habitat set up for masons and leaf cutters. Organizational structures can look permanent, but if under pressure they can shift over the long term.


----------



## lharder

ShiftyCrow said:


> Not to complicate the matter further, but if everyone who treated bees simply stopped, wouldn't we end up with hundreds (if not thousands) of mite-bomb colonies? I mean, even survivor stock can't fight a Zerg-rush of varroa. Simply stopping treating could condemn the few bloodlines developing resistance. Treating may not be the end-all, be-all answer, but stopping cold turkey may actually be worse.


I would never advocate such a thing myself. I think some sort of stealth and infiltrate using genetic tools and survival to track progress. Transitions in systems can be brutal. Nature doesn't care, but most of us care about the beekeepers.


----------



## JWChesnut

lharder said:


> Yes I know this in the short medium and who knows how much longer term. .... I know that my garden has not needed my honeybees to prosper as I have diverse and interesting mix of natives. Also have some habitat set up for masons and leaf cutters. Organizational structures can look permanent, but if under pressure they can shift over the long term.


Feeding the world demand for almonds implies a level of agricultural intensity different than a backwoods theorist with an organic squash patch in interior British Columbia. LHarder inhabits a fantasy world.

Almonds were planted on rolling savannah in California in the near coastal interior valleys in the 1920's to 1960's. They were often dry farmed. The hardscrabble tree were alternate bearing -- requiring 2 or more years of growth to secure enough reserves for a nut crop. The broken and ancient trees from those hill planting can still be seen, until the uprooted for wine grapes and expensive country mansions.

With the introduction of nematode-resistant rootstock (from Peach grafts) about 1955, almonds began migrating off the rolling hill landscape into the row-crop valley.

The agricultural conditions for almonds require very, very early frost-free conditions and dry summers. This combination is limited worldwide.

Dr. Gordon Wardell, with the support of Paramount Farms, has studied and implemented the use of Blue Orchard (Mason) Bees for almond pollination. Yes, Blue Orchard Bees are effective pollinators (with and without honeybee supplementation). BOB do not naturally have a flight period during almond bloom --- in California the natural flight is in April. In order to use BOB, Wardell incubates the BOB pupa in trays on top of honeybee hives -- he recycles the honeybee hive heat in order to trick the BOB into hatching at the correct time to pollinate almonds.

Wardell (and cooperators) in the organization Project ApisM http://projectapism.org/?page_id=10 have been key advocates of the creation of bee forage in the Almond landscape. This includes planting forage in fallow ground, and the creation of permanent hedgerows to support alternative pollinators. Project ApisM are realists -- forage for bees in the post-pollination marshalling yards are an achievable intermediate step. 

There are local California central valley beekeepers -- who migrate over a limited circuit to local California forage. Unless almonds devolve into a rare and expensive-as-gold speciality, and the alkali flats of the San Joaquin are replaced with Jojoba, the migratory demand for pollination will remain.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

I am in no position to comment on what is or is not feasible to a commercial migratory beekeeper, yet I have given some thought to the larger issue in question. I find myself facing a series of questions, that are, at least for me, difficult to answer.

I believe it is permissible to ask - should there _be_ a "world demand for almonds", in the wide and easy sense that we mean? Is it not finally absurd that I, in Italy, can enter into any grocery store near me, and purchase salt from the Himalayas or pineapples from Costa Rica, at prices that are within the easy range of nearly any shopper? By what standard precisely do we hope to provide any given crop at accessible prices for all the world? Have we not all grown accustomed to luxuries that we really have no right to?

JWChesnut with his usual lucidity and trenchancy has put the matter in what are, I think, the only admissible terms:



JWChesnut said:


> Unless almonds devolve into a rare and expensive-as-gold speciality, and the alkali flats of the San Joaquin are replaced with Jojoba, the migratory demand for pollination will remain.


Yet it might be asked - why should almonds, to speak to the present case, _not_ be a specialty?

John


----------



## Oldtimer

Good case and it can be argued.

But what makes the world go around is - money.

If there is a way to turn a buck, someone will do it. 


In my view almost no modern agriculture is truly sustainable.

Here's an old song still with a relative message, enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joNzRzZhR2Y


----------



## JWChesnut

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> Yet it might be asked - why should almonds, to speak to the present case, _not_ be a specialty?


Fundamentally, the people of the earth are not provided a daily ration of Soylent Green, or slipped little spirolina pills. The people elect to purchase the nut meats, and farmer endeavour to grow them.

The enviro "thought leaders" have promoted the idea that almonds must be wasteful of water because they are grown under irrigation from reservoir water. Crop water use is measured by "Crop coefficient" (Kc)-- which is a percentage factor of reference evaporation (ET). Crop water demand ETc actually falls in fairly narrow band -- Rice, Alfalfa, Cotton and Sugar Cane are near the top of the scale 115% to 130% of reference ET at peak season. Tree crops are generally lower than ET, 70-90% of ET, due to ground shading and other factors. (the wind doesn't blow through orchards as well as over a field of grass). The core criticism of almonds is they cannot be fallowed, annual minimal water demand is 36-40 inches of irrigation for survival, and a economic harvest requires 45-50 inches. On the westside of the San Joaquin, much of the initial attraction of the "desert" tree crops -- pomegranate, pistachio, Almond was due to their relatively lower annual irrigation demand vs. the early use for cotton and melon. This meant the westside water districts could market the surplus compared to the cotton irrigation demand. The districts sold their extra rights to the LA basin. Paramount Farms purchased Buena Vista water district, and "banked" wet-year water in the lake bed. This allowed it sell the "banked" water (not the actual water but its equivalent volume in the aqueduct) for cash money. The lower water demand for the tree crops meant less volume of drain water. Drain water is difficult to deal with on the west side -- it is contaminated by natural salts, and much of the fallow ground along I-5 is not due to an absence of water, but due to there is no legal destination to "get rid of" the contaminated underflow drainage. The west side must be drained because of salt in the soil. It must be flushed out of the rootzone with over-irrigation. Almonds require less flushing.


----------



## Acebird

Funny thing is my wife and I have just come from the discount grocery store and I pick up a bag of walnuts because my wife has been harping on me for the amount of almonds I eat. "You should eat walnuts they have the same nutritional value as almonds" They were two dollars more ... she says eat your almonds. He, he, I have to do what I am told.

JohnBruceLeonard, I have no idea what your nationality is. From your location one would assume you are Italian but if you ever wanted to come to the US and teach English you could make so much money and have the best retirement package that most in the US envy. You could still have bees. I have tenants that teach Italian at our local college but I swear no one knows English better than a foreigner. (Unless you are talking about someone from Britain) They still speak the kings English and haven't kept pace.


----------



## Acebird

JWChesnut said:


> The enviro "thought leaders" have promoted the idea that almonds must be wasteful of water because they are grown under irrigation from reservoir water.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes

21% of the worlds fresh water is contained in the great lakes. Read that again... If Washington had any brains they would be constructing a pipeline from the northeast to the west coast not from Canada to New Orleans under the department of Homeland security. It should be guarded more so than Fort Knox. I would hate to see it happen because we are sitting pretty but for the betterment of the country it is so stupid it hurts. Water is the key to life, oil is just a skirmish with the middle east.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

Acebird, I am an American. I cannot claim mastery of English as a foreign language, and I have already tried English teaching. I have chosen to live in Italy for a myriad of reasons, among which is the Italian culinary tradition. This is relevant to the argument at hand, for many Italians take great pride in the fact that they prepare the better part of their meals from food grown at "kilometer zero" - which is to say, locally cultivated produce and locally raised animal stock. Of course there are exceptions - flour, sugar, and coffee being three of the principle - and very few would take this tendency to any extreme. Nonetheless, there is a decided effort on the part of many here to purchase fruits and vegetables that are in season and come from known farmers in the immediate vicinity. The food in consequence is of a quality I never dreamed of in the States, and the people here are by and large much healthier than the average American. The local green grocer can refer to his sources by name, and, if you gain his confidence, can recommend which products to purchase and which to avoid. To my eyes there is something just in all this, and more conducive of a human life. But that is my taste speaking, no doubt.

JWChesnut, your analysis of the almond economy is far deeper and more comprehensive than mine could ever hope to be. I thank you for writing a little about it, as it is a subject about which I have only heard snippets of the usual ignorant chatter. As is not surprising, the issue is much more complex than I knew. And you are of course absolutely right when you point out that we are speaking here of a democratic process, capitalism being nothing more than democracy in economy. You have described in short the sovereign reality of things. If this reality is unsustainable, we can rely on time to judge the matter with a ruthlessness we cannot permit ourselves; and if it is sustainable, then it is worse than useless to lament it.



Oldtimer said:


> But what makes the world go around is - money.


Oldtimer, you have cut to the quick of it. I know of no response that can be made to this, save to tend one's bees.

John


----------



## wildbranch2007

Acebird said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes
> 
> 21% of the worlds fresh water is contained in the great lakes. Read that again... If Washington had any brains they would be constructing a pipeline from the northeast to the west coast not from Canada to New Orleans under the department of Homeland security. It should be guarded more so than Fort Knox. I would hate to see it happen because we are sitting pretty but for the betterment of the country it is so stupid it hurts. Water is the key to life, oil is just a skirmish with the middle east.





> GREAT LAKES COMPACT
> Lake Erie
> In 2005, the U.S. Governors and Canadian Premiers of the Great Lakes states and provinces endorsed a precedent-setting agreement to protect and conserve the Great Lakes.
> 
> In the fall of 2008, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (known as “the Compact”) was ratified by all of the eight Great Lakes states and provinces, passed by Congress, and signed into law. There is a companion agreement within the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
> 
> The Compact provides the most comprehensive water use protections for the Great Lakes in the last century.
> 
> These agreements close the door on exporting our Great Lakes water outside the region and puts our own house in order by establishing protections against unsustainable water use here at home. The Compact allows the Great Lakes region to maintain control over Great Lakes water in the face of growing demands for water from across the U.S., Canada, and the world.


they have the whole ocean to tap and filter, why waste all that fine water and fishing and cut down on our lake affect snow, some people(me not included) take pride in the golden snow ball award every year. and what pray tell are you preaching, the water also belongs to Canada, you trying to start another war going.:no:

http://www.theoec.org/campaign/great-lakes-compact


----------



## JWChesnut

In each California drought, a perennial plan surfaces to divert British Columbia's North Thompson river in Kamloops (where lharder tends his squash) to the upper Columbia and thence to California via Oregon. I first saw reports of this from the 1950's where the Atomic Energy Commission proposed using a "friendly" atomic bomb in Kamloops to open the passage way. The Hearst newspapers were great advocates of the mega-project.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/C...can-West-/id-79c7fbc5df7ca3932335a2394110aa12

This is never going to happen, so lharder can rest easy.

Wiki reference on the 1950's project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance
Note that the eastern equivalent, the GRAND project was to dam the James Bay arm of the Hudson Bay and divert the water south. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal


----------



## Arnie

JohnBruceLeonard said:


> And you are of course absolutely right when you point out that we are speaking here of a democratic process, capitalism being nothing more than democracy in economy.


Excellent, JBL.

I usually state it in a slightly different way: Capitalism is the economic dimension of liberty. 

I wish more people understood these things.


----------



## johno

JBL the almonds you are getting in your neck of the woods could come from Spain which was the worlds number one producer until California got going.
Johno


----------



## lharder

Since I'm trapped inside with the onset of a nasty cold, I have some time to type out a plan of sorts in response to disease risks presumably posed by migration beekeeping, and the development of treatment free stocks. By migratory beekeeping I mean the worst form with back and forth interregional migration with significant mixing of bee stocks from various parts of the continent. It does not rule out intraregional movement of bees. 

The actual risks are unknown in that a specific model for bees has not be approximated. However, when looking at biological systems overall, and we can usually see problems associated with movement of biological material in the transfer of new pests and pathogens, and probably in terms of virulence of existing pathogens. In fact the introduction of varroa, a potent vector, may have destroyed the business model of migratory beekeeping in the long run. The need for ongoing intervention, increased management, and disease concerns is leading to the erosion of the bottom line, perhaps to the point where it is not worth it anymore. 

This is not THE plan, just and example of what could be done. 

I think a couple of strategic goals from which action can flow. 

1. Regional self sufficiency of bees.
2. Development of disease and mite resistant bees with lots of genetic diversity. 
3. Local selection of productive stocks. 

If one acknowledges the disease risk associated with bringing in large numbers of bees from other regions, then perhaps its not in the best interests of a region to allow bees in from other regions or allow bees to leave then come back. This is a partial answer to the inevitability of migration beekeeping. If migration beekeeping was increasingly regarded as a disease hazard, then at some point, bees in migratory operations wouldn't be welcome. If a beekeeper can't bring his/her bees home, would s/he be willing to move his bees all over? California may need to become self sufficient in bees in such an environment. Farmers may have to adjust farming practices and crop types due to seasonal shortages of bees. The system would adjust. There is an additional genetic risk with packages and queens from other regions. Not only does this practice constrain genetic diversity, it also doesn't allow for the development of locally adapted bees. There is probably considerable productive loss associated with this. 

1. Regional self sufficiency of bees. 

I am a bit surprised on forums how often backup to hive failure in the form of increase isn't near the top of the list in sustaining viable numbers of hives. If more increase was made, then demand for bees from outside a given region would reduce gene flow. Instead of relying on outside queens, beekeepers could be encouraged to requeen using locally raised stock. Bee associations should be encouraging all members to learn to make increase and how to appropriately select stocks for increase. There are lots of models on how to do this at various scales. Certainly a Mike Palmer approach to bee production and overwintering nucs could be used. Once self sufficiency is more or less achieved, then measures can be taken to increasingly restrict migratory bees. I suspect this would have a large impact on disease dynamics.
2. Development of tf stocks. 

Every regional bee association should have tf chapters to encourage tf beekeepers to join. The associations need to educate themselves about bee genetics and the role tf (and other methods of selection) in improving them. Instead of zombie beekeepers out there making the same mistakes over and over again trying to be tf with commercial bees, wouldn't it be better to bring them into a rich educational environment so they could make better choices with initial stock types to improve the odds? With some encouragement, cooperative arrangements could be made instead of antagonistic ones. With these beekeepers it would be possible to systematically test queenlines and introduce new genetics to an area. At the same time some best practices could be developed for identifying floundering mite ridden fall hives and removing them from the gene pool to reduce the risks associated with them. I would suggest that towns and suburbs are excellent areas to make large pushes for tf initiatives. 

Once an area of successful tf beekeeping is formed, then it should be given some protection from disease and genetic pressure from commercial/treated hives where no selection is done. Buffer zones could be set up. For instance the beekeeper gang represented by squarepeg on this forum would be identified as a nexus of tf bees to be protected. Towns and suburbs may be an excellent places to begin this experiment. Areas with known feral bees could be surveyed and protected as well. They would be an excellent starting point for tf bees. Gradual expansion of tf buffer zones could be done as tf bees are adopted. 

Each region should be surveyed on an ongoing basis for genetic diversity. Alleles missing from local populations could be targeted for importation in order to give local bees as many tools in their genetic tool box for natural selection to work on. These do not have to be extensive yearly surveys, but a bit at a time should develop a robust picture over time of the genetic status of a region. It would also eventually identify new evolutionary traits with ongoing local bee production. If local regional bee raising was done all over the continent, just think of the long term genetic potential. This kind of information may also be useful in applying a biological definition of a bee “region” instead of arbitrary ones based on map lines or sensible ones like biogeoclimatic zones. 

Its also possible that hive ecology plays a role. Microbial diversity could also be surveyed and enhanced over time. There is some opportunity to develop a much better understanding of hive systems over time. 

3. I think this goes without saying. Selection by all beekeepers will improve production over time. Bees that survive mites are just a starting point. 

Again this is a plan, not the plan. I don't think a plan has to be universally applied to be successful. Some forward looking regions could make some head way. For instance I live in a area without much large scale commercial beekeeping. It should be possible to take areas like this as a starting point in developing sustainable regional models.


----------



## crofter

Some good ideas but to put teeth into the controls necessary would be a nightmare. I think such controls could only come in the face of dire, imminent, undeniable danger to the very existence of bees. We are not there yet!

As to better education of new beekeepers to prevent the needless agony of repeated losses of non resistant bees, I agree entirely. _"Instead of zombie beekeepers out there making the same mistakes over and over again trying to be tf with commercial bees, wouldn't it be better to bring them into a rich educational environment so they could make better choices with initial stock types to improve the odds? With some encouragement, cooperative arrangements could be made instead of antagonistic ones". _ 

In this regard I would suggest that material and advice that advocates the continuance of the painful process you describe, could stand a bit more censure from within: much more effective!

I have bees that are likely quite resistant, developed by a man who made bees his life work. Google _Tibor Szabo_. I dont know how resistant they might be as I have chosen not to take that "wait and see" approach". I have not had any of those painful experiences but that is probably influenced by isolation from other bees and reasonably good genetics.

I think there are many areas of mans workings that could benefit from collective wisdom but it is a very difficult commodity to extract and refine!


----------



## Acebird

lharder said:


> If one acknowledges the disease risk associated with bringing in large numbers of bees from other regions, then perhaps its not in the best interests of a region to allow bees in from other regions or allow bees to leave then come back.


If one were to do an AQL on the bees coming in and Quarantine those that don't cut the mustard there would be minimal risks. And this doesn't have to involve government. It would involve some kind of regulatory body of the beekeeping community with self interest. As long as there is complacence on state by state regs the risks remain.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

Arnie said:


> I usually state it in a slightly different way: Capitalism is the economic dimension of liberty.


And it is well stated, Arnie. Indeed, I think I prefer your formulation to my own.

johno - the almonds I am getting here actually come from my own almond trees, not thirty meters from my front door. Sardinia is nothing like a world supplier of almonds, but it has its share of groves. We are just a _tad _spoiled when it comes to food here in Sardinia - which makes it very easy for me to suggest radical alterations to the produce supply of the rest of the world. 

John


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard

crofter said:


> In this regard I would suggest that material and advice that advocates the continuance of the painful process you describe, could stand a bit more censure from within: much more effective!


That seems to me to be fundamental. No vision of the world is fully honest, that cannot gaze with equal clarity at itself.

John


----------



## lharder

I would say that hive failure in the TF world is greeted with "where did you get your bees?". Some insist in learning the hard way. This question should be asked more often in treating circles as well.


----------



## lharder

Acebird said:


> If one were to do an AQL on the bees coming in and Quarantine those that don't cut the mustard there would be minimal risks. And this doesn't have to involve government. It would involve some kind of regulatory body of the beekeeping community with self interest. As long as there is complacence on state by state regs the risks remain.


I don't think a disease model needs to 100 % compliant to make a difference. I think episodes of bees loss are a fact of life. The key is reducing the risk factors that make them more common. A hard line can be taken by the feds on intercontinental movement of bees, but within a continent, a culture of good practice can reduce many of the risks. Development of a culture requires education. For instance Mike Palmer's information on overwintering nucs has some local beekeepers very interested. If more beekeepers adopt these methods, and become more self sufficient, then bee transport into our region is reduced, our disease exposure to outside factors is reduced, and the cause of genetic diversity is served. With more information developed with time, a stronger case can be made in regulating keepers who move their bees from region to region.


----------



## enjambres

My impression is that compared to just three years ago at present there is more of what Frank was advocating:



> In this regard I would suggest that material and advice that advocates the continuance of the painful process you describe, could stand a bit more censure from within: much more effective!


I think this a very good thing.


Perhaps the more militant TF advocates have retreated somewhat from the internet spaces I visit (for instance, I don't use Facebook), but there seems to me to be more plain speaking to new beekeepers about the reality of varroa and the consequences of failing to address the issue. 

Regional self-sufficiency of the bee supply won't be successful until purchasers of new colonies stop demanding bees earlier than they can be produced regionally. It's the same thing I see with gardeners in my area jumping the gun with tomato plants in mid-April (even when they can't be planted outside for another month.) But the Big-Box stores are eager to supply them with plants trucked in from the South, bringing with those plants diseases like tomato blight which in the ordinary course of things wouldn't overwinter in the North. Even those of us who grow our own plants are vulnerable to the consequences because blight is spread by the wind. It takes constant education to counteract the lack of knowledge, and the selfishness ("I will have the earliest tomatoes!") to get people to put the common good over their own desires.

Enj.


----------



## lharder

"Perhaps the more militant TF advocates have retreated somewhat from the internet spaces I visit (for instance, I don't use Facebook), but there seems to me to be more plain speaking to new beekeepers about the reality of varroa and the consequences of failing to address the issue. "

Really I don't get how TF are singled out. Treating without selection for mite resistance is the biggest obstacle to mite resistant bees. Naive failure on the part of TF newbies is not. ALL beekeepers should be asking themselves how they can contribute to a GENETIC solution. Like I said before, complete failure without treatment for commercial bees means its the commercial operations that aren't doing their jobs. 

Regional self-sufficiency of the bee supply won't be successful until purchasers of new colonies stop demanding bees earlier than they can be produced regionally. It's the same thing I see with gardeners in my area jumping the gun with tomato plants in mid-April (even when they can't be planted outside for another month.) But the Big-Box stores are eager to supply them with plants trucked in from the South, bringing with those plants diseases like tomato blight which in the ordinary course of things wouldn't overwinter in the North. Even those of us who grow our own plants are vulnerable to the consequences because blight is spread by the wind. It takes constant education to counteract the lack of knowledge, and the selfishness ("I will have the earliest tomatoes!") to get people to put the common good over their own desires.

Enj.[/QUOTE]

I presently think overwintered nucs should be promoted far more than they are. They are online when they are needed and are ready to rumble. After my expansion is finished, I hope to produce enough nucs to cover my losses and sell a portion as well. If I can get my tf genetics out there, then the cause of raising the level of local resistance is served. 

BTW I do grow early tomatoes, from my own heritage seed (mostly) using a greenhouse that has a small heated section within it. My first peppers are just starting to emerge and the greenhouse will soon be in operation. I wasn't aware that tomato blight came in every year. I have reasonable success keeping foliar disease at bay using drip systems, mulch and providing enough space for the plants and keeping on top of pruning/staking.


----------



## Oldtimer

lharder said:


> I presently think overwintered nucs should be promoted far more than they are. They are online when they are needed and are ready to rumble. After my expansion is finished, I hope to produce enough nucs to cover my losses and sell a portion as well. If I can get my tf genetics out there, then the cause of raising the level of local resistance is served.


Go for it. This, if it could be done by many, is the road to get where you want. 

To get where you want, reality has to be accepted and acted on. The current reality is that the hobby TF sector has losses and cannot source TF bees to replace them. They are forced to buy from commercial suppliers. Why? Simply because they will not breed enough themselves. I have never understood why TF beekeepers will not meet this demand themselves, but then complain about the people who do meet it for them.

We hear constant success stories about how well everyone is doing, why are these guys not breeding and selling to each other in enough numbers?

To be possible offensive but honest, a lot of energy is spent talking on the net about the evils of commercial bees. But, talk without action is nothing. If people with what they consider good genetics do not breed and disperse them in enough numbers to meet demand, then the current situation of people buying bees that need to be treated will continue, and no amount of internet chatter will change that. Action would definitely speak louder than words.

There you have it, Oldtimers view, I am after all, a bee breeder. To me, I do not understand why more do not breed their own bees and some for sale, for me, this is the most enjoyable thing about beekeeping.


----------



## jwcarlson

I really haven't kept up with this thread, but it's good to see that a a handful of hive kickers with a half dozen hives or so have the whole thing figured out about how to supply the 1.6MM bee colonies that are currently pollinating almonds. AND solve the international epidemic that is varroa. Who'd have thought all we had to do is ask?!


----------



## johno

Be careful now, as Abe Lincoln said " you cant believe everything you read on the internet"
Johno


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> The current reality is that the hobby TF sector has losses and cannot source TF bees to replace them. They are forced to buy from commercial suppliers.


Maybe so OT but the thread was not about supplying TF hobbyist with bees it was about why those who do treat there hives are worried about the might bombs that come from hobbyist treated or untreated, when the commercial sector looses swarms in large numbers that can only result in a totally un-managed mite bomb. In almost 300 posts was this ever answered?


----------



## lharder

Oldtimer said:


> Go for it. This, if it could be done by many, is the road to get where you want.
> 
> To get where you want, reality has to be accepted and acted on. The current reality is that the hobby TF sector has losses and cannot source TF bees to replace them. They are forced to buy from commercial suppliers. Why? Simply because they will not breed enough themselves. I have never understood why TF beekeepers will not meet this demand themselves, but then complain about the people who do meet it for them.
> 
> We hear constant success stories about how well everyone is doing, why are these guys not breeding and selling to each other in enough numbers?
> 
> To be possible offensive but honest, a lot of energy is spent talking on the net about the evils of commercial bees. But, talk without action is nothing. If people with what they consider good genetics do not breed and disperse them in enough numbers to meet demand, then the current situation of people buying bees that need to be treated will continue, and no amount of internet chatter will change that. Action would definitely speak louder than words.
> 
> There you have it, Oldtimers view, I am after all, a bee breeder. To me, I do not understand why more do not breed their own bees and some for sale, for me, this is the most enjoyable thing about beekeeping.





Oldtimer said:


> Go for it. This, if it could be done by many, is the road to get where you want.
> 
> To get where you want, reality has to be accepted and acted on. The current reality is that the hobby TF sector has losses and cannot source TF bees to replace them. They are forced to buy from commercial suppliers. Why? Simply because they will not breed enough themselves. I have never understood why TF beekeepers will not meet this demand themselves, but then complain about the people who do meet it for them.
> 
> We hear constant success stories about how well everyone is doing, why are these guys not breeding and selling to each other in enough numbers?
> 
> To be possible offensive but honest, a lot of energy is spent talking on the net about the evils of commercial bees. But, talk without action is nothing. If people with what they consider good genetics do not breed and disperse them in enough numbers to meet demand, then the current situation of people buying bees that need to be treated will continue, and no amount of internet chatter will change that. Action would definitely speak louder than words.
> 
> There you have it, Oldtimers view, I am after all, a bee breeder. To me, I do not understand why more do not breed their own bees and some for sale, for me, this is the most enjoyable thing about beekeeping.


I largely agree, but I would like to broaden the vision just a bit with the hope that local beekeepers that treat would also raise their own and have some for sale, especially if they start employing selection for mite resistance. Also teaching hobbyists to make and overwinter their own nucs so they aren't dependent on always buying new bees when they have a failure. If they got together with some cooperation, very few bees would have to be bought with little inmigration of commercial stocks. Local genetics could then start to dominate the scene and some adaptation is possible. See it isn't just up to me In a self sustaining system the demand for even local bees would largely dry up and I would have to get on with producing some honey. 

Till then, I'll expand away and hopefully not make too many big mistakes. I don't have OT around to stop me.

JW, I'll let California deal with their own problems. I'm a bit surprised that large sophisticated pollination outfits can't make their own bees. If they can't for some reason, and if I could hazard a guess, if more regions became self sufficient, then more southern bees would be available to beef up pollination stocks.


----------



## Vance G

Oldtimer said:


> Go for it. This, if it could be done by many, is the road to get where you want.
> 
> To get where you want, reality has to be accepted and acted on. The current reality is that the hobby TF sector has losses and cannot source TF bees to replace them. They are forced to buy from commercial suppliers. Why? Simply because they will not breed enough themselves. I have never understood why TF beekeepers will not meet this demand themselves, but then complain about the people who do meet it for them.
> 
> We hear constant success stories about how well everyone is doing, why are these guys not breeding and selling to each other in enough numbers?
> 
> To be possible offensive but honest, a lot of energy is spent talking on the net about the evils of commercial bees. But, talk without action is nothing. If people with what they consider good genetics do not breed and disperse them in enough numbers to meet demand, then the current situation of people buying bees that need to be treated will continue, and no amount of internet chatter will change that. Action would definitely speak louder than words.
> 
> There you have it, Oldtimers view, I am after all, a bee breeder. To me, I do not understand why more do not breed their own bees and some for sale, for me, this is the most enjoyable thing about beekeeping.


Wow! Encapsulated wisdom cutting thru all the BS!
I am hearing anecdotal evidence that those using Apivar for their only mite treatment have been successful mite breeders. Heavy winter losses this unchallenging winter. My fall treatment was Apivar which has me worried, but my winter loss is miniscule and populations strong. But my treatments always vary and my next usage of Apivar may now not be the cheap, easy on the bees, lethal to the mites magic bullet I was enjoying getting used to! This bothers me as it is unopened in the freezer. Bottom line is this is a team sport and what each of us does affects the neighbors and that flood of bees returning from the almonds will be supplying a lot of drones even if you like myself need no replacement bees. 

Testing and a plan are required of all of us. Doing nothing is not a plan, not taking positive steps to control your mites is not a plan. It just makes you another mite breeder.


----------



## johno

I think the premise that commercial beekeepers allow their bees to swarm in large amounts seems false to me. As a small time sideliner for every swarm that escapes my yards is a potential $100 bucks down the drain. Now as for my local hobby beekeepers, every may I have calls to supply Queens to their queenless hives and in the majority of cases the hive has swarmed and they are unable to find the virgin queen. And what's more there are no commercial beekeepers within 100 miles of my location and no feral bees that I know of, but still have to keep my bees mite free if I want them to survive in spite of the fact that VSH queens are introduced every year. So I often wonder how backyard beeks are breeding resistant bees when ARS Baton Rouge has been working on this problem for maybe 20 years. Definitely something to think about.
Johno


----------



## squarepeg

johno said:


> So I often wonder how backyard beeks are breeding resistant bees when ARS Baton Rouge has been working on this problem for maybe 20 years.


i can't speak for other backyard beekeepers johno, but for myself it wasn't me that bred resistant bees rather it was nature that provided them for me.

we do have colonies surviving in the feral state here and i was lucky enough to find a supplier who happened to collect some of those and has been propagating them for sale (and off treatments) for the past 20 years.

i've had communication with bob danka down at baton rogue and he is very interested in taking a look at these bees. my intention is to get him a few queens to study this season.

the problem with the breeding programs as i see it is that even when you come up with a good bee their resistant traits are lost after a couple of generations of hybridization into whatever population you try to place them.

here, the population is already good to go and with low losses i can easily let survival do the selecting for mite resistance, while i focus my selection on productivity and reduced swarm propensity.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

squarepeg said:


> here, the population is already good to go and with low losses i can easily let survival do the selecting for mite resistance,


I think this is one of the points that OT was referring to. With your regional good fortune and current stock, you are sitting on a queen breeding gold mine. If your queens are that good you will have beekeepers on an endless waiting list for your queens, and you will be spreading those resistant genetics to other areas and helping us all.


----------



## Acebird

johno said:


> I think the premise that commercial beekeepers allow their bees to swarm in large amounts seems false to me.


John when does a human being ALLOW control to nature? It happens.


----------



## squarepeg

Mike Gillmore said:


> I think this is one of the points that OT was referring to. With your regional good fortune and current stock you are sitting on a queen breeding gold mine. If your queens are that good you will have beekeepers on an endless waiting list for your queens, and you will be spreading those resistant genetics to other areas and helping us all.


yes mike, it is my sincere hope that i am able to make such a contribution to beekeeping at large. i've been selling nucs for the past few seasons and all of those folks are having similar successes with them. fusion power has been doing the same over there on his side of the state as well.

we've been kicking it around here and the plan for 2016 is to ramp up the queenrearing. i purchased a new incubator and my hope is to keep round after round of grafts going throughout the mating season.

the first cells will go to the dozen or so folks already established with this stock to get their hive counts up to nominal. i have encouraged and all are receptive to making increase above and beyond what they want for personal use so that more nucs can be provided to others.

what makes the most sense is to start pushing the boundaries geographically in all directions with this stock. for that reason, preference will be given to those (preferably experienced) beekeepers within about 100 radius from here.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

That sounds like a terrific plan!! A very positive methodical approach. Cudos.


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks mike!


----------



## Oldtimer

A read of SP's thread will show he is one of the guys walking the talk.

So far what he's doing is working out, including the guys he has supplied bees to. Although his first objective is, sensibly, to saturate his own area, getting bees from him will be a good starting point for anyone hoping to be successful TF.

However I would encourage anyone with what they think is proven resistant stock to work on increasing by larger numbers than you want yourself, with a view to selling some, and the premium these kind of bees command ensure a good profit.


----------



## Acebird

squarepeg said:


> we've been kicking it around here and the plan for 2016 is to ramp up the queenrearing. i purchased a new incubator and my hope is to keep round after round of grafts going throughout the mating season.


Be prepared squarepeg when you take over what nature has done for you the results may not be so predictable. I think OT has a crystal ball. He must be a crotchety old buzzard even though he doesn't act that way.


----------



## Oldtimer

Not so much a crystal ball, more just saying the obvious. Buying package bees that require mite treatment, and complaining, mostly isn't working. Following the Squarepeg model has a greater probability of success. It does require that people breed surplus bees though.

Will it definitely succeed at producing a more mite resistant bee? Well, my crystal ball won't tell me. But the odds must be better.


----------



## Arnie

Ace,
You asked if the OP's original question had been answered. In the third paragraph there are two questions.
I checked, and the original questions seemed to be: If untreated hives are considered to be 'mite bombs' why are bee trees, which are not treated, seen by most all beekeepers as 'survivors' and given reverential status?

The answer to that is we are not 100% rational. 

If our neighbor has 5 unattended hives we might think s/he is irresponsible. If we discover 10 bee trees near our house we think we are blessed. 

Now, if those 10 bee trees survive for years continuously we WOULD be blessed!

My thoughts on the mite issue are simple:
The mites are here to stay.
In the short term the majority of beekeepers will have to use some form of treatment to keep the bees alive. It doesn't matter how many swarms commercial beeks lose. Each beekeeper, large or small, is responsible for his/her bees. 

Long term, beeks on a very small scale will work with bees that show some promise in the area of being able to prosper even with mites. Not just survive, but prosper. I believe it will take many, many years to someday develop the true survivor bee. But it will happen some day.


----------



## Acebird

Arnie said:


> Long term, beeks on a very small scale will work with bees that show some promise in the area of being able to prosper even with mites.


Arnie, I believe Monsanto is working on a GMO bee that all the commercial operations will accept and pay increasing royalties forever. Hobbyist will attempt to keep the natural honeybee in existence similar to organic farming. All they have to do is figure out how to make the second generation sterile so it can't be passed on.


----------



## beemandan

Does it not create some anxiety squarepeg that you are introducing outside genetics? I understand that fusionpower's bees have been successfully off treatments for years, as have yours, but if you guys start mixing and matching might that not come with some risk?
Personally, I think I'd look somewhere neutral...away from both of you and start a combined yard for several seasons before exposing my existing stock and locale to an unknown.


----------



## squarepeg

beemandan said:


> Does it not create some anxiety squarepeg that you are introducing outside genetics?


good point dan, and yes i considered that. the balancing consideration is getting the genetics too bottlenecked by not having enough diversity.

the core of dar's genetics happen to be from a swarm he caught just a few miles from my location and he has been crossing in some outside genetics over the years. dar, you gave me a brief description of that queen's pedigree, but if you don't mind can you describe it here on the forum?

the colony he brought up here for grafting came from an outyard he maintains about 20 miles from here. i can't see any difference in the coloration of them compared to mine.

i'm planning to take grafts from dar's, 2 or 3 of mine, and a few of the best performers from some of the others in the 'cooperative'. i am also going to try as much as possible to have the new queens get mated well away from the yards they were grafted from. the idea is to get as much as a mix as possible in everybody's yards.


----------



## lharder

My take on it is that it is possible to dribble in new genetics even non TF. Powerful resistance will require multiple modes of action. You could do it scientifically and target allelic (is that a word?) diversity, tracking the establishment of new alleles you bring in in the local population. Its not that you want these alleles to become a dominant part of the genetic landscape. You just make that allele available for nature to work with. If its useful from a survival or productive standpoint, then it will come to the fore. 

There is probably a cost associated. Nature experiments, and failures are cast away. I would expect some higher losses initially. But there is a long term payoff down the road. It may not even be apparent in the medium future, but when new challenges arise, the population tool box has lots of alleles to work with.


----------



## beemandan

I think the idea of carefully expanding the genetic diversity is admirable. I am simply suggesting caution. Although you may suspect that your tf bees and dar's are from related gene pools because of the proximity of his first tf swarm and his twenty mile distant beeyard...it may not be. I believe that you and dar may have very unusual and unique circumstances and that the potential of introducing an unknown entity into your feral population creates a risk to that population.
I would think you could do the same thing as you are planning......mixing gene pools from your colonies and others...but doing so in a separate, safely distant yard until you've had time to evaluate the results.
Just my...overcautious opinion.


----------



## squarepeg

understood dan, and i very much appreciate your input as i'm a relative newcomer to all this. 

my thinking is what allows these bees to do well is that they are about as hybridized as hybridized can be given the history of beekeeping in the area and the fact that escaped swarms are surviving in the feral state. i.e. one couldn't come up with more of a 'mutt' than nature has produced around here even if one tried. 

we tend to put a lot focus on the queen's genetics because we can, but when it's all said and done my opinion is that it's the drone contribution that has the most influence in the overall scheme of things.

jwc has tirelessly put forth his arguments for why breeding for traits is futile because of the bees' breeding habits. well, if you happen to already have what you want in your local metapopulation then that actually works to your good.


----------



## beemandan

lharder said:


> My take on it is that it is possible to dribble in new genetics even non TF


An extremely perilous belief in my opinion. The supposition that the tf genetics will automatically prevail is no more than that....a supposition. In fact, even the idea that mixing successful tf genetics will automatically result in a positive synergy is, in my opinion, risky. It might...but is far from certain.
I think what fusion power and squarepeg have are exceptionally unusual situations and to start cavalierly mixing those genes together has the possibility of diluting the managed and feral gene pool....and causing their situations to become unexceptional. 
The bees belong to them....so they can do as they please....I'm just expressing my cautious side.


----------



## squarepeg

i agree that your concerns have validity dan. my opinion though is that it's hard to be sure of how much weight our inputs carry at the end of the day, that is compared to what is happening behind the scenes within local populations.

i feel that what i am doing is pretty much a crap shoot and that's why i tend to allow the natural processes play out as much as possible. heck, while we are striving to select and manipulate the bees for our purposes and goals the mites and viruses merrily rock along with their own adaptations.

this is why i feel that making management decisions based on overall success makes more sense than looking at a specific metric or two. with all of the variables in play i believe it's really hard to say that what we have done or not done is _the_ reason for the outcomes we observe.


----------



## Oldtimer

What is your queen cell raising method?


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> What is your queen cell raising method?


was that for me ot?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes. I ask because the whole thing will be rather slow moving if you are just raising 10 or 20 queens a year. Not to say you are, I don't know how many you are doing, just, more's better.

A few years ago I started a thread on graftless cell raising but since than it seems almost nobody does it cos it is too complex at the hobby level.

So I have developed and trialled another method now that simplifies the raising of batches of around 40 to 50 cells at a time and is very un-complex and suitable for hobbyists. To me, as well as the careful breeder selection and other things you are doing, a major component for success will be making a large quantity of these queens to spread around and get them and their drones out there.

Large numbers will also enable them to be spread to areas far away, and allow you to discover how they go in different areas. Working on how to safely transport queen cells will be a big advantage.


----------



## squarepeg

i remember that really good thread of yours!

and i am very much in agreement with you about accelerating the queen rearing which is what i am committed to doing going forward.

in past seasons i was mostly interested in replacing losses and selling a few nucs and the 20 queens was about what was needed for that. i'm not set up with mating nucs but rather have been using 5 frame deeps to place the cells in.

i'll still use the 5 framers this year, but i plan to manage them as five framers all season and split from them as well as sell a few loose queens out of them to make room for new cells.

i've also commandeered a handful of other beekeepers who want to make increase for themselves and sell a few of their own nucs to be ready for ripe cells as i get them.

due to the time constraints of the day job and the limited resources i have in the beeyards i settled on the cloake board method for cell raising. i pretty much follow sue cobey's instructions detailed here:

http://www.delta-business.com/Calga...od of Queen Rearing and Banking Sue Cobey.pdf

the plan for this year is to get a double deep packed with bees as soon as practical and hope that we have drones flying by then. i'll then start producing 20 cells per week utilizing an incubator in the garage to move capped cells into, and continue until everyone has all that they want or the season runs its course whichever comes first.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sounds good. A good 2 decker, a cloake board, and an incubator, will certainly see you well catered for a plan of 20 cells a week.

With cloake board type systems the hive sometimes gets "tired" after 3 or 4 rounds of cells, and start fewer plus don't raise them as well. The cloak board should therefore be rotated to a new hive every few batches of cells.


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> With cloake board type systems the hive sometimes gets "tired" after 3 or 4 rounds of cells, and start fewer plus don't raise them as well. The cloak board should therefore be rotated to a new hive every few batches of cells.


that's interesting ot, do we understand the reason for the hive getting 'tired'? 

i was expecting that the cloake hive might grow to three deeps as the season progressed, and i was planning to put frames of capped brood donated from other hives in the top box to keep it full of nurse bees.

my other concern was what to do to keep it from going into swarm mode. for that i thought i would keep an empty honey super just above the excluder, and rotate it out with another empty as it was getting full.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> So I have developed and trialled another method now that simplifies the raising of batches of around 40 to 50 cells at a time and is very un-complex and suitable for hobbyists.


40-50 cells for a hobbyist? That is quite an addiction.


----------



## squarepeg

btw ot, do you happen to be aquainted with the cloakes? oh, and try to not let mr. palmer be a bad influence on you during his visit.


----------



## Michael Palmer

squarepeg said:


> oh, and try to not let mr. palmer be a bad influence on you during his visit.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Oldtimer said:


> With cloake board type systems the hive sometimes gets "tired" after 3 or 4 rounds of cells, and start fewer plus don't raise them as well. The cloak board should therefore be rotated to a new hive every few batches of cells.


One reason why I looked for a method that doesn't use up the cell building colonies, but rather boosts the cell building colonies.


----------



## Oldtimer

No, never met them. We are an island nation, but we don't all know everbody LOL!

Yes looking forward to Mikes visit, in fact downright excited about it.  I am right now making nucs that will be going into winter (it is fall here now), and there will be nothing as good as having a world expert on wintering nucs have a look over them for me, this will be a great experience!


----------



## squarepeg

indeed. (and i hope you know i was just joking michael)


----------



## Oldtimer

squarepeg said:


> that's interesting ot, do we understand the reason for the hive getting 'tired'?
> 
> i was expecting that the cloake hive might grow to three deeps as the season progressed, and i was planning to put frames of capped brood donated from other hives in the top box to keep it full of nurse bees.
> 
> my other concern was what to do to keep it from going into swarm mode. for that i thought i would keep an empty honey super just above the excluder, and rotate it out with another empty as it was getting full.


Oh sorry, fast moving thread almost missed this post. 

Re the hive getting "tired", pretty much all cell raisers get tired but for a system such as cloak board where the hive is partly queenless for a time, then queen right again, an unnatural brood distribution for part of the time, the bees make the best of it but after several cycles lose that thing called morale, or "pump", or vitality of behaviour, or whatever it is, that bees need to do stuff well. Adding brood will not stop this happening but might slow it. But the best teacher is experience if you run some cell raisers for a while you will see it happening, and the influence of season is a major factor also.

How to stop it going into swarm mode? this is the trick for everyone raising cells. Because your cell raiser essentially should be in swarm mode, that is when they do their best work. To make a great cell raiser we may add brood, feed and stimulate, then we have a good cell raiser. We also have a hive right on the brink of swarming. Where I live which is a pretty swarmy location, I accept that some of my cell raisers will swarm, if I keep a bunch of hives right on the brink of swarming, so they will build great cells, it is a real hard balancing act keeping them from swarming.

But there are different cell raising configurations that will not swarm, but cloak board type systems may swarm if they are really pumped up. Ideally there should be several suitable hives in the cell raising yard, you use a hive for a few rounds of cells then switch to another hive. Make a few nucs out of the ex cell raiser to knock them back a bit and "re set" them.


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks ot and michael. this was something i had never heard about before. i'll definitely be watching closely and shift gears as needed.


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Palmer said:


> One reason why I looked for a method that doesn't use up the cell building colonies, but rather boosts the cell building colonies.


I'll also be real interested to discuss cell raising with you Mike, this will be great! 

Although I know I can raise cells, I've never really felt I've "arrived", in terms of an all round, great, no problems system. Maybe there isn't one but will sure be good to get your input.


----------



## lharder

I would try Palmer's cell building system, but I'm scared I would just get one (or a few) big swarms out of it. Not sure if he has mentioned somewhere his swarm management with his cell building hives.


----------



## squarepeg

bump.


----------



## squarepeg

i think jim said it best:



jim lyon said:


> There is no way of knowing what level of mite invasion comes from where. I don't obsess about things I can't control. I would hope neighboring beekeepers would make an effort to be responsible in their beekeeping practices, including placement of hives, regardless of their philosophy. One is best served worrying more about their own hives and less about others.


----------

