# commercial level TF



## Harley Craig

wow go big or go home huh? I can't answer about VHS stock, but wanted to say good luck and keep us posted of your journey if you do. I will say that if you make your living off of your bees, I wouldn't switch over all at once, I would set aside a decent portion that you are absolutely willing to loose because you have to be willing to lose bees if you plan to let them survive on their own..... then see how it goes, if it works well, then you can scale up with your other bees / yards. Everyone that I have ever talked to that was successfull at TF beekeeping tell the same story, Winter will cull your weak bees, any that survive, split the ever loving snot out of them. And do the same for the next 2-3 yrs and then you will come to a point that you are replacing less and less


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

We aren't that big yet. So I don't know all you have to deal with. I think it can be done but would be extremely labor intensive. I am not even sure if there is a tf beekeeper on here that makes their sole living on bees. I hear alot of preaching but no real facts of any kind.

That being said we have a few hundred that are "treatment free" I believe soon we are going to switch to Oxalic acid on all colonies except our breeding colonies. We kept our bees TF using queens with varroa resistance, splits, and timely drone comb removal. It's not treating but sure is alot of work. 

Still you are going to have to deal with varroa as there is no bee yet immune to the mite at the production/profitable level.


----------



## northbee

Tanner,

Curious if you winter in MN or are Migratory? If you have figured out a system for wintering successfully here in MN the brood break that our months of winter provides is an advantage in terms of Varroa control. However if you have bees that raise brood irregardless of forage availability that is a moot point. 

I love to see colonies that come through the winter huge and splittable. However I do see colonies that winter in rather small clusters 2-4 frames of bees upon the commencement of brood rearing in March that build up to strong double deeps by the main flow (late June) with minimal management. 

I am curious to hear comments by others on VSH. I have a a couple in my yards and have been impressed with their performance so far. 

Best, Yuuki


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

I have only 3 seasons of experience with VSH genetics crossed on Cordonvan genetics and I only have a handful of hives, so with that in mind:

I have not lost a hive over winter in the last 2 winters. I lost one 3 winters ago but that was my mismanagement in that I started a nuc in September and they just did not have enough time to build up for winter.

Last winter I used sugar blocks and did an OAD in November, so I am not strictly TF. I did no other winter prep--no wrap, quilt blankets, reduced entrances--nothing. My hives came out of winter larger and stronger than they went in. I split in April and every one of those splits has become a strong hive.

One word of caution: What I have learned so far is that the F1 and F2 generation of VSH queens are good and strong and productive. The F3 generation are nasty and nonproductive so I have squished every one of them. Once given new queens, these hives bounced right back and are good, productive hives again. 

What strikes me the most about my hives is how similar they are to each other--same number of boxes, same number of brood frames, similar laying patterns. I have never seen that kind of uniformity before.

All of my VSH genetics ultimately came from VPQueens, altho from different queen sellers who use his II queens. My Cordovan genetics came from Koehnen in California.

HTH

Rusty


----------



## MartinW

Tennessee's Bees LLC - You mentioned challenges around labor intensive activity. Can you say a bit more? Re-queening? Managing drone comb? Thanks.


----------



## beemandan

Look up Kirk Webster. He's probably not as big as you but to my thinking is one of the rare 'real deal' tf on a commercial scale. PS...you won't find him posting on any message boards to my knowledge...I doubt if he has the time.


----------



## AHudd

Woodside said:


> I am not a TF beekeeper... But I am a commercial beekeeper with around 2000 hives. I am interested in possibly becoming treatment free. However I am wondering if being TF is practical with 2k hives.
> 
> Some of the concerns about genetically mite resistant bees:
> 
> 1) hive size / production
> 2) wintering
> 3) Cluster size in january
> 
> When a VSH hive survives winter, does it barely survive or does the cluster stay strong throughout the winter, or does it dwindle but survive? I mean 16 frame hive dwindles to 5-6 frames by February or is it more like 16 frame hive dwindles to 10 frames?
> 
> Are VSH bees generally more conservative or does the queen lay without regaurd of resources like my current stock.
> 
> Is there any reason I cant run 2000-10000 hives TF?


 I think going TF with that many hives is a risky proposition. I agree with Harley Craig about easing into it.
My three TF hives came out of winter very strong, although two went Queenless in early Spring. The one that had a queen swarmed four times. I believe I will harvest one deep from this one. I didn't try to stop swarming because I wanted to increase numbers especially in light of the two without Queens. I combined two swarms with the Queenless hives. I now have five.
After reading what Rusty Hills Farm said I probably should learn to raise Queens this year while I still have one original Queen. The hives headed by her the daughters did seem a little hot yesterday. We had ideal weather yesterday for inspecting, so I was a little surprised by this. I attributed this to their growing strength, but maybe not.
These Queens are still laying a nice tight pattern, just not covering as much of the frame. Our flow is slowing so maybe they are slowing brood production. Our Spring was the most rainfall ever recorded making everything difficult to quantify, especially for someone that has been away from beekeeping as long as I have been. I am also in a different location from when I had bees in my youth. Hot and dry Texas to hot and humid Arkansas.
With all the attention being paid to pollinators these days you can bet there are a lot of people working on these issues. I'll bet there is a very large pot of gold at the end of this particular rainbow.
There would, no doubt, be a lot of useful info to be gleaned from a large scale experiment such as what you are proposing, but would likely be costly as well.
The new plan for pollinators may be a resource you could tap into. 
Keep us posted with your plans, please.

Alex


----------



## Woodside

I do not plan to TF cold turkey with 2k hives, I fear the result would be... out of business. However I do plan to take a different splitting approach next spring and implementing VSH mated queens to all existing hives and and splits. I feel this will turn over the appropriate genetics and with careful monitoring I may decide to let them bee treatment free overwinter.


----------



## mike bispham

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> I hear alot of preaching but no real facts of any kind.


That's unfair. Many people give you the facts of their own experiences. They just don't relate to large operations.

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> That's unfair. Many people give you the facts of their own experiences. They just don't relate to large operations.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Meaning the methods and techniques don't easily transfer to large commercial level operations, right?


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Meaning the methods and techniques don't easily transfer to large commercial level operations, right?


Yes - though that's probably a fairly complicated discussion 

I suspect maximisation of production precludes tf. It might help, but you'll always get a bit more by treating in various ways. So in a competitive trading environment you _have_ to treat to stay in the game.

Like in many mammal farming practices antibiotics are routinely used to promote growth. You need to be compensated by a premium ('organic') to stay in business in a trading environment where price is, otherwise, the sole determinant of sales. 

Unless we can have premium tf honey there is no mechanism whereby large operations can suffer the drop in profitability caused by withdrawing treatments. They won't make sales.

Looked at this way you have to ask whether sometimes 'treatments' would be better characterised as 'boosters'. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

There are people with a couple hundred colonies who are keeping bees TF, but I have no idea whether their plans are to go twice as big or ten times as big or whether they could make it work.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> There are people with a couple hundred colonies who are keeping bees TF, but I have no idea whether their plans are to go twice as big or ten times as big or whether they could make it work.


I'd imagine if you want to expand toward 500+ colonies you'll want to protect your investment and your employees' livelihoods as much as possible by minimising risk and maximising production. The larger the operation the more that'll be true.

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

Expanding towards 500+ and has employees? Economics must be different in the UK than here in the US. 500 is hardly enough to support the employment of help.

I would think that minimizing risk and maximizing production would be anyone's goal were they planning on running bees commercially, regardless of the hive count.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> I would think that minimizing risk and maximizing production would be anyone's goal were they planning on running bees commercially, regardless of the hive count.


Well, quite. But it says that the problem is as much an economic issue as a practical one.

In my own case raising a tf strain will, I hope, repay my investments. 

Its worth mentioning too that I won't feel the moral discomforts I would otherwise feel about participating in a problematic practice. That's not a factor to many people - not because they lack moral purpose but because they don't see treating as a morally problematic. 

What I'm trying to say, without dramatically upsetting too many people, and veering massively off-topic, is that economics isn't the whole story for everybody. Some people think, for one reason or another - or more likely for a balance of reasons - that going tf is something they'd like to do. 

I've come into this conversation because I objected to people like myself being described in patronising tones. But I'm not a commercial beekeeper like the ot, so unless I'm asked a direct question by Woodside I'm going to butt out.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

mike bispham said:


> That's unfair. Many people give you the facts of their own experiences. They just don't relate to large operations.
> 
> Mike (UK)


No one wants the reality of being treatment free more than I. 



However time and time again finding out that the guys you thought were treatment free legends are just a bunch of frauds with a pipe dream costing new beekeepers money is not my idea of treatment free. 

They either don't make their money from bees (mainly from beekeepers) or have to split constantly to survive and sell those average bees to the next sucker that comes along.

Better genetics, splits, small cell foundation and foundation less bah! I have tried it all. And believed it would work. 

Can it be done profitability?? Anyone???? Prove it! And don't count your book sells into your profit margin. Or those mite laden bees your selling as treatment free to keep your colonies from sinking. 

Listening to the treatment free "gurus" has cost me alot of time and money.


----------



## mike bispham

I'll butt in again, just long enough to say: if you'd like to start a new thread aimed at sharing your experience, with a view to finding out how others might feel about what you did, and how you might do it differently, go ahead. An argument about whether or not it can be made to work here would be off topic.

Mike (UK)


----------



## AHudd

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> No one wants the reality of being treatment free more than I.
> 
> 
> 
> However time and time again finding out that the guys you thought were treatment free legends are just a bunch of frauds with a pipe dream costing new beekeepers money is not my idea of treatment free.
> 
> They either don't make their money from bees (mainly from beekeepers) or have to split constantly to survive and sell those average bees to the next sucker that comes along.
> 
> Better genetics, splits, small cell foundation and foundation less bah! I have tried it all. And believed it would work.
> 
> Can it be done profitability?? Anyone???? Prove it! And don't count your book sells into your profit margin. Or those mite laden bees your selling as treatment free to keep your colonies from sinking.
> 
> Listening to the treatment free "gurus" has cost me alot of time and money.


Sobering thoughts, for certain. The more I read on this subject the more I understand the animosity that has been created from both sides of the issue. So much info to comb through and decide who is sincere and who is only trying to advance an agenda.
Risking 2K hives would be like going all in on a high stakes poker game without knowing what your hole cards are with all the bystanders encouraging you to go for it even though they have no skin in the game.
If this was my decision to make, I would see if I could get some money the USDA is going to be spending from the https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Pollinator Health Strategy 2015.pdf

Alex


----------



## Honey-4-All

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Listening to the treatment free "gurus" has cost me alot of time and money.


Glad someone else sees this.

I pointed this out previously in a very similar fashion and my post was deleted as being "off topic." Hope yours isn't. 

I will give 10 free queens shipping included if anyone on here can list 2 people whom I can verify that are "100%" "treatment free in the US mainland, have maintained and overwintered over 1000 hives successfully for over 3 years within the past 10 years. They must also have no other outside income than that produced directly by the bees themselves. 

My previous point has which I maintain is that if this whole thing is so possible how come no one is doing so!!! 

Instead of ad hominem arguments or deleting posts lets flush the truth out.


----------



## Fusion_power

H4, have you considered Chris Baldwin? I think he meets or maybe exceeds your criteria.

http://southbeekota.com/

Re going treatment free, I would suggest a different approach than has been suggested here. Set up 2 or 3 apiaries with a total of around 100 colonies and convert those 100 colonies to mite tolerant by requeening. I suggest getting queens to evaluate from 3 sources with one entire apiary of a given queen line. Then you have a comparison point to determine which bees are both mite tolerant and amenable to your management style.

Make a few changes in your methods by planning on much more aggressive management to prevent swarming in the spring. I do not consider my treatment free bees to have any other concerns that would prevent commercial use. But you have to be there to keep swarming under control.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

I am not trying to be on topic or cause folks to get mad. But if it takes getting a few folks mad and think before they cost themselves a small fortune like I have than that might be good.

I started beekeeping at 15. I loved it. I still do. There were no serious beekeepers nearby so I learned via the school of hard knocks. I have not treated colonies until last year. And that was only half. Not treating starting off was the biggest mistakes I have ever made. I lost colony after colony trying every which way ( you name it I have done it) to keep them alive and profitable TF.

You name the big shot TF guru and I know every method they know and have used. I have studied my heart out.
I have visited some as well. Disappointed is a understatement. I am no longer a wet behind the ears kid. I can see thru the partial truths and bull crap.

I have 200 colonies now. Soon I will be making my entire living off of bees. I have the equipment to go to 600 hives. My breeder colonies never get a treatment I believe the rest will get a OA treatment once a year.

Is treatment free better for bees? I am no longer sure. Good beekeeping and bee breeding is what I have found to keep bees alive. Good beekeeping is treating when the bees need it. Letting your colonies die like many of the "internet gurus" is a half thought out idea. 

Let's say you have 100 TF hives. You beleive in the bond method. You lose only 30% during the summer/fall due to mites. Now tell me where do those mites go??? Your surviving colonies. They Rob them out and pick up mites plaguing your remaining colonies.

I am done with ideals and wishes. I have a family to support. Am I going to carelessly nuke hives? No. 

I will manage them and find what works best within profitable, successful realms of beekeeping.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

MartinW said:


> Tennessee's Bees LLC - You mentioned challenges around labor intensive activity. Can you say a bit more? Re-queening? Managing drone comb? Thanks.


One of the best TF techniques (which IMHO is a treatment) is drone comb removal. If you can do this early in the spring 2 times per colony mite levels significantly drop over the long run. Still that alone is not enough. You must have resistant stock and make splits.

This answer cannot work for everyone. What if you keep bees in Cali or Florida mites being raised most of the year! It is totally different then keeping hives in Montana where your mite population has a shorter season to infest. 

As far as requeening goes we requeen only when needed. Bad pattern queens go immediately. 

I don't care if the Queens are 2-3 years old we breed for longevity.

Now caging Queens is a bad idea. To much work. Stress on the queen, and doesn't accomplish much. Mites become a problem when the percentages of mites to bees reaches a critcal threshhold. Lowering your bee population without dropping your mite population is a bad idea. However queen caging combined with a :gasp: natural treatment can work great though.


----------



## Honey-4-All

Fusion_power said:


> H4, have you considered Chris Baldwin? I think he meets or maybe exceeds your criteria.
> 
> http://southbeekota.com/


I checked out their website: To me the words:

" Our goal is to be chemical free and develop a 
strain of bees with survivor capabilities to move toward 
sustainable agriculture." 

does not fit the Criteria

Lots of people have goals. What beekeeper doesn't have that one? Does not say anywhere they have fulfilled them or even anything about being close. Would he be willing to put the whole operation on the line by stating emphatically under oath that they have reached that goal. Don't hold your breath. 
'


----------



## clyderoad

I am happy to finally see a frank discussion covering the realities of keeping colonies alive and productive TF by those who depend on them being alive and productive for all, or even a majority, of their income.
When the product a beekeeper sells is bees, honey or offers pollination services to put the peanut butter and jelly on the bread it seems the TF conversation is much different than from the backyarder, book author or idealist.

This discussion is long overdue.


----------



## sqkcrk

Honey-4-All said:


> I will give 10 free queens shipping included if anyone on here can list 2 people whom I can verify that are "100%" "treatment free in the US mainland


Only 10? If you were serious you'd put up 100.


----------



## mike bispham

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> I am not trying to be on topic or cause folks to get mad. But if it takes getting a few folks mad and think before they cost themselves a small fortune like I have than that might be good.


That's fine by me.



Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> I started beekeeping at 15. I loved it. I still do. There were no serious beekeepers nearby so I learned via the school of hard knocks. I have not treated colonies until last year. And that was only half. Not treating starting off was the biggest mistakes I have ever made. I lost colony after colony trying every which way ( you name it I have done it) to keep them alive and profitable TF.


Over what timescale has this occurred, and how have you gone about it?

The reason I ask these things is this: thousands of people have tried and failed at tf. Probably tens of thousands. But I would argue the reason that happened is this: they failed to learn and plan and execute the project adequately.

This forum rings with the sound of failed tf beekeepers. And when you question them, and they are courageous enough to tell you honestly what they did, it becomes obvious why they failed. In general terms they misunderstood the nature of the problem.

In this the project of becoming treatment free is just like every other business venture. Start from the premise: _if it was easy everybody would be doing it_! 

It isn't easy. And you have to do your homework AND be prepared to learn from hard experience. Just like any other sort of venture, all sorts of people will give all sorts of advice and encouragement and discouragement. Ignore them all: find people who have done it, and understand clearly why what they've done worked. Don't blame the people who said it would be easy - in some circumstances it is easy, and they mistake their success as being transferable. It isn't. Blame yourself for listening to them, and not to those who said it would be hard.

Every situation is different, and a good plan is needed that understands well the complex mechanisms in play and acknowledges what the likely problems are, knows what the likely outcomes are, and is prepared to meet them. 



Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> You name the big shot TF guru and I know every method they know and have used. I have studied my heart out.


So come on, tell us what you did, in detail.



Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> I have 200 colonies now. Soon I will be making my entire living off of bees. I have the equipment to go to 600 hives. My breeder colonies never get a treatment I believe the rest will get a OA treatment once a year.


So you have breeder queens capable of thriving indefinately without treatments (or monkey business)? And you can use them to make increase and flood your mating areas with drones? Then what is your beef?



Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Is treatment free better for bees? I am no longer sure. Good beekeeping and bee breeding is what I have found to keep bees alive. Good beekeeping is treating when the bees need it. Letting your colonies die like many of the "internet gurus" is a half thought out idea.


When you are planning to raise your own resistant stock getting rid of the least resistant is very important. That's what breeding is. Unless you are very careful with breeding treatments (and monkey business) mask and mess with that. 



Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Let's say you have 100 TF hives. You beleive in the bond method. You lose only 30% during the summer/fall due to mites. Now tell me where do those mites go??? Your surviving colonies. They Rob them out and pick up mites plaguing your remaining colonies.


They put those remaining hives to the severest test. That test is the foundation of 'Hard Bond'. Its not what you want to be going in for if you depend on your bees for your living. You're doing 'Soft Bond'

Here's my experience: over 4 years zero to 70 hives, all swarms / cut-outs / home raised. Last year winter loss 20%. About 1/3 medium to strong now, about 1/3 write-offs, the rest between. No sign of dwv. 

I have the hives to breed from, the stocks to requeen, and I can influence my dronespace sufficiently. I think I have ground for optimism. 



Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> I am done with ideals and wishes. I have a family to support. Am I going to carelessly nuke hives? No.
> 
> I will manage them and find what works best within profitable, successful realms of beekeeping.


If you wish to be treatment free, don't let those you have to treat reproduce - either maternally or paternally. Do your genetic husbandry well and you're in with a chance. You're right: this is about breeding, all the way. But if you have a mortgage to pay, and you don't have time to do outside work, be very careful with your money. This is a game for people who can afford to lose their investment.

Good luck 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> One of the best TF techniques (which IMHO is a treatment) is drone comb removal.


That's what I call monkey business. Its just as effective as any other treatment at inhibiting adaptation.

For that reason it's not tf beekeeping - in my book anyway. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Solomon Parker

In my humble view, commercial is possible TF in exactly the way it has been done in the past and is already being done, stationary honey (and other hive products) production.

Bees weren't meant to be moved. TF bees suffer heavy losses when moved. It's a fact.

And no, you can't get it done by pulling drone brood and requeening with VSH stock. Drone brood doesn't work, and VSH won't be local. You need your own bees, breeding from your own bees, making increase from your own bees.


----------



## AHudd

Tennessee's Bees LLC,

Your candor is appreciated. 

Alex


----------



## Barry

Honey-4-All said:


> list 2 people whom I can verify that are "100%" "treatment free in the US mainland, have maintained and overwintered over 1000 hives successfully for over 3 years within the past 10 years. They must also have no other outside income than that produced directly by the bees themselves.


I think the only one that comes close to this is Dee Lusby at 600-700 hives? I've said before that TF is not a viable option for a commercial beekeeper. Someone prove me wrong.


----------



## rwurster

mike bispham said:


> I'll butt in again, just long enough to say: if you'd like to start a new thread aimed at sharing your experience, with a view to finding out how others might feel about what you did, and how you might do it differently, go ahead. An argument about whether or not it can be made to work here would be off topic. Mike (UK)


Well Mike, this thread is about commercial level TF and Tennessee was talking about his experiences with it. I'm through with the TF also, it's not going to work as my apiary gets larger. I never bought into the 'miracle bees' some claim to have however if someone out there has accomplished what Honey 4 All is wagering on, please share with the group. We all want TF bees, we all want to be TF. We can't cherry pick the feedback that is given here. I don't agree with everything H4All says but I wouldn't want to frequent a forum or live in a world where his opinion didn't get expressed. Deal with it 

I didn't realize there was a second full page of comments since last night and I responded to Mike before I saw that lol I too, Tennessee, would rather have healthy, productive bees than having to split for brood breaks, have decreased productivity, put all the labor into it... I've done it, it can be done, with major drawbacks to an operation. The OA genie is going to rear it's head pretty soon in my yards. I want hard proof too, not smoke and mirrors.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> In my humble view, commercial is possible TF in exactly the way it has been done in the past and is already being done, stationary honey (and other hive products) production.
> 
> Bees weren't meant to be moved. TF bees suffer heavy losses when moved. It's a fact.


Nice to see ya, Solomon. But, bees weren't meant to be moved? Aren't you glad they were moved? I don't agree with you about them not being meant to be moved. That statement implies something beyond knowing and contrary to experience. After all, they were moved to North America back in 1619 and have been moved around the US ever since and regularly annually.

What do you mean by "the way it has been done in the past"? As it was done in the era before Langstroth? I don't understand.


----------



## clyderoad

Solomon Parker said:


> In my humble view, commercial is possible TF in exactly the way it has been done in the past and is already being done, stationary honey (and other hive products) production.
> 
> Bees weren't meant to be moved. TF bees suffer heavy losses when moved. It's a fact.
> 
> And no, you can't get it done by pulling drone brood and requeening with VSH stock. Drone brood doesn't work, and VSH won't be local. You need your own bees, breeding from your own bees, making increase from your own bees.


Nope, on all accounts.
I'm stationary, my own bees from the most hygenic in my yards, increasing from my own bees.
TF is impossible at this time for my operation to be successful, the loses are to high to be sustainable.
Weak bees and empty equipment does not make a honey crop to be sold for profit. It's a fact.

who is already doing it?


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Bees weren't meant to be moved. TF bees suffer heavy losses when moved. It's a fact


Proven by what happened when you moved yours?


----------



## deknow

I'm not sure why anyone that was actually interested wouldn't have already spoken to kirk webster, bob brachmann, or chris b.


----------



## Honey-4-All

Barry said:


> I think the only one that comes close to this is Dee Lusby at 600-700 hives? I've said before that TF is not a viable option for a commercial beekeeper. Someone prove me wrong.


*And the kicker in that equation is the Africanization issue. The only ones who "claim" to be "able" to do so are the ones with the hot bees or in areas where the "escapees" are known to exist.*

Before you all go thinking I have no scrapes or bruises from this TF game let me tell you it is not so. When the bees started to crack off hard we lost many $ worth over the course of many years trying to do no or low treatment on our bees. In the course of doing so two things happened that one may call the yin/yang of the die offs

The bad part is we lost a lot of money. Close to a million dollars worth of bees over 5-6 years. Having that happen made me reprioritize every penny spent. Got really good at eating stale bread and zucchini........ 

The good part is that to save a buck we jumped into doing queens big time. Doing that and the associated benefits from doing so has been well worth all the money I missed putting in my pocket or expanding during the lean years. We are still having losses but the rate is much better now and the genetics of the queens is far superior to that which we had mid 2000's. 

Do I wish to be LO T or TF? Heck yes. Is that my goal? Of course. 

If it happens I will let you know...

From all the people I talk to and associate with on the phone and in the queen breeders circles I would say that no one can honestly say one can go TF on a large scale and make a go of it. 

Its not like i'm selling chemicals to kill mites or such. If we had TF long life queens i'd be the first in line to buy them from myself. If someone else had some I'd buy theirs. 

The only thing is that I will not either claim to have TF queens or buy them from someone else unless those hives will survive at a 90% rate over 3 years without a stitch of anything. I'm not there yet and no one I know knows anyone else who is either...


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> I'm not sure why anyone that was actually interested wouldn't have already spoken to kirk webster, bob brachmann, or chris b.


How do you know they haven't?


----------



## beeware10

reading between the lines of tf beekeepers posts many raise nucs to replace the ones that die and don't count the dead ones. back in the 40's bees used to trucked from ny to fla in 3 days with old trucks and really bad roads. as long as there were no break downs the bees did fine. stress on moving bees is over rated. every university is trying to find problems to their credit for grant money. you have to look at beekeeping history before believing some of todays cures. If something is repeated enough on bee source lots of people start to think its true.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> An argument about whether or not it can be made to work here would be off topic.


Thread title: commercial level TF

I think you better get your thread titles sorted out.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> I'm not sure why anyone that was actually interested wouldn't have already spoken to kirk webster, bob brachmann, or chris b.


chris b.? Who dat? How many hives do Kirk or Bob run?

Why didn't you mention T.I. in that list?


----------



## squarepeg

a post by randy oliver made this evening on another venue relevant to the discussion in this thread:

"After easily breeding bee stocks for gentleness, productivity, hygienic
behavior, and seeing how quickly colonies stopped dying from tracheal mite
after the initial invasion, I expected varroa resistance to be just one
more thing that could be easily bred for.

My first Bond experience was when varroa first invaded and wiped out nearly
100% of my colonies--I clearly couldn't afford to lose that many colonies a
year.

So then I tried importing every line of purported "mite resistant" stock
that I could get my hands on, and made the mistake of letting them
interbreed. Don't waste your time! I just got a bunch of lousy bees.

However, I *have* seen colonies that keep mites under control, and pass
that trait onto their daughters, but generally lose the trait(s) by the F2
generation (I don't use instrumental insemination). So I know that varroa
resistance is possible.

So long as I could maintain pure VSH or Russians, they did pretty well, but
most still needed some treatment to control mites. But when propagated via
open mating, they rapidly lose the benefits of their breeding programs.
I didn't want to be dependent upon the purchase of II breeders each year.

So after some years of trying other things, I returned to the tried and
true of simply applying strong selective pressure to an established stock
(my local mongrels), and minimized input of outside genes (other than from
local feral survivors).

And rather than allowing colonies to die via the Bond method, I treat
colonies that are losing the battle. But I maintain strong selective
pressure each season, selecting only about 25 breeders out of 1000 colonies.

I'm in complete agreement that it is unrealistic to think that one will
spontaneously experience the evolution of varroa resistant bees in their
backyard.

On the other hand, if one can find truly resistant survivor stock, there is
no reason that one could not continue to apply selective pressure.

As it stands, it *appears* that after more than a decade of selective
breeding (with open mated stock) that my bees are making some progress.
Many, if purchased by those keeping only a couple of hives in a yard,
survive without any treatment for a number of years (I do not recommend
this to my purchasers).

In yards with a couple of dozen hives, however, most colonies pass the
acceptable mite thresholds by mid August if not treated. So I would never
claim that I have mite resistant stock.

But I'm encouraged by the fact that I *have * observed that my cutoff
threshold for mite levels in my breeder selection has been steadily ticking
downward year by year. And this season, I've found a number of colonies
that have maintained mite counts near zero by the first of June (as
compared to some adjacent test colonies from another breeder, which had
counts over 100).

In summary, I'm finding breeding for varroa resistance to be the toughest
challenge in my career. But I've also seen the possibility of relatively
rapid success, as evidenced by the Baton Rouge breeders, and what appears
to be a degree of success in my own selective breeding program (hampered by
open mating).

At this point in time, after I've winnowed out the hype and exaggeration of
those purporting to have had success at breeding "survivor bees," I'm
getting the feeling that evolution is taking its expected course, and that
we are finally seeing bees starting to adapt to varroa.

But this will not happen in the operations of queen producers who never
allow mite levels to rise to a level from which one could select for
variation. So I'm putting a lot of faith into those hobby and sideline
microbreeders, who by dint of sheer numbers and tenacity, may find local
survivor stocks from which we can propagate phase 2 of the evolution of
mite resistance."

(i asked some time back and randy consented to having his comments shared here, my apologies barry if this is inappropriate)


----------



## AHudd

:applause::applause::applause:

Alex


----------



## clyderoad

"So I'm putting a lot of faith into those hobby and sideline
microbreeders, who by dint of sheer numbers and tenacity, may find local
survivor stocks from which we can propagate phase 2 of the evolution of
mite resistance."

As much as I respect R Oliver and his work I am not putting much faith in this process.


----------



## Fusion_power

My hat is off to Randy. He is doing the serious legwork and hard core beekeeping needed.

I'm one of those hobby/sideliners who has made it for 11 consecutive seasons.


----------



## clyderoad

Fusion_power said:


> My hat is off to Randy. He is doing the serious legwork and hard core beekeeping needed.
> 
> I'm one of those hobby/sideliners who has made it for 11 consecutive seasons.


Great. 
What does this mean for me, and for others running hives for profit?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Big fan of Randy Oliver cuts out the crap and gives you cold hard facts. What he described is exactly what I intend to do. Maintain profit while still selecting for better bees.

Guys I have kept bees for almost 11 years without treatments. I learned alot and have learned what it takes to do it. 

I never made any serious money off of it though. 

I am tired of high losses or weak colonies I have to combine.

I am tired of 50 lbs of honey per colony averages. I like 110lbs much better. So does my wife and customers.


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> Nope, on all accounts.
> I'm stationary, my own bees from the most hygenic in my yards, increasing from my own bees.
> TF is impossible at this time for my operation to be successful, the loses are to high to be sustainable.
> Weak bees and empty equipment does not make a honey crop to be sold for profit. It's a fact.


Let me ask you Clyde, what I asked Tennessee bees: What exactly have you done. Don't you think one or two people here might just be able to point out factors that haven't occurred to you? Or are you afraid of being shown where you might have done things differently?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

deknow said:


> I'm not sure why anyone that was actually interested wouldn't have already spoken to kirk webster, bob brachmann, or chris b.


In Europe I'd add John Kefuss to that list. Phd under Ruttner, large commercial operations (in partnership), inventor of the phrase 'Bond Test', one of the foremost tf breeders, teaches tf bee raising... 

BTW the last I heard he didn't think large scale commercial/migratory beekeeping was possible with tf bees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Honey-4-All said:


> From all the people I talk to and associate with on the phone and in the queen breeders circles I would say that no one can honestly say one can go TF on a large scale and make a go of it.


This begs the question: has large-scale beekeeping evolved into a form in which dependence on medical props is necessary? Like 10,000 unit pig farms, 5000 unit indoor dairy operations, 500,000 unit broiler farms... the set-up itself is one that cannot operate without close veterinary attention - without drugs.

Its not just the physical set-up; you might be able to add expensive space and ventilation, and better manure removal systems, and manage to get reasonable growth rates, but they will be lower, meaning unless you can make savings on labour, or are subsidised in a unique way, you won't be able to compete in the market. 

Has large scale/migratory commercial beekeeping become economically dependent on treatments?

Let me ask this: if an intensive beekeeping operation stopped all treatments and monkey-business _except_ mite-directed actions, what would happen? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

beeware10 said:


> reading between the lines of tf beekeepers posts many raise nucs to replace the ones that die and don't count the dead ones. back in the 40's bees used to trucked from ny to fla in 3 days with old trucks and really bad roads. as long as there were no break downs the bees did fine. stress on moving bees is over rated. every university is trying to find problems to their credit for grant money. you have to look at beekeeping history before believing some of todays cures. If something is repeated enough on bee source lots of people start to think its true.


Was there competition from Chinese and Asian honey then? The market has tightened everywhere in the developed world. We have to run to stand still. What difference has that made? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> Thread title: commercial level TF
> 
> I think you better get your thread titles sorted out.


I'm not a commercial beekeeper, and so I thought what I'd have to say would be of limited use. I was trying to keep the thread on track.

Thanks for your fine appreciation of my effort Barry. Nice one.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

beeware10 said:


> If something is repeated enough on bee source lots of people start to think its true.


Its true universally. But find me just 2 quotes in the many thousands of post on the Beesource Treatment Free forum where somebody has actually said that will you? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> Great.
> What does this mean for me, and for others running hives for profit?


Start helping. Work toward being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Spend next winter learning, talking to people, and making a great plan.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rolande

Kefuss:



mike bispham said:


> BTW the last I heard he didn't think large scale commercial/migratory beekeeping was possible with tf bees.


Mike, can you expand on this; reference/personal communication etc?

Is his son treating their production colonies in France or is he referring to larger operations? It would be interesting to know where they think the line needs to be drawn.


----------



## TalonRedding

There is a lot of truth in this thread, as well as idealistic propaganda. Tennessee is the only one so far that I've seen on this forum who has actually posted his productivity with TF colonies. He also counters it with the productivity of treated colonies. Hats off to his honesty! I happen to know Tennessee personally, and I have even helped in his operation. I can certainly vouch for the fact that he has done everything possible in the past to be TF. He would be here all week if he were to describe the methods used, because like he said, he studied the literature and put it into practice. I've done that too with the same results among my bees, but not as long though. 
Many TF proponents also have other livestock, and even show their livestock at barns where other animals are concentrated (ie horses, cows, etc). I know for a fact that many of these livestock exhibitions require that all animals be vaccinated for certain diseases before they can be on the premises. There is also a big difference between a $50,000 breeder stud and a double deep honeybee colony. If the stud began to show symptoms of illness and a vaccination would fix the problem, that TF beekeeper/ horse and cattle owner would vaccinate in a heartbeat I imagine. 
This conversation also has everything to do with goals. I see a big difference in the posts written by those who keep bees for an actual living vs those who keep bees on the side or as a hobby but also have another job that, as Mike just said, subsidizes their beekeeping efforts.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> In Europe I'd add John Kefuss to that list. Phd under Ruttner, large commercial operations (in partnership), inventor of the phrase 'Bond Test', one of the foremost tf breeders, teaches tf bee raising...
> 
> BTW the last I heard he didn't think large scale commercial/migratory beekeeping was possible with tf bees.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Then shouldn't that put an end to this discussion? Consensus of opinion being that large scale TF commercial/migratory beekeeping isn't possible? Until someone can show us that it can, aren't we just wasting time and space?

I would love to see someone, whose name I shall not use, go from 200+ to 1,000 colonies continuing his current management techniques.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> Has large scale/migratory commercial beekeeping become economically dependent on treatments?
> 
> Let me ask this: if an intensive beekeeping operation stopped all treatments and monkey-business _except_ mite-directed actions, what would happen?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Seems like it to me.

What do you mean by "monkey-business"? And "except mite-directed actions"? Do you mean stop treating for AFB and Nosema? But treating for mites?


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Kefuss:
> 
> Mike, can you expand on this; reference/personal communication etc?
> 
> Is his son treating their production colonies in France or is he referring to larger operations? It would be interesting to know where they think the line needs to be drawn.


Trying to find the ref I found this instead, which appears to contradict my first statement:

Comments on: “Varroa destructor: research avenues towards sustainable control” 
Robert G Danka1*, Thomas E Rinderer1, Marla Spivak2 and John Kefuss3 

We agree with Dietemann et al. (2012) that the effectiveness of IPM programmes (presumably including genetically resistant bees) for varroa control, depends on the dedication and proficiency of individual beekeepers. Our experience is that small-scale beekeepers are further ahead than large-scale beekeepers in acceptance of resistant bees. This is understandable, because commercial beekeepers are necessarily more averse to risks and the technology is new. However, the rate of adoption of agricultural technology tends to follow a logarithmic trend. Thus the adoption of resistant strains can be expected to accelerate, in part because of recent advances in basic IPM of varroa (e.g. improved sampling techniques for large-scale beekeeping; Lee et al., 2010) and in knowledge about the negative effects of acaricides on bees (e.g. Johnson et al., 2009). 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFile.../515-Danka--Comments on Varroa destructor.pdf

I'll keep looking. It may be my first view has been superceded by later developments

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

TalonRedding said:


> I happen to know Tennessee personally, and I have even helped in his operation. I can certainly vouch for the fact that he has done everything possible in the past to be TF.


Unfortunately that sort of testimony does nothing to remove the suspicion that someone might have had more success if he'd done something or things differently. Writing an account can be hard work, but its worth the effort. Not only do you give other people a chance to see what you did, you get a chance to hear views on what else you might have done. And you gain a better understanding of just what you did in the process of composing it to boot.

Saying 'I did everything humanly possible' simply doesn't cut it. Tell us what you did.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Then shouldn't that put an end to this discussion? Consensus of opinion being that large scale TF commercial/migratory beekeeping isn't possible?


Huh?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> Seems like it to me.
> 
> What do you mean by "monkey-business"?


Simply splitting as a strategy to continue to have enough hives/create brood breaks does nothing to raise resistance. Digging out drone comb, artificial swarming, the same. Anything designed to help the bees is a form of treatment in my book; but since it doesn't involve the application of a substance I call it 'monkey business'.



sqkcrk said:


> And "except mite-directed actions"? Do you mean stop treating for AFB and Nosema? But treating for mites?


AFB here is notifyable and colonies must be destroyed and gear burned. That's appropriate for that disease, here, now. But I don't treat for nosema or anything else. That's what 'non-treatment' means.

Is that the same among commercial posters in the US? Or does tf mean just no treatment against mites?

What I'm getting at is this: if the methods used require drugs and actions against a range of disease problems, as a result of their intensity and breeders propensity to aim at productivity above all else, then it might be unreasonable to expect mite-resistant bees to thrive too - purely on the grounds: bees were never designed (by nature) to be kept so intensively.

All the swapping of frames, the high density of hives, the constant moving and consequent exposure to new pathogens... these things may preclude self-defence against mites as well as micro-predators.

So: if a commercial outfit stops treating (and monkey business) for everything except mites; what happens?

Mike (UK)


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham said:


> Unfortunately that sort of testimony does nothing to remove the suspicion that someone might have had more success if he'd done something or things differently. Writing an account can be hard work, but its worth the effort. Not only do you give other people a chance to see what you did, you get a chance to hear views on what else you might have done. And you gain a better understanding of just what you did in the process of composing it to boot.
> 
> Saying 'I did everything humanly possible' simply doesn't cut it. Tell us what you did.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Stop beating the dead horse. 
Do you think you are qualified with your limited experience to pick apart the methods used by those who have come to conclude that TF is not a viable option for them and to make suggestions as to how they should proceed?
Running 15 hives in a backyard or 30 new hives from swarms and cutouts is far different from operating 5 or more outyards and running a few hundred production hives.
I kept a TF yard for a number of years that looked much like that photo of your yard you posted a short time ago, the one in the commercial orchard. It was my TF experiment and it failed miserably, 4 years much lost money and dead bees, and it will not be repeated.

I suspect that a broadening of your beekeeping experiences will better enable you to understand what is really going on in beeyards vs what is claimed on the www.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Kefuss:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, can you expand on this; reference/personal communication etc?
> 
> Is his son treating their production colonies in France or is he referring to larger operations? It would be interesting to know where they think the line needs to be drawn.


This again seems to refute my first view Roland. I'm sure I've read something to that effect someplace, but haven't found it yet.

http://www.meamcneil.com/John Kefuss Keeping Bees That Keep Themselves.pdf


And for the skeptics, a report of Kefuss' varroa challenge:

http://www.apinews.com/en/news/item/12335-france-a-varroa-challenge

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> Stop beating the dead horse.


The horse is not dead by a long shot. Until you tell us what you did we have no way of knowing how much you know about raising resistance. Having kept lots of colonies successfully using orthodox methods is no qualification for raising resistant bees. 

If you want respect for your knowledge on this subject you to gain it. You don''t get to simply claim it. Saying your photos look look like mine and inferring that that means you understand the mechanisms _of raising resistance_ does nothing whatever to increase my belief that you do - quite the opposite - it makes me think that your powers of logic are not well developed. 

That is not a good sign.

Give us your story and prove me wrong. That's a challenge.

Mike (UK)


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham said:


> The horse is not dead by a long shot. Until you tell us what you did we have no way of knowing how much you know about raising resistance. Having kept lots of colonies successfully using orthodox methods is no qualification for raising resistant bees.
> 
> If you want respect for your knowledge on this subject you to gain it. You don''t get to simply claim it. Saying your photos look look like mine and inferring that that means you understand the mechanisms _of raising resistance_ does nothing whatever to increase my belief that you do - quite the opposite - it makes me think that your powers of logic are not well developed.
> 
> That is not a good sign.
> 
> Give us your story and prove me wrong. That's a challenge.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I am responsible to myself and family for keeping my hives healthy and productive. I am not at all interested in proving anyone wrong or getting involved in a convoluted challenge. 
I said my TF yard looked much like the photo you posted of those hives in the commercial orchard, for you to get an idea of what was a steak.
Do you claim to know the mechanisms of raising resistant bees? If you do, you are the only one.

Back to the topic: TF beekeeping is not viable for commercial beekeeping for profit.


----------



## AHudd

mike bispham said:


> The horse is not dead by a long shot. Until you tell us what you did we have no way of knowing how much you know about raising resistance. Having kept lots of colonies successfully using orthodox methods is no qualification for raising resistant bees.
> 
> If you want respect for your knowledge on this subject you to gain it. You don''t get to simply claim it. Saying your photos look look like mine and inferring that that means you understand the mechanisms _of raising resistance_ does nothing whatever to increase my belief that you do - quite the opposite - it makes me think that your powers of logic are not well developed.
> 
> That is not a good sign.
> 
> Give us your story and prove me wrong. That's a challenge.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Accusatory tone and demands=Thread Killer.


----------



## sqkcrk

mike bispham said:


> The horse is not dead by a long shot. Until you tell us what you did we have no way of knowing how much you know about raising resistance. Having kept lots of colonies successfully using orthodox methods is no qualification for raising resistant bees.
> 
> If you want respect for your knowledge on this subject you to gain it. You don''t get to simply claim it. Saying your photos look look like mine and inferring that that means you understand the mechanisms _of raising resistance_ does nothing whatever to increase my belief that you do - quite the opposite - it makes me think that your powers of logic are not well developed.
> 
> That is not a good sign.
> 
> Give us your story and prove me wrong. That's a challenge.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I agree with Mike (UK). Isn't this what we have been demanding from the TF beekeepers? Don't just say you did something, tell us how? I don't think Mike's "challenge" is all that unreasonable. Tell us what you did and why bit failed.


----------



## StevenG

sigh... this thread is one example why I rarely check back with the forum any more. Comments along the lines of No one reports TF with the honesty of Tennessee's Bees LLC, which ignores the work Squarepeg is currently doing, I did 8 plus years ago, and others... seems like we are all called liars, and dishonest. Then Tennessee's Bees accuses TF "gurus" of being dishonest, and irresponsibly foisting misidentified bees off on unsuspecting buyers. Yet his own profile lists him as 10 years beekeeper, "Breed and sell mite resistant stock... no treatments 250 hives" and he calls TF bogus? Seems like there is a disconnect somewhere.

Then we have a beekeeper offering 10 queens to a commercial operation that is treatment free. hmmm.... I suspect B. Weaver would not want your queens. Or do they not qualify as a large commercial operation?

I made a wager with Ted Kreschmann a few years ago that within 15 years of the incipient date of our wager, there would be TF commercial beekeepers. A steak dinner is riding on that bet. There are a few years left, but it looks like I'm going to be buying Ted a steak dinner... :lpf: And I don't mind... it is what it is. 

I do not mind an honest discussion of TF beekeeping, or TF commercial beekeeping (and that may not be possible in my lifetime, but I believe it is coming). What chaps me is the accusations of dishonesty, name calling, and "because I can't do it, no one can," or even "because I CAN do it, everyone everywhere should be able to." 

The worst year around here a local semi-commercial beekeeper lost 60% of his hives, treating. That same year I lost 24% of my hives, Treatment Free. I do not have the per hive labor or cost he does... so I guess I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, even though according to some it is impossible, I am wrong, and I am a liar. opcorn:

Best wishes for a good season,
Steven


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> I am responsible to myself and family for keeping my hives healthy and productive. I am not at all interested in proving anyone wrong or getting involved in a convoluted challenge.


Then stick with orthodox beekeeping, and quit telling us here we're all liars. There's nothing convoluted about that challenge: if you think you've done everything that could be done, and that you have the expertise to know that to be the case, demonstrate it. Till then its just wind. 

We've heard it many times here. 'I'm a successful commercial beekeeper, (and so I know all there is to know about raising bees) and I tried going tf, and I failed (and if someone as experienced as me can't do it no-one can). Therefore: no-one can, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a fraud.'



clyderoad said:


> I said my TF yard looked much like the photo you posted of those hives in the commercial orchard, for you to get an idea of what was a steak.


Not with you there.



clyderoad said:


> Do you claim to know the mechanisms of raising resistant bees? If you do, you are the only one.


Yes I do: no I'm not. A great many people understand the fundamentals of genetic husbandry, and how to apply them to bees. Just because you don't doesn't mean no-one does. 

Try to acknowledge: some people know more than you do about raising resistance in bees. I might not. We'll never know until you tell us what you did, and allow us to ask question about why you did those things.



clyderoad said:


> Back to the topic: TF beekeeping is not viable for commercial beekeeping for profit.


And if you say it often enough it becomes the truth?

You may be right. I've acknowledged that. But it may also be the case that for some clever and knowledgeable beekeepers tf beekeeping is actually more profitable. Did you read those pieces on and by John Kefuss I posted? Is he a liar - or just more knowledgable about the mechanisms of raising resistance than you? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## clyderoad

sqkcrk said:


> I agree with Mike (UK). Isn't this what we have been demanding from the TF beekeepers? Don't just say you did something, tell us how? I don't think Mike's "challenge" is all that unreasonable. Tell us what you did and why bit failed.


I'm stationary, my own bees from the most hygenic in my yards, increasing from my own bees.
TF is impossible at this time for my operation to be successful, the loses are to high to be sustainable.
Weak bees and empty equipment does not make a honey crop to be sold for profit. It's a fact.

I wrote this way back in the discussion maybe you missed it.


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> I'm stationary, my own bees from the most hygenic in my yards, increasing from my own bees.


That's it? You measured 'hygiene'? What sort? How? How else did you evaluate for best maternal material? How did you control paternal input? 

Did you bring in any known or anticipated resistant bees?

Mike (UK)


----------



## clyderoad

mbispham>>
Where has anyone been called a liar in this discussion? It's still a discussion right?
Why such aggression towards any and everyone with a view different from your's? or better yet, with experiences that don't fit your
"model"?
In my opinion, if you want to be taken seriously then the tactics you utilize in your posts on such a regular basis will need to change. Until then it's more of the same and more hot air. 

The thread is not about YOU. Again, you have to be told that.
It's about commercial level TF.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

My queens and breeder stock are treatment free. I never have said my stock is immune to varroa. Resistent yes. 

How can you summerize almost 11 years of treatment free in a post. I will get it on here but i also will be taking my time doing it. I have bees to work, queens to sell and graft.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

StevenG said:


> sigh... this thread is one example why I rarely check back with the forum any more. Comments along the lines of No one reports TF with the honesty of Tennessee's Bees LLC, which ignores the work Squarepeg is currently doing, I did 8 plus years ago, and others... seems like we are all called liars, and dishonest. Then Tennessee's Bees accuses TF "gurus" of being dishonest, and irresponsibly foisting misidentified bees off on unsuspecting buyers. Yet his own profile lists him as 10 years beekeeper, "Breed and sell mite resistant stock... no treatments 250 hives" and he calls TF bogus? Seems like there is a disconnect somewhere.
> 
> Then we have a beekeeper offering 10 queens to a commercial operation that is treatment free. hmmm.... I suspect B. Weaver would not want your queens. Or do they not qualify as a large commercial operation?
> 
> I made a wager with Ted Kreschmann a few years ago that within 15 years of the incipient date of our wager, there would be TF commercial beekeepers. A steak dinner is riding on that bet. There are a few years left, but it looks like I'm going to be buying Ted a steak dinner... :lpf: And I don't mind... it is what it is.
> 
> I do not mind an honest discussion of TF beekeeping, or TF commercial beekeeping (and that may not be possible in my lifetime, but I believe it is coming). What chaps me is the accusations of dishonesty, name calling, and "because I can't do it, no one can," or even "because I CAN do it, everyone everywhere should be able to."
> 
> The worst year around here a local semi-commercial beekeeper lost 60% of his hives, treating. That same year I lost 24% of my hives, Treatment Free. I do not have the per hive labor or cost he does... so I guess I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, even though according to some it is impossible, I am wrong, and I am a liar. opcorn:
> 
> Best wishes for a good season,
> Steven


I am not saying you cant keep them treatment free. I am saying you cant be commercial or a profitable beekeeper large and TF.

AND YES i will call out whoever i want. So called treatment free idealist have cost new beekeepers around the country loads of money. Treatment free beekeeping should be done by those who know the biology of the bees and how to select, raise and increase colonies.

B WEAVER is a bogus example. They sell bees where do you think all their mites go? In packages. That teamed with resistant stock
Makes it fairly easy. 

I personally think the bees have already become immune (in the form of coexisting) to varroa on their terms.

Bees dont need big robust colonies to survive. They dont need to produce 100lb surpluses. We need them to. I see wild colonies surviving in this area. They die alot too but all they need is to reproduce for the next year and reproduce again.


----------



## Snowhitsky

Mike & co. All very interesting stuff but before it degenerates even more could you all concentrate on responding to the OP's questions (see below)? Hopefully, that way we'll all go to bed a bit smarter? Thanks to all concerned.

"Some of the concerns about genetically mite resistant bees:

1) hive size / production
2) wintering
3) Cluster size in january

When a VSH hive survives winter, does it barely survive or does the cluster stay strong throughout the winter, or does it dwindle but survive? I mean 16 frame hive dwindles to 5-6 frames by February or is it more like 16 frame hive dwindles to 10 frames?

Are VSH bees generally more conservative or does the queen lay without regaurd of resources like my current stock."


----------



## Honey-4-All

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> My queens and breeder stock are treatment free. I never have said my stock is immune to varroa. Resistent yes.
> 
> How can you summarize almost 11 years of treatment free in a post. I will get it on here but i also will be taking my time doing it. I have bees to work, queens to sell and graft.


Say what you want. I do not know TB LLC at all. All I do know is that when one needs to balance both the business side of beekeeping with the goal of producing TF stock the way he is doing it is right on track. Throwing your had fully in one ring at a time will never get you in the part of the circles where the rings overlap. Hats off to you TB for wisely keeping a foot in both rings. Phil


----------



## AstroBee

Thanks to Squarepeg and StevenG for their inputs. First off, I'm not commercial so feel free to discard this input. However, I've been keeping bees profitably for over 14 years (I do have a regular job too) and focusing on bees that survive without treatments for most of that time. I don't often post in the TF forum, mostly because of the grandiose claims and the constant bickering. I have invested a great deal of time and energy into achieving bees that I believe are productive and survive. That said, I do believe that there is no easy recipe to TF beekeeping. Nor do I believe that you can buy a magic bee (or two) online and within a season or two claim to be TF - total nonsense! Further, I do not believe that your average backyard beekeeper with a dozen average queens will ever be successful with TF (perhaps with an enormous amount of active selection, key importation, and propagation, but I suspect few are willing to make that level of effort). I do believe that the TF community has been their own worst enemy, by making wild claims of how easy it is and that everyone can do it. Not everyone can do it, nor is it easy. 

Bottomline, and this is pointed towards clyderoad and Tennessee's Bees, if you weren't collecting lots of data on lots of colonies and using it to make key breeding decisions (both queens AND drones), then you probably didn't do enough. Not trying to be critical, just giving you my perspective. TF is far more complicated that most TF posts suggest. I suspect that TF could possibly be done without instrumental insemination, but that would require even more time and effort.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Honey-4-All said:


> Say what you want. I do not know TB LLC at all. All I do know is that when one needs to balance both the business side of beekeeping with the goal of producing TF stock the way he is doing it is right on track. Throwing your had fully in one ring at a time will never get you in the part of the circles where the rings overlap. Hats off to you TB for wisely keeping a foot in both rings. Phil


Thanks. Jus trying to do what I love and do right by my family and my bees.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Snowhitsky said:


> Mike & co. All very interesting stuff but before it degenerates even more could you all concentrate on responding to the OP's questions (see below)? Hopefully, that way we'll all go to bed a bit smarter? Thanks to all concerned.
> 
> "Some of the concerns about genetically mite resistant bees:
> 
> 1) hive size / production
> 2) wintering
> 3) Cluster size in january
> 
> When a VSH hive survives winter, does it barely survive or does the cluster stay strong throughout the winter, or does it dwindle but survive? I mean 16 frame hive dwindles to 5-6 frames by February or is it more like 16 frame hive dwindles to 10 frames?
> 
> Are VSH bees generally more conservative or does the queen lay without regaurd of resources like my current stock."


Vsh Italians are just a better Italian. IMHO. I personally don't like them. They will over winter 9 to 10 frames IF they are not to mite laden. They still like to eat to much honey and rear brood like a Italian. I prefer carni hybrids but some of this is just preference. I hate bees that love to rob. All bees rob but i like as little as possible.

Vsh Italians usually do well the first year if they are not introduced to a already mite laden colony. Never seen one make two honey crops without a treatment via lots of splitting and drone removal.

Again if healthy they over winter very good. Especially if fed in fall.


----------



## AHudd

Honey-4-All said:


> Say what you want. I do not know TB LLC at all. All I do know is that when one needs to balance both the business side of beekeeping with the goal of producing TF stock the way he is doing it is right on track. Throwing your had fully in one ring at a time will never get you in the part of the circles where the rings overlap. Hats off to you TB for wisely keeping a foot in both rings. Phil


The Weavers also split up before launching into TF for survivor stock.

Alex


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Like I said some resistance teamed with splits helps. What are their losses? Not to mention AHB genes.

Beeweaver queens are the hottest i have ever owned. I even had to put a beesuit on.


----------



## mike bispham

Snowhitsky said:


> Mike & co. All very interesting stuff but before it degenerates even more could you all concentrate on responding to the OP's questions (see below)? Hopefully, that way we'll all go to bed a bit smarter? Thanks to all concerned.
> 
> "Some of the concerns about genetically mite resistant bees:
> 
> 1) hive size / production
> 2) wintering
> 3) Cluster size in january
> 
> When a VSH hive survives winter, does it barely survive or does the cluster stay strong throughout the winter, or does it dwindle but survive? I mean 16 frame hive dwindles to 5-6 frames by February or is it more like 16 frame hive dwindles to 10 frames?
> 
> Are VSH bees generally more conservative or does the queen lay without regaurd of resources like my current stock."


A few thoughts Snowhitsky

First I have no experience of VSH bees. We don't have any VHS suppliers here in the UK. I don't focus on VHS - just thriving productively over several years. 

Second; VHS is only one of a number of mechanisms used by bees to combat mites. Many people argue for a rounder spread of mite-managing traits - though focusing on VSH to begin with is recommended by Kefuss in his 'Soft Bond' approach - geared to beekeepers wanting to raise resistance in their own stock with the aid of some imported bred resistant bees, while maintaining productivity. that is I think, you.

Third: 'Resistant' is a relative notion. A colony isn't generally resistant or not resistant. Most non-agricultural bees (and some of those too) show a range of resistance. This is in part due to a fair balance of resistance mechanisms, and their proportions held in the sub-families. 

Forth: the strains of mite present also make a difference. What we're really talking about is co-evolution; the mites becoming less fecund at the same time the bees locate better ways to manage them.

I think what I'm tryng to say is: if your question is directed only at uniformly raised bought 'VHS' bees, then perhaps you can have some expectation of the sort of uniformity that you expect. But different bees from different vsh breeders would I would think have different further resistance attributes )and probably different overwintering characteristics, making your question hard to answer. In any case what its like in January depends on where you are....

Mike (UK)


----------



## AHudd

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Like I said some resistance teamed with splits helps. What are their losses? Not to mention AHB genes.
> 
> Beeweaver queens are the hottest i have ever owned. I even had to put a beesuit on.


These Beeweaver bees I have are hot compared with the Italians I had in my youth. I never inspect without jacket, veil and smoke. I do get stung on the bare hand, sometimes twice every other inspection and not from the same hive. It's like they are taking turns. 

I'm not trying to go big here and I am just getting started again. I decided to try TF because of what I read on the BeeWeaver website.
I respect what you said about balancing your business interest and doing right by your family. Your efforts are appreciated.

Alex


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Thanks. I can't say enough about beekeepers who want to fix the problems we deal with. I am totally for treatment free varroa control.

However with alot of personal experience I feel compelled to warn others that it is not for the faint of heart and not practical on the large scale side of beekeeping. for those who want to make a living, it goes against my experience and good conscience to reccomend that.


----------



## TalonRedding

StevenG said:


> Comments along the lines of No one reports TF with the honesty of Tennessee's Bees LLC, which ignores the work Squarepeg is currently doing, I did 8 plus years ago, and others... seems like we are all called liars, and dishonest. Then Tennessee's Bees accuses TF "gurus" of being dishonest, and irresponsibly foisting misidentified bees off on unsuspecting buyers.


Perhaps I stand corrected as to Tennessee being the only one to post results. I did NOT say that he was the only honest one however. I am not a cult follower on Beesource and should not have used an apparent offensive superlative such as "only one". I did not consider Squarepeg, who has indeed posted on his experiences, with candid honesty I might add. My sincere apologies for not mentioning him. However, given the Randy Oliver quote he posted, he would probably agree that commercial TF is not a wise option at this point in time. He is of course more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong, and I hope he does so if I am. 
I wasn't trying to demonize, and am still not, either side of the issue. It's a simple issue of economics (both time and money) for the folks who are making their livings off of keeping bees. I would love for nothing more than to find a way to not use treatments and still maintain my own productive colonies. I would also wager that all commercial Beekeepers would as well, especially if they can maintain current productivity. Anyone who has ever run a business can understand the concept of risk management, and that's what it boils down to for the most part.

Cheers


----------



## rwurster

The commercial near me and I had a conversation about my bees vs his bees  He showed me how his built up after requeening and asked if mine looked like his lol (I do walk-away splits in the spring) Mine in fact looked nothing like his re-queened splits after 3 weeks of being queenless. He treats 3 times a year for varroa, which I thought was excessive but I've helped him treat after pulling honey supers and before he migrates to Cali in November. I told him my bees can go at least 2 years without treatments (no splits/brood breaks/OA). He was impressed but he migrates to California. I migrate within Pueblo County, from the plains to the foothills to the mountains. Migrating to catch flows with minimal other yards around is much different than pollinating/catching flows along side of thousands or tens of thousands of other hives hence I don't have to treat due to a concentration of potentially diseased colonies. We talked about Weaver queens and he told me he bought 200 of their queens years ago and wasn't impressed with them, namely how quickly they lost their hygenic traits through supersedure. He said it was one of the biggest wastes of money he has ever spent on queens, plus they didn't produce like other queens. We all want varroa resistant bees. TF on a commercial or migratory commercial scale isn't feasible. It isn't working for me time wise, money wise, and production wise anymore on a small sideline scale.


----------



## jim lyon

Woodside said:


> I am not a TF beekeeper... But I am a commercial beekeeper with around 2000 hives. I am interested in possibly becoming treatment free. However I am wondering if being TF is practical with 2k hives.
> 
> Some of the concerns about genetically mite resistant bees:
> 
> 1) hive size / production
> 2) wintering
> 3) Cluster size in january
> 
> When a VSH hive survives winter, does it barely survive or does the cluster stay strong throughout the winter, or does it dwindle but survive? I mean 16 frame hive dwindles to 5-6 frames by February or is it more like 16 frame hive dwindles to 10 frames?
> 
> Are VSH bees generally more conservative or does the queen lay without regaurd of resources like my current stock.
> 
> Is there any reason I cant run 2000-10000 hives TF?


Understanding what your current and future business plans and your primary motive for wanting to be treatment free would be of interest to me. If almond pollination is part of your current or future plans I am going to say tf probably isn't a realistic goal, at least not in the foreseeable future. If you are concerned about eliminating treatment residues in your honey or combs that can be accomplished with a change in management practices. If your motivation is just to breed hardier bees then I think you've got the right idea by incorporating tf breeders into your current stock but I would look at that as a long term project and not one that will bear much fruit in the short term. 
I'm not convinced the problems migratory/commercials have becoming treatment free isn't just relocation per se but more the results of high concentrations of bees and the drifting associated with migratory moves.


----------



## Fusion_power

There are several very good reasons to keep bees treatment free.

1. Cost of treating
2. Contamination of wax and honey with chemicals
3. Perceived value in the market for more "natural" honey/wax
4. Shortened bee lifespans and other problems caused by chemical contamination
5. Can market to specialty stores that won't purchase honey from treated colonies


----------



## mbevanz

I want live hives with good wings. Period.


----------



## jim lyon

Fusion_power said:


> There are several very good reasons to keep bees treatment free.
> 
> 1. Cost of treating
> 2. Contamination of wax and honey with chemicals
> 3. Perceived value in the market for more "natural" honey/wax
> 4. Shortened bee lifespans and other problems caused by chemical contamination
> 5. Can market to specialty stores that won't purchase honey from treated colonies


From a commercial perspective I can only relate to number 1. Contamination need not happen in either beeswax or honey with most of the labeled mite control compounds in use today. My honey has tested free of any mite treatment compounds for many years now, a fact that I always like to point out to honey buyers when I send out samples. Its yet to net me an offer above what any other commercials are being offered. The only way you are going to get more for your product is if YOU take the time to market it yourself and thats not something many commercials have the time to do.


----------



## beemandan

Fusion_power said:


> 4. Shortened bee lifespans and other problems caused by chemical contamination


I am less sure about this. Any shortened lifespans as a result of chemical contamination pale in comparison to shorter lifespans....as well as reduced overall colony vigor....resulting from varroa parasitism. Just my experience and opinion.


----------



## rwurster

I have to throw in that I am still going to have a TF yard. After 5 seasons I'm seeing which bees are more resistant than others yet still produce. It's a very short time but I'm seeing a trend in survivability/production out of some of my oldest colonies. My treatment regiment for mites is going to consist of OA which is a soft treatment on my production hives. I have split from the best bees in my main yard and have seen success. If any of my hives get a case of something nasty though, I'm going to do something about it.

Dead bees don't produce.


----------



## squarepeg

i realized some time back after looking at a photo that keith jarrett posted with 100's if not 1000's of hives in a holding yard that what he and other commercial beekeepers are doing is a universe apart from what i am doing.

i'm still new at this but my understanding about the yearly cycle involved with large scale migratory beekeeping operations has been helped along thanks to the generous sharing of information by jim lyon and others.

there are notable differences in my beekeeping compared to folks like keith and jim. my colonies are never exposed to those high concentrations of bees which provide increased opportunities for horizontal (hive to hive) transmission of mites and viruses. jim alludes to it and i think it makes sense that this may be at the top of the list as to why it would be difficult for these operations to remain off treatments.

other difference are that i don't feed my bees and they are allowed to brood up and down on the natural forage cycles. my thinking is that the all natural diet may impart added immunity to the bees via nutrutional factors that we don't fully understand yet, but in addition to that and in my area it means a natural brood break in the summer as well as over the winter.

lastly i think it's prudent not to paint all 'commercials' with the same brush. if the criterion for being commercial is supporting a household with a beekeeping operation i think i could do that here with these bees. it would mean increasing to about 200 hives and spreading them out over at least 20 yards. this assumes that i would be able to market and sell ten times more honey and nucs than i am currently selling which i think just might be possible, but you never know. to be honest though, i don't want to have to work that hard.


----------



## Fusion_power

> To be honest though, i don't want to have to work that hard.


This is why I stay below 20 colonies. I sell colonies to beginners to keep my numbers down.


----------



## StevenG

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> B WEAVER is a bogus example. They sell bees where do you think all their mites go? In packages. That teamed with resistant stock
> Makes it fairly easy. "
> 
> B. Weaver is bogus...  So you're saying B. Weaver can be TF and tout TF because they export their mites in their packages? :lpf: Now I've heard everything!
> 
> I've bought packages and queens from them since 2005. Never a treatment... my annual losses are regularly lower than locals here who treat. I do not wear a bee suit, simply a long sleeved white shirt, jeans, and veil. No gloves. Yes I get stung occasionally. And occasionally I have a hot hive, but only once has a hive been as hot as several I had back in the 1970's, running Starline Hybrids and generic Italians. My honey production is above the state average, with several colonies (in the country, and one in my suburban back yard) producing 150 pounds surplus, each.
> 
> Back in the '70's I requeened regularly. Seems like smart beekeepers do that even today. We practice basic, sound animal husbandry to maintain our colony numbers and vigor of the stock. The carping that TF beekeeping cannot be done flies in the face of the reality that many of us do it. On a commercial basis? no, not yet. But that day is coming. We just don't know when.
> 
> Regards,
> Steven


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Yes I can and will say it one more time. When you sell untreated packages or nucs you ship a certain percent of mites. (unless you treat) 

This plus resistant stock can work to some degree. If your not selling bees and need large colonies for honey production and pollination this ipm model does not work so well.

One of the easiest ways to keep yourself in bees and break up the mites is via splitting. That concept has been around since I started beekeeping.

Math and thresholds. They have found a system that works for them. Not a immune or treatment free bee. 
A chemical free one yes.


----------



## mike bispham

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Yes I can and will say it one more time. When you sell untreated packages or nucs you ship a certain percent of mites. (unless you treat)


You clearly haven't read the material I sent, to this thread, on John Kefus. Kefus has to _buy in mites_ in order to have some to test - to continually challenge - his stocks. He is a commercial beekeeper. 

He holds a doctorate earned under one of the most experienced bee breeders ever, Friedrich Ruttner.

These facts fly in the face of your assertions. 

That's the simple part. What follows may be largely my own interpretation - it seems obvious to me but I've not seen it stated in a scientific paper. There again I don't have access to many scientific papers, and they don't all come to my attention.

Any mites found in such (VSH/VSH+) packages are likely to be far less fecund than mites found in agricultural settings. That is because VSH bees _breed_ less fecund mites. They locate cells containing large numbers of infant mites, and destroy them, leaving alone those containing small numbers of mites. That selects for low fecundity. The resultant mites are unable to 'boom' - they simply can't multiply fast enough. That means a) the bees are far less troubled by the lower numbers of mites: b) other hygienic behaviours can easily control them.

So any mites you get from VSH packages are, on the surface anyway, actually something you want! And they'll never be about in sufficient numbers to do much harm to your own bees. (Who shouldn't be within six miles of them, but that's another story) 

In fact they'll fast be out-bred by the super-fecund mites you yourself breed. So... this is perhaps a point of interest only. The interesting thing - one of the interesting things - about this is: its an illustration that things are both much more complex that we often assume; and yet the solutions are simpler than we think.

Thoughtful, effective low level constant breeding is the simple answer to the problem of how to raise resistance. (And raising resistance is certainly the answer to at least one of the causes of the problems bees face.) But raising resistance, systematically, effectively, and without undue cost is tricky, and requires intelligence and study. Its an art - there's no single thing you have to learn; rather a collection of essential and merely useful insights. 

Having an isolated (six mile min) yard of 50+ hives, laid out out properly, and functioning as a wholistic breeding unit is I would think the best way to go for a commercial beekeeper wanting to learn and practice this art. But there are some very clever people around who say it can be done in-apiary - John Kefus 'Soft Bond' method is one.

Mike (UK)


----------



## AstroBee

StevenG said:


> Starline Hybrids



Been there. 1st gen were wonderful bees - huge colonies very productive, 2nd gen were simply evil.


----------



## Barry

jim lyon said:


> My honey has tested free of any mite treatment compounds for many years now, a fact that I always like to point out to honey buyers when I send out samples.


And mighty fine tasting honey at that!


----------



## Duranthas

StevenG said:


> sigh... this thread is one example why I rarely check back with the forum any more. Comments along the lines of No one reports TF with the honesty....
> seems like we are all called liars, and dishonest....
> 
> I do not mind an honest discussion of TF beekeeping, or TF commercial beekeeping (and that may not be possible in my lifetime, but I believe it is coming). What chaps me is the accusations of dishonesty, name calling, and "because I can't do it, no one can," or even "because I CAN do it, everyone everywhere should be able to."
> 
> The worst year around here a local semi-commercial beekeeper lost 60% of his hives, treating. That same year I lost 24% of my hives, Treatment Free. I do not have the per hive labor or cost he does... so I guess I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, even though according to some it is impossible, I am wrong, and I am a liar. opcorn:


I couldn't agree with you more, especially your first sentence.
I will concede that we all have our own bias so maybe that is what is coming into play here. From my side, I certainly can not forget all the talk about how TF is not really possible even though I am doing it, albeit small scale. Well here I am, still going and expanding with losses far far below average. This year I have even grafted up some queens and then sold nucs so it is the first year that I'm not in the red! For me it is a nice feather in the hat to be doing what I was told can't be done, but alas perhaps someday I'm going to be eating humble pie.
Devils advocate: If I had failed time and again at keeping bees TF perhaps I would find it harder to believe it was possible. For whatever reason, it just worked for me.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Bees weren't meant to be moved. TF bees suffer heavy losses when moved. It's a fact.


A fact? What leads you to that conclusion?


----------



## intothewind

Here's my take.

Genetics that could survive varroa were in the original honeybee population that was decimated(both in beekeepers and feral bees), upon arrival of varroa. Some bees are more tolerant than others. Feral bees had extra time due to isolation and lower population densities, but were hit as well. Their has almost certainly be some selection for resistance and the magnification of mutations that would have otherwise gone out in a wash.

Anecdotal reports(Randy Oliver's dream queen story) suggest that a luck combo may yet produce a bee that can handle varroa to the point where it no longer impacts production. That is currently not a realistic long term goal-mainly due to the fact that such genetics are yet to be the norm. For those saying that wild stocks are compromised, an article on Randy's site notes many strains of honeybee no longer imported or acknowledged in today's commercial stock exist in feral populations, and that the two stay rather seperate. 

Here is an interesting paper.
https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/beehive/pdf/2016BeeCultureAbst.pdf

With growing interest in varroa resistant bees I think we can be optimistic for the future.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good answer Intothewind, but my question was more why he thinks they suffer heavy losses when moved.

Notice Beeweaver do not say their bees will resist varroa in one location, but not another. They just say their bees will resist varroa. Period. Beeweaver bees may have poor wintering skills in some locations, but that's not about varroa resistance it's about how to deal with cold. They still resist varroa.

Putting together what information I can get about what happened to Solomons bees, seems to me the issue was not moving the bees or that process, but not understanding the management required at the new location. IE, I don't think the moving killed them, more the lack of appropriate measures to enable them to survive the new environment. Example, putting 4 box hives with little honey in a windy location in winter and they get blown over. Just lack of provisioning for the new location, leaving bees in unliveable circumstances. They die. Not directly caused by moving them.


----------



## intothewind

Oldtimer: Sorry was going to leave that to Solomon. I would agree that moving must not stress bees too much-they were moved with few issues for a long time. But moving bees around with such rapidity and in large numbers is not a very sustainable practice in the long run. Thats what brought us varroa in the first place.


----------



## Fusion_power

> Feral bees had extra time due to isolation and lower population densities, but were hit as well.


 This is incorrect. Feral bees in many areas of the U.S. had populations of several hundred colonies per square mile prior to Varroa. This far exceeds populations of managed colonies. Very few of the feral colonies survived the first 10 years of varroa, but those that did survive swarmed and eventually began to replace the colonies that had died. There was no "extra time" and no "lower population densities". Varroa simply killed all the susceptible colonies in very short order. I saw this first hand between 1995 and 2004 when there were almost no feral honeybees present in most of North Alabama.



> luck combo may yet produce a bee that can handle varroa


 We can prove that there are several small genetic effects that result in varroa tolerance. When those small effect genes are combined, the result is bees that no longer need treatment to survive varroa. We can also prove that varroa tolerant bees can be selected and bred to maintain the tolerance traits. The problem now is that the varroa tolerance traits come in a package that does not include management traits such as low swarming and high honey production.


----------



## Oldtimer

Fusion_power said:


> We can prove that there are several small genetic effects that result in varroa tolerance. When those small effect genes are combined, the result is bees that no longer need treatment to survive varroa. We can also prove that varroa tolerant bees can be selected and bred to maintain the tolerance traits.


So moving such bees shouldn't affect this varroa tolerance, in the existing queens lifetime anyway?


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> The problem now is that the varroa tolerance traits come in a package that does not include management traits such as low swarming and high honey production.


That's a pretty sweeping statement - it may well be that some large operators have been able to develop strains that can match the best in terms of swarming and productivity. Does anyone have an update on John Kefuss's bees performance? 

We might want to observe: it seems likely that varroa treatments will always have a prophylactic effect - they will boost yields. Even if only marginal, many commercial beekeepers will to take advantage of that, and that will be a continuous relief of the adaptive pressure needed to maintain resistance and tolerance. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Fusion_power

> So moving such bees shouldn't affect this varroa tolerance, in the existing queens lifetime anyway?


I don't think it is this simple. We are dealing with a complex living system. Moving bees per se may have very little effect, but the area they are moved into could have a major effect. This is speculation, but think it through. Suppose I have highly varroa tolerant bees here where I live. I ship a batch of queens to California where a huge influx of colonies for almond pollination brings in every imaginable virus plus a huge infusion of varroa mites. It is very much within the realm of possibility that the varroa tolerant bees would not be able to overcome a huge onslaught of mites and/or the viruses they bring.

I'll expand this to a concept that I think - but cannot prove - exists. Lets call this concept "saturation" and define it as the condition where there are enough mite tolerant bees in a region that no external event can overwhelm their tolerance. When an area is saturated, you could bring in a large number of susceptible colonies and the treated susceptible colonies would still build up to large loads of varroa, but because the entire region is saturated, they would never be able to overcome the innate tolerance mechanisms. Over time, under these conditions, the mite susceptible colonies would trend in the direction of becoming more resistant until a relatively stable point is reached. Even if the beekeeper continues to treat his mite susceptible colonies, over time, the genetics would drift toward mite resistance.

Now reverse this paradigm and stipulate that the current "saturation" of California is with mite susceptible bees. What do you think happens with mite tolerant bees brought into those conditions?


----------



## dtrooster

Fusion_power said:


> This is incorrect. Feral bees in many areas of the U.S. had populations of several hundred colonies per square mile prior to Varroa. This far exceeds populations of managed colonies. Very few of the feral colonies survived the first 10 years of varroa, but those that did survive swarmed and eventually began to replace the colonies that had died. There was no "extra time" and no "lower population densities". Varroa simply killed all the susceptible colonies in very short order. I saw this first hand between 1995 and 2004 when there were almost no feral honeybees present in most of North Alabama.


good read provided in another thread by deknow about this. http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=27253&content=PDF


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> Lets call this concept "saturation" and define it as the condition where there are enough mite tolerant bees in a region that no external event can overwhelm their tolerance. When an area is saturated, you could bring in a large number of susceptible colonies and the treated susceptible colonies would still build up to large loads of varroa, but because the entire region is saturated, they would never be able to overcome the innate tolerance mechanisms. ?


I think you have to decide whether you are talking about individual bee colonies, or local bee populations.

Your proposal works for the latter, not the former. An area 'saturated' with resistant colonies has a _population_ that can withstand any degree of imported infestation, but some of the less resistant colonies may perish.

More and more I think that to comprehend resistance dynamics you have to stop thinking about individual colonies, and think of the local population as a single organism. That organism can be influenced, infected, can overcome infection through natural selection, can reduce its resistance behaviours according to need. That's the realm in which natural selection operates, beautifully, elegantly, making the best-suited 'strains' at any time the most populous. Its the natural analog of the breeder's select population. 

I once started using the proper biological term 'deme' meaning 'breeding population'. The mickey-taking didn't stop for months. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## dtrooster

Absolutely you have to deal with the local rather than just individual when dealing with a species in which cross breeding and disease/parasite transmission is uncontrollable. How can you not ? To try without have a large uncontaminated buffer zone is an exercise in futility. Oldtimer can't win from how I understand his situation. Anyone who gets inundated with any frequency has little chance either. Common sense says it's a stacked deck, game over before it starts


----------



## intothewind

Fusion_power said:


> This is incorrect. Feral bees in many areas of the U.S. had populations of several hundred colonies per square mile prior to Varroa. This far exceeds populations of managed colonies. Very few of the feral colonies survived the first 10 years of varroa, but those that did survive swarmed and eventually began to replace the colonies that had died. There was no "extra time" and no "lower population densities". Varroa simply killed all the susceptible colonies in very short order. I saw this first hand between 1995 and 2004 when there were almost no feral honeybees present in most of North Alabama.
> 
> We can prove that there are several small genetic effects that result in varroa tolerance. When those small effect genes are combined, the result is bees that no longer need treatment to survive varroa. We can also prove that varroa tolerant bees can be selected and bred to maintain the tolerance traits. The problem now is that the varroa tolerance traits come in a package that does not include management traits such as low swarming and high honey production.


Excellent, though I think I disagree with your last statement. I have heard of anecdotal varroa tolerant bees that also were incredible producer's(read Randy Oliver's dream queen story-was a cross between VSH and Minn. hygienic). His unobjective claim is that this queen was like the days before varroa. Also note that paper that I linked where commercial beekeeps tended to prefer Purdue mitebiters in the blind studies. Bees managed for swarming will be more productive if they can handle varroa themselves-even between bouts of treatment.

That paper you linked also supports this. Swarm production and colony longevity went up in later years...if bees simply swarmed to run away from varroa-colony mortality and lifespan would remain rather low and only swarm production would rise.

The population density is surprising to me. I suppose that for the most part nesting sites are the limiting resource for honeybee populations rather than forage?


----------



## flamenco108

Hello.

I'm not a commercial beekeeper yet, but seeking to though. I would like to recommend you to watch this *link*. It's in German, but GoogleTranslator can translate it pretty well (I used it also). It's a commercial beekeeping operation from Vienna, Austria. They already work on 7K colonies and growing steadily to the goal of 10K. They have several trucks and hire ca. 30 person during the season and ca. 12 permanently.

Someone said here with a sneer 'perhaps in Europe there is another economy'. Perhaps he is right. These 7K colonies are not migratory. They are placed on ca. 500 (sic!) beeyards counting 10 to 30 beehives.

All treatments they provide to bees is a formic acid in the fall. Same dose to every hive. They also feed in February. That's pretty all, the rest depends on bees. The boss is a many years commercial beekeeper, but now he visits his yards only when losses are higher than 50% (which means they have such sometimes and they can bare it!).

Why I put this example here, in TF thread? Well, the question is if commercial beekeeping can be TF.

1. They are not migratory. - Which means, you can do a large beekeeping operation without migration to almonds in California (in my humble opinion, the pollination of almonds is a problem for almonds producers, not for beekeepers!) or to breed in Florida. Or anywhere.
2. They cut all unnecessary costs - they even build their own beehives (see photos!).
3. *They sell their honey in retail*, not bulk.
4. They aquire and sell all bee-products available by their management.
5. They produce their own, local queens.
6. They are active in local societies, they support smaller beekeepers with their queens and advices.
7. They sell their colonies (several thousands per year).
They are not so far from TF beekeeping (remove formic acid and you have it) - the business risk exists though, they embrace it. But anyway, their management is way different than this I could read about on this forum about commercial beekeeping in USA and Canada.

This short report is not based just on the webpage. My friend went there to learn and now we are to repeat their methods.

But in Europe in fact there is no problem with pollination - it happens anyway by itself, contracted pollination just boosts the business and is not so common. It means also, that this way of earning money by bees is rather unavailable (in Poland usually beekeeper pays to farmer! Not much, usually in honey, but pretty often).

What I wanted to show? *I think, that commercial beekeeping in the way it's done in USA and Canada is simply impossible in TF way.* It was created with different approaches and it depends on chemistry. Just no way. Perhaps the whole North American industry should change it's approach and methods to be able to survive such an experiment.

But commercial TF beekeeping seems to be possible - but it has to find it's own way.


----------



## mike bispham

flamenco108 said:


> What I wanted to show? *I think, that commercial beekeeping in the way it's done in USA and Canada is simply impossible in TF way.*


That simply doesn't follow. Unless the same methods have been tried and shown repeatedly to fail in the USA there is no such evidence.



flamenco108 said:


> It was created with different approaches and it depends on chemistry.


'It' (this management model) isn't TF - they are using formic acid to control mites.



flamenco108 said:


> Perhaps the whole North American industry should change it's approach and methods to be able to survive such an experiment.


Undoubtedly. Unless breeding for resistance is made a universal priority, nothing will change in terms of resistance.



flamenco108 said:


> But commercial TF beekeeping seems to be possible - but it has to find it's own way.


It has to be centred in the continuous search for the most resistant and productive strains. It has to avoid unhealthy practices like great concentrations of bees from all over gathering in one place then going off and doing the same again someplace else. These things won't happen without central regulation, and that won't happen, so the USA is stuck with a beekeeping industry perpetually riding the line between survival and failure. Its a symptom of neoliberal politics. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

flamenco108 said:


> What I wanted to show? *I think, that commercial beekeeping in the way it's done in USA and Canada is simply impossible in TF way.*





mike bispham said:


> That simply doesn't follow. Unless the same methods have been tried and shown repeatedly to fail in the USA there is no such evidence.
> Mike (UK)





Solomon Parker said:


> Bees weren't meant to be moved. TF bees suffer heavy losses when moved. It's a fact.


Based on what Solomon is saying, Flamenco would be right. If it is true that TF bees cannot be moved without heavy losses, then the commercial model of migratory beekeeping is impossible for TF bees in the USA.


----------



## Fusion_power

> the commercial model of migratory beekeeping is impossible for TF bees in the USA.


I would restate that to say that the current migratory beekeeping model may be impossible but this does not preclude finding a migratory model that works with treatment free bees. The first and biggest hurdle is getting most of the bees in the U.S. changed over to TF genetics. That won't happen until there is a good reason and it is cost effective to do so.


----------



## jim lyon

My guess is Solomon is largely correct. My theory (and its just that) is that a large degree of the success of tf beekeeping is that hives have reached some sort of equalibrium with mite populations that requires a degree of isolation from neighboring hives. Such hives probably fare much more poorly when moved than hives which have had better control of mite populations. 
For my part, I look at large scale multi day bee moves as stressful to a degree but since they are almost always being moved to "greener pastures" the net effect is positive. Simple short haul overnight types of moves I don't consider stressful in the least as I have seen bees beginning hauling pollen and foraging in their new location within an hour or so. Lets remember Solomon's move (at least as far as I know) was a work related change for him and had nothing to do with what would be best for his hives. The plains east of the front range of the Rockies can be pretty hostile and a world apart from Arkansas from a beekeeping standpoint. Colorado, like the northern plains states can be wonderful when its good and horrible at other times. In short, there is a reason hundreds of thousands of hives are moved out before winter and this was the case even prior to the great almond migration.


----------



## jim lyon

Fusion_power said:


> I would restate that to say that the current migratory beekeeping model may be impossible but this does not preclude finding a migratory model that works with treatment free bees. The first and biggest hurdle is getting most of the bees in the U.S. changed over to TF genetics. That won't happen until there is a good reason and it is cost effective to do so.



Lots of commercial are running tf stock, or at least using them as breeders but progress is slow when you are dealing with such large populations. My experience is even the best stock get overwhelmed pretty quickly when in an area of high bee populations. If there was truly a super queen available that would eliminate varroa as a problem I would pay a lot of money for her but such stock that has been proven in a commercial setting is still a fantasy.


----------



## lharder

Jim's comments are very fair. Again its not just about the mites, but the different background viral environments. The bees may be used to one, but suffer when you put them in another. Commercial is probably possible, but in no way would I move my bees to another region and expose them to a new set of pathogens. But I would move them to catch a nectar flow in the mountains during a dearth in the valley bottoms. 

It implies a different business model and an upper limit to growth which is fine by me.


----------



## squarepeg

lharder said:


> Jim's comments are very fair.


yep. jim's input here has always been objective and spot on.



jim lyon said:


> Lots of commercial are running tf stock, or at least using them as breeders but progress is slow when you are dealing with such large populations.


jim, are the mite counts in colonies headed with grafts from tf breeders measurably better?



lharder said:


> Again its not just about the mites, but the different background viral environments.


i believe it's about colony density and the increased opportunity for drifting and robbing events. even the dozen colonies placed in a row in my yards are much more crowded than are their feral cousins out in the woods. it would be even more so in large holding yards, and hypervirulence would tend to be selected for given the unlimited suppy of host.


----------



## Jovian

Came across this link with info and abstracts to several scientific papers that link to this discussion. Starting to work my way through them myself. Here is a full list of scientific papers backing up all the statements in this documentary - http://media.wix.com/ugd/42a31e_c1f45197799b42c99eaf36214b74e90f.pdf


----------



## intothewind

My personal opinion is that if we shift away from monoculture to where native bees can do a brunt of the pollination and honeybeed will again be valued mainly for products from the hive honeybee (and native bees) will be better off. UC Davis has experimental orchards set up in this manner.


----------



## lharder

i believe it's about colony density and the increased opportunity for drifting and robbing events. even the dozen colonies placed in a row in my yards are much more crowded than are their feral cousins out in the woods. it would be even more so in large holding yards, and hypervirulence would tend to be selected for given the unlimited suppy of host.[/QUOTE]

I think that is part of it as well. I've just cut some pieces to install robber screens on my big hives. I want to minimize hive interaction this time of year where a dearth could set in and the mite outs begin to show. But at the same time I think the viral types are probably similar across surviving hives as they have been living together for a while now. I know that some gurus like Seeley are advocating less hive density as part of practice and there is probably something to it and maybe explored. But I've also observed feral bees (thanks JP the bee man) living in close proximity to each other under trailers etc. And there is nothing as close and crowded as social insects living together. Seems ripe for epidemics yet they have evolved this extreme social behaviour so must have means of coping with it. Just speculation on my part.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

squarepeg said:


> i believe it's about colony density and the increased opportunity for drifting and robbing events. even the dozen colonies placed in a row in my yards are much more crowded than are their feral cousins out in the woods. it would be even more so in large holding yards, and hypervirulence would tend to be selected for given the unlimited suppy of host.


I have some data to back this hypothesis. When my queens (10) were tested in MTT (former Finnish Agricultural Research Center, LUKE today, https://www.luke.fi/en/ ) the varroa infestation was higher in a yard with about 15 hives compared to a yard with only 6 hives. I don´t recall the exact hive numbers but the difference was clear. I think they got more mites because there was more pressure from the susceptible hives. The queens were sent 2009 and the testing took place in the following years.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> I have some data to back this hypothesis.


I'm not sure one case amounts to 'data'.

Mike UK


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> I'm not sure one case amounts to 'data'.
> 
> Mike UK


What would be the right word?

It was the only case they have investigated my queens. No bee research done in there any more.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> What would be the right word?


There really isn't one. Its like spinning a coin, coming up heads, and saying: 'ha this is support for the hypothesis that coins always come up heads.' 

There's no significance due to too small a sample. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

I hope you have a bigger sample made of your bees by the agricultural research center in your country.


----------



## Fusion_power

So long as highly mite tolerant colonies are kept in an area, none build up high levels of mites. When a mix of susceptible and tolerant colonies are in an area, all colonies have higher mite counts because the susceptible colonies serve as a source for mites migrating to the tolerant colonies. When only susceptible colonies are in an area, it is almost impossible to breed for tolerance because the susceptible genetics saturate the area.

Note the obvious corollary to the above that the more colonies in an area, the more potential for mite buildup.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Do we need to breed bees or mites?


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> I hope you have a bigger sample made of your bees by the agricultural research center in your country.


Yes its something I plan to try to do.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Do we need to breed bees or mites?


Good point: both, and the totality of micro-flora too. 

I think there's a good point emerging here, even if it is only theoretical/anecdotally evidenced: Having lots of (bred/resistant) bees in one place isn't (or shouldn't be) a problem. Difficulties will be expected to increase with: a) more contact from less resistant bees, both through genetic downgrading (this can be combated with a supply of bred queens); b) bees with high mite loads and/or the-wrong-sort-of-mite loads. 

Migratory beekeeping (that involves coming into contact with such bees) increases those sorts of pressures intolerably.

And local strains are weather-adapted.

Does that wrap up all the factors? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

Woodside said:


> I do not plan to TF cold turkey with 2k hives, I fear the result would be... out of business. However I do plan to take a different splitting approach next spring and implementing VSH mated queens to all existing hives and and splits. I feel this will turn over the appropriate genetics and with careful monitoring I may decide to let them bee treatment free overwinter.


Unless you establish a completely separate operation and keep it separate you are always going to have miticide impregnated comb. And where are you going to get TF queens and packages with which to start that separate operation?


----------



## sqkcrk

Juhani Lunden said:


> What would be the right word?
> 
> It was the only case they have investigated my queens. No bee research done in there any more.


Anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Fusion_power

I think Juhani is trying to say that there is a report showing direct correlation between colony numbers in an apiary with mite counts. Since this was an observation from a study, it would have to be corroborated by other studies demonstrating the same effect. Only when it is "measurable" and "repeatable" is it accepted as fact. From this perspective, most Treatment Free beekeeping is based on "anecdotal evidence". That makes it neither right nor wrong, just means it is not scientifically proven.

I could observe that sqkcrk's hair is gray which would be anecdotal. Putting his hair through a battery of tests, under a microscope, through a gas chromatograph would prove that his hair is not dyed and he is not an alien from another planet and therefore his hair is truly gray.


----------



## Oldtimer

As intensive agriculture of any sort demonstrates, the more of an organism you have crowded together the more disease and pest control measures are needed.

When I used to read a poultry forum I used to see much the same argument. Large commercial operations that routinely medicate were critisized by people with 6 hens in their back yard who would say "I don't feed mine antibiotics and they are doing fine".


----------



## Fusion_power

Henry Ford wanted to ensure a steady supply of rubber for car tires and other parts for his car company. He set out to build the largest rubber plantation the world had ever imagined. The business collapsed when disease wiped out the trees that were planted under intensive agriculture conditions. While it was already doomed, the nails in the coffin were provided by development of synthetic rubber made from oil. This and other good examples can be presented that intensive agriculture exacerbates problems that can be ignored under less consolidated conditions. If you want to read about it, google Fordlandia.


----------



## lharder

Juhani Lunden said:


> What would be the right word?
> 
> It was the only case they have investigated my queens. No bee research done in there any more.


Its an interesting observation. A jumping off point for further investigation.


----------



## lharder

Oldtimer said:


> As intensive agriculture of any sort demonstrates, the more of an organism you have crowded together the more disease and pest control measures are needed.
> 
> When I used to read a poultry forum I used to see much the same argument. Large commercial operations that routinely medicate were critisized by people with 6 hens in their back yard who would say "I don't feed mine antibiotics and they are doing fine".


Yes this is true. I don't think beekeeping as at that state even with the largest operations. Yet those super big wintering yards, where there is simply no forage, the competition must be hyperbolic between hives and the added stress, the probability of hive failure and disease/mite transfer must be high. 

Those poultry operations take strong measures to reduce exposure to outside operations. They would be appalled at the idea of taking all the birds in the country, mixing them under one big roof for a while then redistributing them to their home farms. 

At any rate that type of agriculture is hard to defend. I'll take some hens in the back yard any day.


----------



## squarepeg

lharder said:


> Yet those super big wintering yards, where there is simply no forage, the competition must be hyperbolic between hives and the added stress, the probability of hive failure and disease/mite transfer must be high.


my understanding is that most of those wintering yards are located at the southernmost part of the country, and that the colonies are provided with plenty of protein and carbohydrate in order to facilitate growth in preparation for almonds in february.

the industry appears to have come up with decent artificial feeds that allow for this, and those whose livelihood is at stake have learned how to manage these large populations in such a way as to minimize losses. 

this means measures are taken to keep mite infestation rates at a minimum. the degree that artificial feeds may decrease the bees' natural immunity to viruses is unknown, but it's really quite remarkable that the commercials are able to pull it off and my hat is off to them for doing so.

also from what i can gather 'nucing' is a common practice, i.e. once the colonies have finished honey production in the fall they are moved south, split up into nucs, and provided with new queens to start fresh colonies. this gives the opportunity for a brood break and mite knock down.

there is really no comparison between these operations and those involving small stationary yards in which colonies are allow to continue year after year. i found jim's comment interesting that some commercials are tapping into the resistant stock that is emerging out of tf operations.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Fusion_power said:


> I think Juhani is trying to say that there is a report showing direct correlation between colony numbers in an apiary with mite counts. Since this was an observation from a study, it would have to be corroborated by other studies demonstrating the same effect. Only when it is "measurable" and "repeatable" is it accepted as fact. From this perspective, most Treatment Free beekeeping is based on "anecdotal evidence". That makes it neither right nor wrong, just means it is not scientifically proven.



I had the idea that the word "data" means not that something is scientifically proven to be an accepted fact. I thought "data" means study results, numbers. But hey, I speak Finnish as mother language. 

Is anecdotal evidence more than "I plan to try"?


----------



## crofter

Massive scale agricultural practices *are* hard to defend on many fronts but I think that to change that picture to a pastoral scene is perhaps a bit utopian. The changes necessary to go back to the "good old days" is going to take some powerful social engineering. The squawking would be awesome!

Whatever medicine would be applied to the present situation has to be economically and socially survivable or it ain't going to happen. The big players in the bee business would have to be involved and costs would have to be subsidized by other sectors. Present day operators cannot be held responsible for all that has evolved over the last 40 or more years.

As has been pointed out, methods that may work on a small scale may simply not scale up. Even if we were to arrive at a bee stock that would survive the current spectrum of pests, disease, and meet economic standards, I think we would still be presented with an ever moving target. New virus and bacterial adaptations are showing up more and more frequently in every sector of mass production of food; many are even species jumping to humans. 

Sometimes I wonder if having our wishes granted would be our greatest curse!


----------



## AHudd

I have been told to be careful of what I wish for, I might get it.

Alex


----------



## Oldtimer

Fusion_power said:


> Henry Ford wanted to ensure a steady supply of rubber for car tires and other parts for his car company. He set out to build the largest rubber plantation the world had ever imagined. The business collapsed when disease wiped out the trees that were planted under intensive agriculture conditions. While it was already doomed, the nails in the coffin were provided by development of synthetic rubber made from oil. This and other good examples can be presented that intensive agriculture exacerbates problems that can be ignored under less consolidated conditions. If you want to read about it, google Fordlandia.


Just seen a very interesting Doco on TV showing different scenario, similar story.
The Doco was about pepper production and visited the pepper heartland, where it grows wild and has been harvested for centuries by the indigenous people. The people live simple lives gathering food from the jungle. Pepper, which grows wild in the jungle was also harvested as a cash crop. Then, starting around 80 years ago modern medicine arrived and started reducing infant mortality. Inter tribal conflict was also policed, and the result has been a population explosion. The jungle then became stripped of resources and people had to rely more heavily on cash, so began planting and cultivating the pepper plants in large groups. Then a few years ago, the inevitable. A disease took hold and has wiped out most of the pepper plants, and desperate, malnourished people are leaving the area in huge numbers to attempt to find work in other places.

In fact I've found it online, can be viewed by clicking the link, then clicking on The Spice Trail Season 3 Episode 1
https://www.ovguide.com/tv/the_spice_trail.htm


----------



## jim lyon

Juhani Lunden said:


> I had the idea that the word "data" means not that something is scientifically proven to be an accepted fact. I thought "data" means study results, numbers. But hey, I speak Finnish as mother language.
> 
> Is anecdotal evidence more than "I plan to try"?


Nothing lost in the translation Juhani. What you provided was, in fact, data. While it dosent exactly prove that other variables weren't in play, observing that a yard of 15 hives has higher mite concentrations than a yard of 6 hives is certainly relative to the discussion.


----------



## lharder

crofter said:


> Massive scale agricultural practices *are* hard to defend on many fronts but I think that to change that picture to a pastoral scene is perhaps a bit utopian. The changes necessary to go back to the "good old days" is going to take some powerful social engineering. The squawking would be awesome!
> 
> Whatever medicine would be applied to the present situation has to be economically and socially survivable or it ain't going to happen. The big players in the bee business would have to be involved and costs would have to be subsidized by other sectors. Present day operators cannot be held responsible for all that has evolved over the last 40 or more years.
> 
> As has been pointed out, methods that may work on a small scale may simply not scale up. Even if we were to arrive at a bee stock that would survive the current spectrum of pests, disease, and meet economic standards, I think we would still be presented with an ever moving target. New virus and bacterial adaptations are showing up more and more frequently in every sector of mass production of food; many are even species jumping to humans.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if having our wishes granted would be our greatest curse!


It will for sure have to be some sort of cultural shift. I have this sense that almost everything available in this consumer world is crap. I kinda think that when I buy something, it should last 100 years or so. These kinds of products would be really good for the environment, and for peoples pocketbooks, but terrible for the economy as its currently structured. It kinda makes the statement that something needs to be economically sustainable meaningless, because our economic models are fatally flawed. A good model works when people making sensible choices and making sensible things scales up into a healthy economy overall. 

So my personal choice is to live as materially simply as possible, with a focus on a few quality things, quality local food (often home grown), and a life focused on doing stuff rather than consuming stuff. I don't give a hoot about the economy as it currently works because it ain't working. 

I guess this translates into a lack of support for industrialized agriculture, or agriculture that doesn't respect how in impacts biological systems. I was just reading the other day from some market analysis that honey yields per hive are half of what they used to be (Maybe Jim Lyon can add to this point as he must have a very good sense of the market over the years, maybe I'm totally wrong). And look at all the extra inputs needed to get half the amount of honey. I find that kinda crazy.


----------



## crofter

I agree that much of what we are doing is not sustainable long range.

What would it take for commercial operations to make changes? I know dick about pollination or high honey production but life experience tells me that change will not be made if there is not immediate cost savings or at least no increase over current methods. If new methods needs more labor or importantly more skilled labor and time sensitive manipulations, that will not be chosen over mass treatments. Cost / benefit analysis in short term time frame is king!

If the treatment free bee has habits that are not friendly to pollinators timing needs, it wont fly either. They have to perform on command and reach high populations. Some of the very things that presently seem to aid in reaching TF would not be an asset. Here I am thinking of some of the russian / carni traits.
Would there need to be a different bee for the north than what is best in the south?

Some of you people who are actually doing it surely will see more possibilities and pitfalls. I dont think we even know if it is possible due to influence of large scale on the difficulty in limiting disease transmission. What could be done to make the idea saleable?


----------



## JWChesnut

Lot of armchair philosophizing on this thread.

In the real world, Queen breeders in California are incorporating II VSH and Pol-Line queens as breeding stock for both II redevelopment and open mated production. 

Right now, I don't see VSH/Pol-Line production scaling well in California- A single boutique breeder can capture and process 100-200 queens per week, with a 2x per week cycle. I know several of these personally. This requires putting out 400 or more mating nucs per week. This is running flat out (grafting 2x per week, moving and prepping mating cells, nucs, catching queens, collating and shipping queens). The season is about 5 months (20 weeks) long in California. Thus total production is 4000/season. Total gross might be $60K if everything goes perfectly, and net profit is less than $30K. Its a labor of love for the producer who is earning less than a poverty wage. From that 5 month season, the producer has to manage the next 7 months with no income, and continuing expenses.

I know VSH producers that have shifted to queen cell production to avoid the huge time overhead of managing hundreds of mating nucs, not enough hours in the day to clean and prep hundreds of nucs.

The boutique breeders are caught in a bind -- the hobby market that requests 2 or 3 queens at a time (with inevitable hand-holding and call backs) and this takes more time to service than shipping a box of 100 queens to an experienced hand. Commercials don't need attendants in their cages, hobbyists all want them. Just adding attendants is a huge time sink.

Of course there are commercial outfits that are shipping more than 2000 queens/day. Their capital and business investment requires "no screw ups". If the word on the street comes back to avoid VSH because they don't build up reliably in time for the Almonds, the entire labor and inventory investment is at risk. A commercial outfit is not going to bank 25,000 queens in the hope that the market will come back. Just mating return in VSH appears lower (for unexplained reasons) in my experience. A drop from 75% to 60% on queen returns would destroy a commercial level queen outfit.

The recent interview by Jeff Harris in the Delta Farm Press, http://deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/cannibalizing-honey-bees-target-deadly-mite-kills-colonies?page=4 , has some very important insights. He states the VSH line is not "uniform", and that harms acceptance. Acknowledges that "hobbyists" don't care about uniformity (or don't have the experience to detect it), wistfully recounts European breeding efforts that can produce a more predictable bee.

I produced and sold *a lot* of Pol-Line and VSH nucs this year (a lot for a sideliner, not for someone who owns a Peterbuilt). Sending the queens out into backyards is just throwing the genetics away, as the traits will swamp out of an apiary in 2 or 3 supersedures. I watched that with the Glenn Minnesota queens (my nostalgic favorite of all time).


----------



## JWChesnut

lharder said:


> So my personal choice is to live as materially simply as possible, with a focus on a few quality things, quality local food (often home grown), and a life focused on doing stuff rather than consuming stuff. I don't give a hoot about the economy as it currently works because it ain't working.


This is silly. This appeared on my silicon screen, milliseconds after the author posted it. How does he think the chips, knowledge, power and leisure to live on the internet developed. His computer keyboard was whittled out of locally sustainable kale chips?


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> This is silly. This appeared on my silicon screen, milliseconds after the author posted it. How does he think the chips, knowledge, power and leisure to live on the internet developed. His computer keyboard was whittled out of locally sustainable kale chips?


We all have choices. We can live as sustainably as we can, without having to give up mod cons. And yes, keyboards can be made from biodegradable plastic or pollute the oceans for hundreds of years. Poking fun at efforts to reduce environmental impact doesn't take away the moral case for doing so. We're killing the biosphere, destroying billions of years of evolution that belongs to the future, not us. Participate or protest and avoid to the best of your ability: the choice is yours. I know which course of action I respect more.

Lharder is perfectly right to place a powerful level of cause for this mess at the feet of an economic system that thrives on waste. I'm glad he brings it into the discussion. Accepting the power of 'the market' or 'the real world' as you call it as the final arbiter in activities that impact all of us and generations unborn is kinda orthodox - but many of us challenge that. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Nordak

lharder said:


> a life focused on doing stuff rather than consuming stuff.


I like this. I think that's one of the only ways we take back some of the power for ourselves from an economy that necessitates mass consumption. We as a society (western especially) are of the here and now; instant gratification is our demand to which we are supplied. Like all things that are created to supply quick demand, quality suffers immensely, including our ways of life. Alright, enough waxing philosophical...how about those bees?


----------



## Fusion_power

Since JWChesnut linked an article that refers to Arista Bee Research, I thought it might be helpful to link some articles and make a few comments about them.

This is the main webpage. See the links near the top of the page for further details.

https://aristabeeresearch.org/

This breaks down the known resistance mechanisms and details out some of the selection methods being used.
https://aristabeeresearch.org/varroa-resistance/

The short summary is that Arista has access to highly developed breeding lines selected for commercial traits. Buckfast and Carniolan lines in particular are in their plans. They started the main varroa resistance breeding effort in 2013 which means they are a long way from developing high levels of resistance. They have the advantage that they can leverage work done in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world to make very rapid progress. Using Single Drone Insemination followed by intense selection, they can identify queens with VSH and Grooming traits in a single generation. Concentrating those genetics via isolated mating stations gives them the ability to produce bees with a reasonable level of these traits within 5 years. I expect they will have both Buckfast and Carniolan advanced selections ready for general use by 2018. A few cooperators in Europe received the first queens for evaluation this year.


----------



## sqkcrk

crofter said:


> I agree that much of what we are doing is not sustainable long range.


Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future.

Tell me how unsustainable what we have been doing is NOW. Tell me in ten years how unsustainable what we have done was not sustainable. Agriculture, like all sorts of systems have changed over time. What is not sustainable is stasis. What we are doing now is dealing with the honeybee/beekeeper/varroa/virus interface the best we know how.

If radical change is what it will take to maintain and increase food production on into the future, for a growing Worldwide population of consumers, perhaps that change will come from outside of mainline commercial beekeeping as we know it today. But when it become apparent that that change is commercially viable commercial beekeepers will adopt those practices and run with them.

2 million hives out of the 2.7 million managed hives in the US will be needed to pollinate Almonds in CA this coming season. The price that almond growers are willing to pay drive the beekeeping industry. Commercial Beekeepers have changed their practices to meet the demands of those who need their hives to produce their crops. I don't see how it can not ever be so.


----------



## JWChesnut

Nordak said:


> We as a society (western especially) are of the here and now; instant gratification is our demand to which we are supplied. Like all things that are created to supply quick demand, quality suffers immensely, including our ways of life.


Hey, I was (and still am) an original hippie. Long before lharder discovered voluntary simplicity, I lived in a log house, tipi, and then a dugout covered with animal skins I had harvested with stone points, so far off the grid in mountains with my bees. Then, I went to live in the *real* third world.


----------



## Nordak

JWChesnut said:


> Hey, I was (and still am) an original hippie. Long before lharder discovered voluntary simplicity, I lived in a log house, tipi, and then a dugout covered with animal skins I had harvested with stone points, so far off the grid in mountains with my bees. Then, I went to live in the real third world. What we have in the modern world economy is a fragile miracle, created by every man's desire to escape illness, privation and hunger the whole world over. Certainly, this seething mass of humanity is consuming more than the sunlight provides to the earth, but that is the nature of the species.
> 
> My lesson from being a hippie (and a trained scientist) was to to question authority, and all the easy answers that the academy throws at our oh-so-gullible youth.


I don't claim to be a hippie, or even claim to live what one would call a self sustaining existence. I think you summed it up quite well in your assessment of the fragility of our modern landscape. There is no model in nature for what we do, and certainly not one that could possibly sustain itself. You are correct, we are not like any other species. We are practicing self destruction even though we know better. I think it's all you can do to make your own corner of the world a better place.


----------



## crofter

"I dont see how it can not ever be so". Well so far the work towards almond cultivars that are self pollinating is not ready for prime time, but you can be sure that if becomes economically viable the growers would shake you off like a booger! If it were not for pollination of almonds, how many fewer hives would there be?

Predictions is a tough business "especilly about the future"! lol! I can tell you in hindsight that coumaphos was not sustainable. Stasis is not sustainable but exponential growth in anything is definitely unsustainable .

Like you say, as conditions change beekeepers will move toward whatever methods appear economically survivable and those who dont, won't be commercial beekeepers. I am sure that commercials will move towards TF when the economics and logistics of it show advantage. Hobbyists can entertain methods that may have little more than ideological reward but that would be hard to enjoy on an empty stomach if they were commercial.

Do you think Commercial TF is on the verge of happening? I think some people view that as a static condition and live happily ever after. What pestilence is next after varroa is eliminated or becomes tolerable? Will that require reversion to treating? You just know how easy it would be to fall off the treatment free wagon when faced with something as sudden and calamitous as tracheal and varro mites were when they appeared.

I dont see treatment free beekeeping as a probable static condition. Perhaps bees will prove to be the exception though amongst all the other animals and plants that are presently mass produced. Pigs, cattle, fowl, fish, they all seem to require intervention.


----------



## Oldtimer

crofter said:


> What pestilence is next after varroa is eliminated or becomes tolerable?


Tropilaelaps


----------



## dtrooster

> What pestilence is next after varroa is eliminated or becomes tolerable?


 how about we let you pick a name, ones as good as the next. How many thousands you reckon have come and gone in bee's existance, yet here they are with no interference from man. I'm sure they'll be ok until we wipe them out


----------



## jim lyon

I was lectured repeatedly by my father to get a good education because he didn't feel commercial beekeeping had much of a future. That was the 1960's, long before "sustainability" became a buzz word.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Fusion_power said:


> This breaks down the known resistance mechanisms and details out some of the selection methods being used.
> https://aristabeeresearch.org/varroa-resistance/
> 
> The short summary is that Arista has access to highly developed breeding lines selected for commercial traits.


Since I am a member of the European Buckfast Breeders Association I have been lecturing repeatedly on this forum about European Buckfast breeding. Here is what Jeff Harris said on the Deltafarmpress article:

" “The Europeans have a wonderful bee, the Buckfast honey bee, that has been developed over many generations; it’s extremely gentle, a good honey producer, survives their winters well, and is extremely uniform, and they have a big, coordinated program to avoid inbreeding.

“They loved our resistance, but they didn’t want our semen diluting their outstanding stock. Instead, they wanted to know how we achieved resistance. We’ve met with them many times over the past few years, teaching them how we do things, and they’ve had some remarkable success. They took a bee stock that was already highly selected for all the desirable qualities and then bred for resistance. They’ve amplified the resistance trait, and now they’re looking for someone in the U.S. to distribute their Arista honey bee with resistance to the varroa mite.

“I’ve seen these bees in Europe, and they’re incredibly uniform. We never get that kind of uniformity here — there’s just so much variation in our bees. The European bees are very predictable, and that’s what we need to be shooting for. The Europeans are very excited about this, and I’m looking into the potential for working with them.”


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> I was lectured repeatedly by my father to get a good education because he didn't feel commercial beekeeping had much of a future. That was the 1960's, long before "sustainability" became a buzz word.


And your Father and Uncle were 1960s Commercial Beekeepers, weren't they? Which is what I meant when I wrote "Tell me in ten years how unsustainable what we have done was not sustainable. " Just as Jim has kept on keeping bees, that's what we do, what we will do. Keep keeping our bees. The bees will keep us.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Unfortunately the season in Finland is too short to take part of their one drone insemination program: 
1. Raising drones and queens, minimum about 30 queens
2. Inseminating queens with one drone
3. Waiting until the mating hives have a lot of open brood
4. Contaminating mating hives with varroa (=bees from a high infestation hive)
5. Waiting until new generation of bees has emerged and they are working to uncap cells with reproducing mites
6. Counting the VSH factor from capped brood (under microscope indoors)
7. Wintering for further breeding only the queens with high enough VSH factor(>50%)


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> And your Father and Uncle were 1960s Commercial Beekeepers, weren't they? Which is what I meant when I wrote "Tell me in ten years how unsustainable what we have done was not sustainable. " Just as Jim has kept on keeping bees, that's what we do, what we will do. Keep keeping our bees. The bees will keep us.


They learned as young boys in the late 30's and began commercially in the 40's. Yes, beekeepers adapt as long as their is a profit incentive. Those that don't adopt commercially viable business plans don't stay in business long. 
SP asked me earlier if honey crops have gotten smaller. The short answer is yes, but migratory beekeeping and the ability to have larger hives earlier in the summer has made up some of the differences, and higher prices resulting indirectly from the impact of varroa has helped greatly. Basically, though, what has happened in beekeeping is, because of changes in farming practices, large areas simply are no longer viable for honey production and beekeepers keeping bees in those areas have either gone out of business or relocated their operations into areas that are still viable.


----------



## mike bispham

sqkcrk said:


> What is not sustainable is stasis.


Stasis is only unsustainable inasmuch as its leading to environmental catastrophy.

In the case of bees, it seems to me to be panning out, a new industry (Almond growing) has generated a massive problem for more traditional beekeepers. 

Why not recognise that and make arguments for legislation to stop the damage?



sqkcrk said:


> What we are doing now is dealing with the honeybee/beekeeper/varroa/virus interface the best we know how.


'The best we know how' is for many 'how can I maximise my returns in this environment' and it ends there. 



sqkcrk said:


> If radical change is what it will take to maintain and increase food production on into the future, for a growing Worldwide population of consumers...


A glance at the growth and levels of obesity in your own country should give you a clue as to at least one aspect of the 'need to feed the world' myth. There's no shortage of food. There is massive waste, overproduction and overconsumption in some parts of the worls, and hunger in others. 

The best place to grow food is where people live. The best way to make sure everyone gets enough is to have equitable and secure social systems - everywhere. 

That of course isn't the picture western agrochemical and industrial farming giants want to see. They want to stand inbetween the land and the people needing to be fed, and control the flow of food to maximise their profits. that's what they're supposed to do - that's their legal duty - to maximise shareholder value. 

So the second biggest government lobby in the world shapes the food needs picture, shapes food production legislation, and produces massive amounts of food that is then dumped at below cost prices in developing counties, thus wrecking their food production development.

Your premise: "maintain and increase food production on into the future, for a growing Worldwide population of consumers... "

is wrongheaded mark. 



sqkcrk said:


> ... perhaps that change will come from outside of mainline commercial beekeeping as we know it today. But when it become apparent that that change is commercially viable commercial beekeepers will adopt those practices and run with them.


.... until the idea that letting industries set their own rules is a bad idea, because industries take no account of social costs. 



sqkcrk said:


> 2 million hives out of the 2.7 million managed hives in the US will be needed to pollinate Almonds in CA this coming season. The price that almond growers are willing to pay drive the beekeeping industry. Commercial Beekeepers have changed their practices to meet the demands of those who need their hives to produce their crops. I don't see how it can not ever be so.


You have to think well outside the beekeeper box, at the regulatory framework that allows a relatively small industry to cause so much social damage. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike I was going to argue your post, but it contains so many false assumptions I don't even know where to begin, or wish to spend the time it would take to seek out references demonstrating where your arguments are wrong.

But try telling someone in South Sudan that there is a conspiracy by the West to flood their country with underpriced food.

Suffice to say that beekeepers do what it takes to earn a living same as everyone else does. Short of hunter gathering, this is the way the world works and the situation we find ourselves in. Even hunter gathering is not as perfect as some think, the hunter gatherer people who arrived in my country 900 years ago exterminated 40% of our bird species before the first europeans got here 200 years ago. In fact the history of humans for millenia is one of expanding into new areas and then causing extinctions and radically changing the environment, even with very basic technology. 5,000 years ago your own country Britain was a very different landscape, it was forested and had wolves, bears, and lions. Then people arrived / increased in number, landscape and fauna completely changed well before the advent of any modern technology or greedy corporations.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Mike I was going to argue your post, but it contains so many false assumptions I don't even know where to begin, or wish to spend the time it would take to seek out references demonstrating where your arguments are wrong.
> 
> But try telling someone in South Sudan that there is a conspiracy by the West to flood their country with underpriced food.


You are right about human impact. The question is do we carry on or learn from history - or scientific advice. The most important thing is to get clear about facts! Africa has huge underinvestment in farming as a direct result of European farming subsidies. That's not due to a conspiracy, its due to lobbying by the international agro-chemical and farming industries and the political benefits of cheap food - in the wealthy west.
An Oxfam briefing:
http://www.iatp.org/files/Stop_the_Dumping_How_EU_Agricultural_Subsidies.htm

South Sudan has huge social, infrastructure, climatic problems. It has war. Yes the people there need food short term. But in the long term just feeding people isn't a solution. Citing the needs of peoples in a famine state is fraudulent. That's not the norm - its an emergency situation. 



Oldtimer said:


> Suffice to say that beekeepers do what it takes to earn a living same as everyone else does.


Yep. And in a climate of light regulation they are free to screw up bees wherever and however they see fit for the purposes of their businesses. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> The question is do we carry on or learn from history - or scientific advice. (UK)


We carry on. Because history shows that's what we do.

That's not to say I think we should, but it's to say that's what will happen.

No worries though, the oil will run out and that will solve the whole thing.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> We carry on. Because history shows that's what we do.


That would be extremely messy, and all the scientific advice is that we don't - that we turn away from environmental exploitation and count the social cost. That we have things like worldwide biodiversity and climate change agreements. I'd argue they are a good thing and should be strengthened. That means more limits on companies 'freedom' to impact resources that are owned by future generations. 



Oldtimer said:


> No worries though, the oil will run out and that will solve the whole thing.


No, there is plenty of oil - far too much to burn without cooking the planet to death. But there is hope: renewable investment and production is exploding. most of known oil reserves will be left in the ground as they will be uneconomic to recover.

This is because people have argued and made the case for renewables, in the face of outrageous lies and lobbying by oil companies. Arguing, done well, works

Facts.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> No, there is plenty of oil - far too much to burn without cooking the planet to death. But there is hope: renewable investment and production is exploding. most of known oil reserves will be left in the ground as they will be uneconomic to recover.


That is fantasy. The oil reserves are finite. Enough time and they will be gone, with some remaining but so resource intense to recover that they will not be recovered. Fact.

If you have a glass of beer and every so often take a sip, eventually the beer will be gone. Simple? The attitude that we should carry on because - there is plenty of oil / there is renewable energy / some other miracle will happen, is actually the problem. Head in sand?

There is no secret engine that runs on water, nor is there sustainable renewable energy to keep things going as is at current world population levels. To say that arguing, done well, will change that, is ridiculous.



mike bispham said:


> That would be extremely messy,


Correct.

As all this affects beekeeping, migratory beekeeping in it's current form will not be economic, beekeeping will revert to a cottage industry, as will agriculture. Once this happens the mite and other disease problems will begin to solve themselves, as less populated stationary honeybee populations are able to develop resistances.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> That is fantasy. The oil reserves are finite. Enough time and they will be gone.
> 
> There is no secret engine that runs on water, nor is there sustainable renewable energy to keep things going as is at current world population levels.


You're behind the facts... if all the oil were to be burned the planet would become uninhabitable. That won't be allowed - global treaties are already tightening the noose; oil companies are already shifting into renewable energy production. The cost of renewable energy is falling rapidly and approaching parity with hydrocarbons. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-chris-goodall-review-solar-power-taking-over

(Up to date) Facts



Oldtimer said:


> As all this affects beekeeping, migratory beekeeping in it's current form will not be economic, beekeeping will revert to a cottage industry, as will agriculture. Once this happens the mite and other disease problems will begin to solve themselves, as less populated stationary honeybee populations are able to develop resistances.


Well 'this' won't happen - we'll keep on using energy at high levels, but it will be low-impact energy. 

Competition among producers of all kinds - including beekeepers - will continue to supply strong incentives to maximise profits. Until we get accounting of social costs for bee management, some operators will continue to forestall progress toward resistance and healthy beekeeping practices. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> You're behind the facts... if all the oil were to be burned the planet would become uninhabitable.


You are behind the facts. If it was all burned over a short time then yes it might cause another big extinction event. But if burned over a long enough time period it will not, so your claim is false. The other thing is human nature. When countries or ideologies are at war and their survival is at stake, they will destroy the environment if that is what it takes to prevent defeat by their enemies. And war is so common it could almost be called the normal human condition, with peace being the anomoly. Most of the planet is involved at some lower or higher level of war as we speak.

The other thing you are confused about is the cost of renewable energy. The cost of it would go up exponentially if enough had to be produced to run the planet. Heard all this before, remember when palm oil was the latest renewable energy and fuel? And it was, till they discovered there is only enough suitable growing land to make a drop in the bucket against oil taken from the ground.

But look, as the catastrophy has not yet happened this is all theory. But if this page still exists in a few hundred years, and if there are any survivors reading it, they will say why did those guys not listen to Oldtimer, instead of following Mikes path of blind overuse and overindulgence to destruction.



mike bispham said:


> Well 'this' won't happen - we'll keep on using energy at high levels, but it will be low-impact energy.


Head in sand, and the attitude that is the problem.

Like I said a few posts ago, we carry on, because history shows that's what we do.

I don't think we should, but I know we will.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> You are not thinking this through. If it was all burned over a short time then yes it would cause another big extinction event. But if burned over a long enough time period it will not.


I don't have to think it through - I can leave that to the climate scientists. What they say is: stop, quick! What you're not grasping is the economics; if you can buy renewable energy cheaper than hydrocarbons can be extracted and burned; they'll stay in the ground. 



Oldtimer said:


> The other thing you are confused about is the cost of renewable energy. The cost of it would go up exponentially if enough had to be produced to run the planet. heard all this before....


You've heard about an over-optimistic energy production story before, and you're going to base your views about renewables on that? Did you even read the link I posted?



Oldtimer said:


> But look, as the catastrophy has not yet happened this is all theory.


Haha; must be one of the best researched 'theories' in history by now! And prudence suggests that we should multiply risk by consequence... but hey, if you want to deny climate change go ahead. Maybe you know something the climate scientists don't!



Oldtimer said:


> But if this page still exists in a few hundred years, and if there are any survivors reading it, they will say why did those guys not listen to Oldtimer, instead of following Mikes path of blind overuse and overindulgence to destruction.


What's that supposed to be? An anti-Fact? Ah, its a joke. That utterly misrepresents my position. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> but hey, if you want to deny climate change go ahead. Maybe you know something the climate scientists don't!
> Mike (UK)


What's that supposed to be? An anti-Fact? Ah, its a joke. That utterly misrepresents my position.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> What you're not grasping is the economics; if you can buy renewable energy cheaper than hydrocarbons can be extracted and burned; they'll stay in the ground.


What you are not grasping is the economics. You can't buy enough renewable energy to run the planet as it is now, cheaper than hydrocarbons from the ground. Fact.



mike bispham said:


> I don't have to think it through


Patently obvious.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> What you are not grasping is the economics. You can't buy enough renewable energy to run the planet as it is now, cheaper than hydrocarbons from the ground. Fact.


Opening and 2nd paragraphs from the link I sent:

"A sense of drift and apathy has pervaded the global warming and renewable energy debate for too long. The fossil fuel companies continue to dig coal and pump oil and gas; herbivorous idealists, scientists and ecowarriors emit their ritual opposition. The carbon load forced into the atmosphere continues to rise, and the general public seems resigned.

But 2016 is the year this will really begin to change. Chris Goodall’s book is wonderfully up to date but, thanks to the pace of change, even he couldn’t keep up with the avalanche of news and initiatives conspiring to justify his subtitle. In May, Shell announced a major move into renewables; on 15 May Germany received almost all its electricity from renewables; for four days from 7 to 10 May Portugal did the same. Goodall, who is an economist rather than a technologist or ecowarrior, explains why the change is happening now: the cost of solar electricity is falling much faster than anyone predicted. Solar power is approaching parity with fossil fuels and can only become cheaper as time goes by."

Last sentence again for you:

"Solar power is approaching parity with fossil fuels and can only become cheaper as time goes by."

If you read the piece, and read around the topic, you'll see that we're moving away from hydrocarbons faster than anyone predicted. Contrary to your claim, renewables can _easily_ supply all the power we need. Again, read the piece - it explains why.

I'm not going to try to argue about this with you anymore Oldtimer. But I will suggest: if you want to be informed on this issue, get some up to date facts about renewables costs and the reduction in hydrocarbon energy production. You could do worse than buy that book.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Jim 134

Woodside said:


> I am not a TF beekeeper... But I am a commercial beekeeper with around 2000 hives. I am interested in possibly becoming treatment free. However I am wondering if being TF is practical with 2k hives.
> 
> Some of the concerns about genetically mite resistant bees:
> 
> 1) hive size / production
> 2) wintering
> 3) Cluster size in january
> 
> When a VSH hive survives winter, does it barely survive or does the cluster stay strong throughout the winter, or does it dwindle but survive? I mean 16 frame hive dwindles to 5-6 frames by February or is it more like 16 frame hive dwindles to 10 frames?
> 
> Are VSH bees generally more conservative or does the queen lay without regaurd of resources like my current stock.
> 
> Is there any reason I cant run 2000-10000 hives TF?


As far as I know there are no commercial beekeeper in the USA . Running your kind of number that are treatment free...... if you decide to do this I hope you the best. The only person I know that is a commercial beekeeping migratory in the USA is *Chris Baldwin*. 

 BEE HAPPY Jim


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I'm not going to try to argue about this with you anymore Oldtimer.


Oh I'm sure you'll be back. 

I did read your link. It's a newspaper article in The Guardian. A newspaper article can be found to support any argument you like. As can a book. The old habit of backing weak arguments with weak links. Did you read the book yourself? No, then why ask me to read it?



mike bispham said:


> But 2016 is the year this will really begin to change.


Well since there's only another 4 months in 2016, won't have to wait long to see if you are correct. I predict you are not correct.


----------



## jim lyon

Jim 134 said:


> As far as I know there are no commercial beekeeper in the USA . Running your kind of number that are treatment free...... if you decide to do this I hope you the best. The only person I know that is a commercial beekeeping migratory in the USA is *Chris Baldwin*.
> 
> BEE HAPPY Jim


Yes, Woodside raises some valid points. I have come to believe in recent years that I most likely could become treatment free by aggressively splitting in early spring down south but it would almost certainly result in reduced honey crops and probably eliminate almond pollination from the equation.


----------



## Fusion_power

> I most likely could become treatment free by aggressively splitting in early spring down south


How would you do it? What bees would you use?


----------



## jim lyon

I'm theorizing here Dar but I wouldn't do anything any different than what I am currently doing. I have a pretty good idea of what my bees look like sans treatment as I have inadvertently neglected putting timely treatments on some yards in the past. They suffer as a result but there are always at least a few that manage to bounce back in by spring. The spring in our east Texas area is roughly 6 weeks ahead of South Dakota so even a 2 comb nuc in good conditions can grow into a productive unit in time to be a productive unit. The key question, of course, is would there be enough winter survivors to keep the numbers up.


----------



## Oldtimer

Talking to Mike Palmer he doesn't treat much, I'm pretty sure he could go TF also.


----------



## AHudd

Solar energy was reaching parity with energy produced with oil when oil was $147.00 per barrel.

http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf 

At 522 million BARRELS, we have about 2x the amount of oil in storage as we had pre-Katrina. I have been hearing we are running out of oil since the 1970's, each decade we were told we would be out of oil before the start of the next. We now have more in storage than at any time in history.
These #'s do not include the SPR which has about 700 million BARRELS.
These are facts as reported by the refiners to the U.S. GOV. interpret them as you wish.

Alex
This link says temporarily unavailable, because it is updated weekly.
Alex


----------



## Fusion_power

I don't think Mike Palmer could make it TF at present. He would get too much winter die out with too limited time to bounce back in the spring. He is bringing in some TF stock which would help.

Jim, if you changed your stock to known mite tolerant bees, how would that change the paradigm? Are you strictly working Texas to South Dakota? or do you also send bees to almonds?


----------



## jim lyon

Fusion_power said:


> Jim, if you changed your stock to known mite tolerant bees, how would that change the paradigm? Are you strictly working Texas to South Dakota? or do you also send bees to almonds?


I honestly don't know. I do use tf breeders for maybe 25% of our grafts each spring but I like our production bees and am hesitant to go "all in" with the unknown of tf breeders over our own hand selected breeders.


----------



## Oldtimer

AHudd said:


> Solar energy was reaching parity with energy produced with oil when oil was $147.00 per barrel.


LOL yes that's the way things get twisted. The other thing is that relative to the massive scale of the oil industry, solar energy is a boutique industry and upsizing will increase costs. The manufacture of solar equipment relies on oil so it "works" when run alongside oil production.



AHudd said:


> At 522 million BARRELS, we have about 2x the amount of oil in storage as we had pre-Katrina. I have been hearing we are running out of oil since the 1970's, each decade we were told we would be out of oil before the start of the next. We now have more in storage than at any time in history.
> These #'s do not include the SPR which has about 700 million BARRELS.
> These are facts as reported by the refiners to the U.S. GOV. interpret them as you wish.Alex


When oil price peaked it was because things really were looking like we were heading towards a serious shortage. Now prices have come down and reserves gone up due to several factors. One is that the US got a fright and decided they better start large scale fracking, which has meant there is now enough oil reserves to guarantee the US oil security for at least another century. Also Saudi Arabia has increased production for political reasons.

What all this means is that in the life span of just about all of us it seems likely that not much will change. But eventually it will change.


----------



## Fusion_power

> I do use tf breeders for maybe 25% of our grafts each spring


Would you mind discussing the source of your TF stock? I'm curious if it is just VSH from Baton Rouge or if you are using bees also selected for grooming traits.


----------



## jim lyon

Fusion_power said:


> Would you mind discussing the source of your TF stock? I'm curious if it is just VSH from Baton Rouge or if you are using bees also selected for grooming traits.


We used Glenn until they closed then vpqueens.


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> I'm theorizing here Dar but I wouldn't do anything any different than what I am currently doing. I have a pretty good idea of what my bees look like sans treatment as I have inadvertently neglected putting timely treatments on some yards in the past. They suffer as a result but there are always at least a few that manage to bounce back in by spring. The spring in our east Texas area is roughly 6 weeks ahead of South Dakota so even a 2 comb nuc in good conditions can grow into a productive unit in time to be a productive unit. The key question, of course, is would there be enough winter survivors to keep the numbers up.


I think one of the biggest challenges is the comb. If you are going to go TF and still use the same comb the chemicals are still in the wax. So, seems to me, any TF Commercial operation would have to establish new bees in new equipment. Which itself could be cost prohibitive. Certainly at least a challenge.


----------



## Oldtimer

I did exactly that, small (4.9) cell comb, the foundation made from treatment free wax taken from a part of my country that varroa had not got to yet.

Eventually a 100% failure despite massive splitting, I concluded it must be the bees. Our bees here are from a very limited gene pool compared to the US which has bees from just about every corner of the globe.


----------



## Fusion_power

OT, the genetics for mite tolerance are pretty well established to exist in most bee populations at very low levels. VSH has been identified in Carniolan, Buckfast, and Italian bees. The problem is that 1 colony in about 10,000 expresses enough to survive mites untreated. Given a feral population in the eastern U.S. of roughly 100 colonies per square mile pre-varroa, that means only one colony in 100 square miles (10 miles by 10 miles square) survived the initial onslaught. It took 11 years before a few swarms started to re-appear in this area.

One of those interesting items to come out of a dutch study was that two populations of bees separated by only a few hundred miles developed entirely different mechanisms for mite tolerance. This suggests that feral bees that survived the initial infestation could have crossed and the resulting bees would have been susceptible instead of resistant. In other words, the bees that survived had to go through several years of crossing and recombination before a stable level of resistance began to express. Then consider that one of the mechanisms of resistance is based on extreme swarming. The more the bees swarm, the more likely that one or more of the casts will survive.

Your bees have the required traits, but as you have posted, someone had to let a few thousand colonies die to find a few that survived. If you propagate from those survivors, in 3 or 4 years, you will have mite tolerance well established in your bees.

One thing that would be useful is to import semen from known mite tolerant lines and use those bees to breed in additional mite tolerance traits. Do you have protocols in place to import semen?


----------



## Oldtimer

Semen importation has been done but is not now permitted because of the risk of undesireable genetics and undesireable viruses. Although we have varroa, we are still spared many of the other bee afflictions that most other countries have.

Yes you obviously have read my other post about the guy who is now breeding supposed varroa resistant queens in an isolated area. I have some of these queens and will shortly start breeding from them.

However there are 2 problems in my country. We are a small country but are very crowded with bees. We have around 3/4 of a million hives, bees are very dense, isolated mating is virtually impossible to achieve. Where I am it is impossible to achieve. There is no treatment free debate here because for whatever reason bees untreated will be dead in 12 months. So everyone treats. There is no chance of an isolated feral population developing resistance. This, combined with the bee density means even if I have some varroa resistant bees, my odds of keeping them are almost zilch.

To overcome this, the guy who has bred these varroa resistant bees is attempting to convince some large commercial beekeepers to requeen whole areas with his queens. good idea and they are fine queens, problem being it is likely seen as something of a marketing ploy, plus beekeeping here is very migratory.

In any case, we will see where this goes.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Oldtimer said:


> Talking to Mike Palmer he doesn't treat much, I'm pretty sure he could go TF also.


My question is can northern beekeepers get away with more due to a shorter brood season. Perhaps treat every other year like I have heard they do in parts of Europe?
.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Which part of Europe is that?

Varroa mites are adapted for a six months brood break because the original host, the Apis cerana, does drone brood breaks for six months. And the mite only breeds in drone brood in the original host. So a short brood break is good for nothing, when it comes to varroa, except it makes a fine opportunity to treat, because the [email protected] are exposed being phoretic at that time. Doesn't apply to the pilosophy of this treatment free forum though.


----------



## flamenco108

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Do we need to breed bees or mites?


I think, it's the most basic question considering varroa control, Bernhard. 

Doesn't that come from TF gurus, the statement, that treating for varroa, in fact we breed mites?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes it's a guru thing. As to what happens in a hive, not sure my treated mites are more powerful than any other mites.


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> The problem is that 1 colony in about 10,000 expresses enough to survive mites untreated.


Where does that figure come from? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## beemandan

flamenco108 said:


> Doesn't that come from TF gurus, the statement, that treating for varroa, in fact we breed mites?





mike bispham said:


> Where does that figure come from?


There's a powerful need in some people to invent facts to support their opinions.


----------



## Fusion_power

There is abundant proof that feral honey bee colonies were very nearly wiped out in the U.S. by varroa between 1986 and 1995, read the books and magazines. There is documented proof that @100 feral colonies per square mile were supported pre-varroa in forested areas of the U.S., see Seeley's work. There is anecdotal evidence that feral colonies re-established and began to spread between 2000 and 2005, I started catching a few swarms as did others. Given the numbers of feral colonies now present, a reverse mathematical proof can show that approximately 1 in 10,000 colonies survived that initial devastation. Further support for this can be found in Gleanings in Bee Culture where instances of 3 colonies in 5000 and 1 Carniolan colony in 1000 managed colonies of bees survived when untreated for mites. The articles were between 1989 and 1996.

After 25 years of varroa, feral colonies in areas with limited managed treated colonies will mostly show some tolerance. In other words, today's bees will be a far different picture than what we had in 1985 pre-varroa.


----------



## Jim 134

Oldtimer said:


> Talking to Mike Palmer he doesn't treat much, I'm pretty sure he could go TF also.


Michael Palmer is not treatment free. There are a couple beekeepers in his general area who are. Kirk Webster and Troy Hall who is in Plainfield New Hampshire just across the river.

http://kirkwebster.com/
BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## beemandan

Fusion_power said:


> There is anecdotal evidence that feral colonies re-established and began to spread between 2000 and 2005,


Not only do some folks feel the need to create 'evidence'....they will jump through assorted hoops in an attempt to support those 'facts'. 
I call it FITSO....fact invention to support opinion. It makes engaging in a meaningful dialog impossible. Which is, I suppose, the idea.


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> Given the numbers of feral colonies now present, a reverse mathematical proof can show that approximately 1 in 10,000 colonies survived that initial devastation.


Sorry Dar, can you show us this proof?



Fusion_power said:


> Further support for this can be found in Gleanings in Bee Culture where instances of 3 colonies in 5000 and 1 Carniolan colony in 1000 managed colonies of bees survived when untreated for mites.


That's 1:1666 and 1:1000 respectively

I've heard of figures (in apiaries) more like 2-3% survival rates - 1:50 or 1:33. These are a long long way from your 1:10,000



Fusion_power said:


> After 25 years of varroa, feral colonies in areas with limited managed treated colonies will mostly show some tolerance. In other words, today's bees will be a far different picture than what we had in 1985 pre-varroa.


Here I know of many nests with highly likely histories of 5+ years of constant occupation, many capable of throwing very large swarms. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## lharder

The exact ratio isn't important. Genetic work has shown a bottleneck of some sorts. There should have been more scientific boots on the ground extensively documenting what happened with feral stocks, but it was an opportunity largely lost.


----------



## beemandan

lharder said:


> The exact ratio isn't important.


Exactly. The only reason to concoct one is an attempt to lend credibility to one's opinions.


----------



## mike bispham

lharder said:


> The exact ratio isn't important.


I think accuracy - if there is an available figure - is important. Facts matter. 



lharder said:


> Genetic work has shown a bottleneck of some sorts.


This idea has been used in the past here to decry efforts at small scale feral-assisted breeding. Closer examination has always shown the idea to be ill-founded. What sort of thing is it you mean lharder? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Fusion_power

Don't feed the sharks, it just attracts more sharks.

No, I won't show you the math, get busy and do it yourself. It is a fairly simple thing to do.

Beemandan, I worked through the sequence of events so I could understand why we went from a huge feral population to near zero feral population in just a few years. Whether it lends credence to anything or not, you get to decide. Were you keeping bees in 1990 when varroa hit the U.S.? If so, what were your losses? Did you see any feral bees between 1994 and 2005? Do you see feral bees today? Get busy and do some anecdoting!

Uk Mike, I can't speak to how many colonies did or did not show mite tolerance in your area. I can state that feral bees were devastated in this area. I am certain that I have bees that are mite tolerant today and I am certain that in the winter of 1993/1994 I lost all but one single colony from about 30 that went into winter. The single survivor was a swarm I caught in 1993 that was isolated from other bees. It was not mite tolerant, it was an escapee. I split and built up from that single colony and had 3 productive colonies in 1994 and was back to a dozen in 1995 and I was treating with apistan. From 1995 until 2004, I did not catch any feral swarms. I set out bait hives over a wide area trying. In 2004, I caught one really good feral swarm that was actually mite tolerant. They were also aggressive and serious swarmers. 

You are comparing bees found today in the UK after 30 years of varroa and saying that 1 in 50 survived or whatever number fits. Find a beekeeper that had bees 30 years ago and see how many colonies they lost when varroa hit. I suspect you will find that very few made it. If 1 in 50 had mite tolerance 30 years ago, I suspect we would not be having this conversation, all the bees in the UK would be mite tolerant by now.


----------



## JWChesnut

There are just a few peer reviewed papers on the genetics of wild collected North American honeybees.

The most recent one is the Arnot Forest population surveyed by Seeley, et. al. and compared to museum collections.

The Seeley paper found unusual mtDNA and nuclear DNA in the wild population. Some of these strains were related to Syrian and North African bees. 

The "Occam's Razor" explanation of these odd wild-types is repopulation of a empty niche by escaped domestic bees (some fraction of which possess exotic DNA). 

Of course, the Seeley paper also found unique polymorphisms which they attributed to fitness selection within the feral population. Classical genetic drift would explain the establishment of unique allelles within a bottlenecked and isolated population. 

The issue with the small scale backyard breeder is 180 degrees different than "genetic bottleneck". The issue is "reversion to the mean"

Consider a population:









The normal curve represents the "background population" (of drones ready to breed). It is axiomatic that a complex behavioral trait (such as intangible Varroa resistance) will follow the distribution of a normal curve.

The bars represent a backyard breeders collection of accidentally acquired hives. These bees will follow some distribution of traits; but because of small numbers, these traits will occupy relative chaotic positions (vis-a-vis the "normal curve). Also, please note that the 99th percentile (where the "evil" commercial breeders select their bees from the 1000's of queens available will not, definitionally, be available to the home breeder). 3 standard deviations out, you stand a statistically insurmountable probability of having one of your six hive occupy this position.

In year two, some random assortment of hives will have died off (Solomon Parker saw 9 of 15 die). Selection is not perfect (despite all the claims of the "Bond believers"), and thus the likelihood of your "best" hive dying is approximately the same as your "worst". The mating probability of the 2nd year virgin from the best hive (ie one in 2nd positive deviation) is 97.5% of the matings will be with a drone worse than the virgin, and 2.5% better than the virgin. That 2nd year virgin (with almost certainty) will produce progeny less fit than herself, etc., etc. 

No backyard breeder that I know of is producing 1000 nucs and culling 995 of them, simply doesn't happen. Yet that is the cull ratio, one needs to push a open mated selection past the 2nd deviation.


----------



## mike bispham

Fusion_power said:


> Uk Mike, I can't speak to how many colonies did or did not show mite tolerance in your area. I can state that feral bees were devastated in this area.


Dar, I probably (as often) came across too sharply there. I just wanted to know what if any real evidence there was for % losses at the outset. Its all a bit academic now, but your 1:10,000 was simply miles away from my pre-existing if vague picture of '2-3% survive'




Fusion_power said:


> You are comparing bees found today in the UK after 30 years of varroa and saying that 1 in 50 survived or whatever number fits.


I don't have any numbers; I don't think anyone has much idea about feral losses at the outset. Many beekeepers spoke of them being wiped out - but no-one actually know (most beekeepers here still think ferals can't survive, and 'that wisdom' does the rounds...) 



Fusion_power said:


> Find a beekeeper that had bees 30 years ago and see how many colonies they lost when varroa hit. I suspect you will find that very few made it. If 1 in 50 had mite tolerance 30 years ago, I suspect we would not be having this conversation, all the bees in the UK would be mite tolerant by now


I suspect that we have to think more in terms of 'some had a little tolerance' and lasted longer, and got off some drones and swarms. And the process went from there (and in spite of treating beekeepers) But in 20 years we've reached the situation where I know of clusters of feral colonies that are literally thriving, some that I've captured are in their 3rd year with me, and I'm just not seeing losses. I just can't see that situation emerging out of a 1:10,000 survival rate in that timeframe. I could be wrong. John Kefuss would know this wouldn't he.

Mike (UK)


----------



## beemandan

Fusion_power said:


> Get busy and do some anecdoting!


Anecdoting (?) is all well and good. You describe the commonly accepted idea that feral colonies were decimated with the introduction of varroa. I, too, believe that this was the case. On the other hand, unless my memory has totally failed me, Michael Bush has claimed on a number of occasions that the feral population in his area never collapsed to any significant degree.
When we are concocting numbers....whose anecdotes do we embrace? I submit to you that the Andy Rooney quote in Jim Lyon's signature line applies.
When I was a young fellow, before varroa, I knew the location of any number of bee trees in the woods. The population of bees here has never recovered. I couldn't find a legitimate multiyear, feral colony to save my life.
I have a small beeyard in a remote location. I am certain that there aren't any managed bees....other than mine.....for many miles. Even before placing my hives there, I'd wandered the surrounding forest and never found a single bee tree. I believe Tom Seeley but I don't think that his experiences are universal. 
These are my opinions and experiences. I don't offer them or any derivative of them as 'facts'.
When I read your posts and you express your opinions as fact and introduce fictitious numbers to support those opinions....I know that you believe what you say but they aren't universal...and to suggest otherwise is misleading at best.


----------



## JoshuaW

> In year two, some random assortment of hives will have died off (Solomon Parker saw 9 of 15 die). Selection is not perfect (despite all the claims of the "Bond believers"), and thus the likelihood of your "best" hive dying is approximately the same as your "worst". The mating probability of the 2nd year virgin from the best hive (ie one in 2nd positive deviation) is 97.5% of the matings will be with a drone worse than the virgin, and 2.5% better than the virgin. That 2nd year virgin (with almost certainty) will produce progeny less fit than herself, etc., etc.


JWC, so I have queens from six different queen producers right now. What would you recommend for producing decent queens??

I have no training in genetics, at all. Total layman. What I don't want to happen is too much inbreeding, or loss of productivity, or something like that.

I would appreciate any advice. Thanks!


----------



## JWChesnut

JoshuaW said:


> JWC, so I have queens from six different queen producers right now. What would you recommend for producing decent queens??
> 
> I have no training in genetics, at all. Total layman. What I don't want to happen is too much inbreeding, or loss of productivity, or something like that.
> 
> I would appreciate any advice. Thanks!


1. Continue to purchase queens from reputable producers who practice scientific selection against a relevant population totaling in the thousands. 
2. Reread my post above -- Categorically, the backyard beekeeper will produce queens that are less fit than someone who can select against a potential population of breeders numbering in the hundreds or thousands. Your semi-feral queens will gravitate toward the mean -- more aggressive than domestic bees, quick to swarm, produce middling crops of honey, and suffer from susceptibility to chalk brood and the other diseases that the professionals have selected against.

or, alternatively

3. Drink the kool-aide and "believe" without an iota of evidence that your queens must be better, just because they are alive in the spring.


----------



## JoshuaW

I'm liking my NWCs more and more and more...

Thanks!!


----------



## Jovian

NWCs?? what that an acronym for


----------



## JoshuaW

New World Carniolan


----------



## Fusion_power

I'd like to point out a divergence in your bell curve JWC. Apply intense selective pressure to a population such that only 1 in 1000 survives and then breed from the survivors replacing all losses for a period of 20 years. Stipulate that multiple tolerance traits will have accumulated such that now 999 in 1000 survive. This is the approximate position some populations of honeybees are in today with respect to varroa. That is a significant deviation from the starting population but granted that most commercial traits will be compromised in the all out push to stabilize mite tolerance.

If I now want to improve commercial traits in those bees, I have three options.

1. I can select within the population I have available with near 100% certainty they will retain high levels of varroa tolerance. This would yield very slow progress because the level of variation is relatively low in my bees.

2. I can import more varroa tolerant bees relatively unselected for commercial traits and use them in a crossbreeding program. This will give somewhat faster progress because more variation is being introduced. There is still near 100% certainty they will retain high levels of varroa tolerance.

3. I can import bees highly selected for commercial traits and use them in a crossbreeding program. This potentially will give very fast progress in commercial traits, especially if a regression breeding plan is followed directed toward introgressing varroa tolerance into the commercial bees. It is 100% guaranteed that varroa tolerance will be compromised for several generations, but has the most potential to improve commercial traits while boosting varroa tolerance.

This is why I brought in Carpenter queens 4 years ago in an effort to improve commercial traits. The improvement is not enough to make a commercial strain. I am bringing in some Buckfast queens from Canada in an effort to significantly change the paradigm with a highly selected commercial line to cross with my mite tolerant bees. I may be wrong, but I think this is the route that will lead to the most progress in the least time.




Beemandan, if I interpret correctly, you are saying there are no feral survivors in your area. If that is correct, then 0 in 10,000 were survivors in your area.


----------



## beemandan

Fusion_power said:


> If that is correct, then 0 in 10,000 were survivors in your area.


There aren't any survivors here. There isn't any way to quantify it beyond that. This whole obsession you have with fabricating numbers doesn't make you look smart. In fact, to anyone who actually understands the dynamics...it looks ridiculous. Maybe you are impressing someone...but I can't imagine who.


----------



## Jovian

Thanks JoshuaW


----------



## Fusion_power

> There aren't any survivors here.


 So you are a beekeeper and you treat your bees and you are here in the treatment free forum to gain what? Have you made any effort to get your bees off of treatments? Do you know any of the beekeepers in north Georgia who are currently treatment free? Dann Purvis sold queens from Northwest Georgia for about 5 years. There are still several beekeepers in that area who are treatment free. As for no feral survivors, I can point to at least one beekeeper within 50 miles of you who would argue otherwise. I can also point out that feral survivors are very much being used in northeast Alabama and northwest Georgia completely without any treatments. Do you think all of the feral survivors are just recent escapes from managed colonies?


----------



## JWChesnut

JoshuaW said:


> I'm liking my NWCs more and more and more...
> 
> Thanks!!


The NWC is produced by Artificial insemination from a closed mating population. Both drones and queens are selected by a multi-trait objective benchmark. A controlled out-group selection is made to slowly bleed in enough outside genetics to prevent inbreeding.

The NWC strategy is at right angles to the "let 'em die, backyard breeder" concept that has come to dominate the "TF" orthodoxy.


----------



## JWChesnut

Fusion_power said:


> Stipulate that multiple tolerance traits will have accumulated such that now 999 in 1000 survive.


You are kidding, right?


----------



## Fusion_power

No, I'm not kidding. My bees die from several things, but varroa is not one of them. As I stated, "with respect to varroa".


----------



## sqkcrk

Jovian said:


> NWCs?? what that an acronym for


It isn't an acronym for anything. It's an abbreviation of the words New World Carniolan.


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> The "Occam's Razor" explanation of these odd wild-types is repopulation of a empty niche by escaped domestic bees (some fraction of which possess exotic DNA).



Why would you claim that? Why would that be a simpler explanation than repopulation by a genetic mix from the original feral and fresh beekeeper sources? What sources would the 'unusual' mtDNA and nuclear DNA be likely to come from?



JWChesnut said:


> Of course, the Seeley paper also found unique polymorphisms which they attributed to fitness selection within the feral population. Classical genetic drift would explain the establishment of unique allelles within a bottlenecked and isolated population.


Don't forget bees are of their nature relatively isolated. Yes, a reduced population might be regarded as 'bottlenecked - but so is a captive (breeder's) population. All natural populations under severe fatal infection rates are 'bottlenecked' - and its precisely that which enables the new successful allels to lift numbers again. 



JWChesnut said:


> The issue with the small scale backyard breeder is 180 degrees different than "genetic bottleneck". The issue is "reversion to the mean"


With bees you can change the genetics of a colony with new queens several times a year (if you can find a way to make use of that). And with just 20 or so colonies in a relatively isolated spot you can influence via drones to a large degree. You have immense breeding force. 



JWChesnut said:


> In year two, some random assortment of hives will have died off (Solomon Parker saw 9 of 15 die).


That figure is absolutely dependent on where your material originates. My ('Bond-managed') feral bees are not dying at a rate greater than would expected from normal supercedure failure.



JWChesnut said:


> Selection is not perfect (despite all the claims of the "Bond believers"), and thus the likelihood of your "best" hive dying is approximately the same as your "worst".


This is absolutely wrong. I agree natural selection (for that is what you meant) is not 'perfect' - in several ways (nor is the statement itself - what is 'perfection' when the future is unknowable?). But the idea that highly resistant and utterly unresistant will die off at the same rate is laughable. Furthermore death is by no means the sole selector mechanism. Better adapted colonies grow larger, have many more drones and can throw out more swarms. Both these mechanisms result in increasing their share of the genes present in the next generation. 



JWChesnut said:


> The mating probability of the 2nd year virgin from the best hive (ie one in 2nd positive deviation) is 97.5% of the matings will be with a drone worse than the virgin, and 2.5% better than the virgin.


How do you arrive at those percentages? 



JWChesnut said:


> No backyard breeder that I know of is producing 1000 nucs and culling 995 of them, simply doesn't happen. Yet that is the cull ratio, one needs to push a open mated selection past the 2nd deviation.


This is all just rubbish JWC. Others be warned. If this guy was right there'd be no resistant ferals. Is that the case? Many here know otherwise, and the evidence isn't merely anecdotal - there is scientific work detailing the existance of, and mechanisms deployed by, evolved natural populations.

Mike (UK)


----------



## beemandan

Fusion_power said:


> As for no feral survivors, I can point to at least one beekeeper within 50 miles of you who would argue otherwise.


Perfect example. So...how good does that make using anecdotal reports for manufacturing numbers? I say there aren't any local. Another guy says there are. You choose to believe one. The only thing proved is that Andy Rooney was right.

By the way...back in the day I bought queens from Dann Purvis. I like him. I liked what he was trying to do. He was honest in reporting his results. He suffered substantial losses...year after year. But he had an excuse. He was intentionally putting his bees under unnaturally high parasitic pressure. 

Why do I come to the tf forum? I believe that there are some thoughtful, objective reporting tf beekeepers who post here. I like getting their reports and getting a true sense of their successes and failures. I hate it when those reports are tainted by biased opinions hidden behind fabricated numbers. 

Enjoyed this exchange but I've got to go pull supers. There's much work to be done.


----------



## crofter

Fusion_power said:


> No, I'm not kidding. My bees die from several things, but varroa is not one of them. As I stated, "with respect to varroa".


FP, Your bees do have varroa though, do they not? Varroa is generally considered to vector or set up the conditions for the success of many other bee stressors.

What do you identify as the causes of your bee failures?


----------



## Fusion_power

Yes, I do have varroa at low levels. The last time I checked, I found 15 dropped mites in 48 days. I had one colony this year that showed a few bees with DWV. That queen had several other problems so I offed her head at the earliest opportunity. If I see any signs of varroa in a colony, that colony is requeened. I deliberately searched for varroa in drone brood a few months ago. I found one varroa mite after uncapping 127 drones.

The single biggest source of colony failure is when a queen fails for whatever reason. I've monitored closely and other than queens failing to mate, I have not had any queen failures this summer. Typical winter loss is about 1 colony in 20. I make sure the bees go into winter with plenty of honey. I have raised about 25 queens so far with 17 of them successfully mated and laying. I sold several queens to other beekeepers so my net increase is only 10 colonies.


----------



## lharder

mike bispham said:


> I think accuracy - if there is an available figure - is important. Facts matter.
> 
> 
> 
> This idea has been used in the past here to decry efforts at small scale feral-assisted breeding. Closer examination has always shown the idea to be ill-founded. What sort of thing is it you mean lharder?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Seely et al showed that genetic diversity with bees was overall maintained. A few surviving mothers mated with many different drones. This polyandrous thing is ingenious. I don't see a bottle neck thing being a valid argument against feral bee adaptation. If you look at the bigger picture, and the limited genetic movement from adjacent areas, one can see how genetic diversity can be maintained. If you look at the even bigger picture, between feral bees, and if everyone raised their own stock, the chances of new novel characteristics evolving and adding to genetic diversity are even higher. The bonus of this system is not importing new problems into the local system all the time.


----------



## Fusion_power

It took me a while to figure out why JWChesnut is so fixated on a single path of genetics. He is focused on vertical resistance and performance improvement.

Vertical resistance - This is generally used to mean use of a single gene to convey tolerance to a disease or pest. The underlying weakness is that single genes can be easy to overcome.

Horizontal resistance - This is used to denote multiple genes which each convey a tiny but useful amount of disease or pest tolerance. A simple way to think of this is that a living cell is like a safe with more than one lock. A thief would have to break the combination for the first lock, then the second, third, etc. Obviously, the difficulty of breaking into the safe become greater with more locks.

JWC goes south at "mass selection". Mass selection has been used for thousands of years to improve crops and animals. It is a relatively slow but highly effective method of improving an animal or plant. Set aside a large population of the organism to be improved. Apply very intense selective pressure to eliminate 99% or more of the organisms from the breeding population. Breed from the survivors, rinse, repeat. After several generations, massive changes will have taken place in the genetics of the organism. The important difference with this breeding method is that it preserves genetic diversity while concentrating desirable genes. It is arguably the best selection method for increasing disease or pest tolerance.

JWC's bell curve represents a breeding method that relies on identifying a few breeding individuals from thousands. It is effective at breeding for improved performance such as increased honey production. "Reversion to mean" is the Achilles heel of performance improvement breeding. Mass selection changes the "mean" by increasing the average performance of the population. Using his bell curve to illustrate, this means shifting the entire curve to the right in the direction of improved performance.

My bees represent a population that has had the varroa resistance curve shifted to the right. Now I am working on improving the performance curve.


----------



## mike bispham

lharder said:


> The bonus of this system is not importing new problems into the local system all the time.


I couldn't agree more - genetic maladaptation being as big a problem as the tedious varroa vulnerability. If we just worked with the grain of nature and allowed local solutions to local problems to evolve, things would be a whole lot easier.

Mike (UK)


----------



## intothewind

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


----------



## intothewind

Jw: what? Your explanation for genotypes not imported for hundreds of years is that they somehow came out of the managed population? That makes zero sense.

Your reversion to the mean makes sense only if their is no selection pressure. Varroa is no doubt exerting strong directional selection on even treated colonies. Even a colony slightly better at tolerating varroa will have an advantage...this is different than your alluded to avocado selection where you are dealing with a highly inbred stock and must have the best of the best.


----------



## Nordak

Fusion_power said:


> It took me a while to figure out why JWChesnut is so fixated on a single path of genetics. He is focused on vertical resistance and performance improvement.
> 
> Vertical resistance - This is generally used to mean use of a single gene to convey tolerance to a disease or pest. The underlying weakness is that single genes can be easy to overcome.
> 
> Horizontal resistance - This is used to denote multiple genes which each convey a tiny but useful amount of disease or pest tolerance. A simple way to think of this is that a living cell is like a safe with more than one lock. A thief would have to break the combination for the first lock, then the second, third, etc. Obviously, the difficulty of breaking into the safe become greater with more locks.
> 
> JWC goes south at "mass selection". Mass selection has been used for thousands of years to improve crops and animals. It is a relatively slow but highly effective method of improving an animal or plant. Set aside a large population of the organism to be improved. Apply very intense selective pressure to eliminate 99% or more of the organisms from the breeding population. Breed from the survivors, rinse, repeat. After several generations, massive changes will have taken place in the genetics of the organism. The important difference with this breeding method is that it preserves genetic diversity while concentrating desirable genes. It is arguably the best selection method for increasing disease or pest tolerance.
> 
> JWC's bell curve represents a breeding method that relies on identifying a few breeding individuals from thousands. It is effective at breeding for improved performance such as increased honey production. "Reversion to mean" is the Achilles heel of performance improvement breeding. Mass selection changes the "mean" by increasing the average performance of the population. Using his bell curve to illustrate, this means shifting the entire curve to the right in the direction of improved performance.
> 
> My bees represent a population that has had the varroa resistance curve shifted to the right. Now I am working on improving the performance curve.


From an aspect of my own environment and success thus far, this post makes so much sense. The whole bee mating process embraces the horizontal model itself. I think there is so much that we don't understand in how variability plays a significant role here.


----------



## JRG13

In response to Lharder, somewhat of a good point but a little misleading. I think bees can be trait hoarders somewhat, if you look at the colony as a whole, but as far as passing along genes, bees can be easily bottlenecked as traits are only passed on from queen mother's and a single drone she's mated with. To maintain diversity, bees need to maintain colony counts as well within a mating area from diverse backgrounds. An acute and continuous selection pressure such as varroa will eliminate a lot of diversity over a short period of time and also selects for bees with a propensity to propagate (i.e. SWARM).


----------



## crofter

Fusion_power said:


> Yes, I do have varroa at low levels. The last time I checked, I found 15 dropped mites in 48 days. I had one colony this year that showed a few bees with DWV. That queen had several other problems so I offed her head at the earliest opportunity. If I see any signs of varroa in a colony, that colony is requeened. I deliberately searched for varroa in drone brood a few months ago. I found one varroa mite after uncapping 127 drones.
> 
> The single biggest source of colony failure is when a queen fails for whatever reason. I've monitored closely and other than queens failing to mate, I have not had any queen failures this summer. Typical winter loss is about 1 colony in 20. I make sure the bees go into winter with plenty of honey. I have raised about 25 queens so far with 17 of them successfully mated and laying. I sold several queens to other beekeepers so my net increase is only 10 colonies.


This seems like a different mechanism than some experimenters who visualize their success on their bees being able to tolerate the presence of much higher levels of mites than others who would succumb to such. 

I wonder which vision would come out the survivor if two such stocks were hived in the same yard. It would be wonderful if there were a symbiosis but that seems too simple in view of the length of time the solution is appearing to take.


----------



## lharder

JRG13 said:


> In response to Lharder, somewhat of a good point but a little misleading. I think bees can be trait hoarders somewhat, if you look at the colony as a whole, but as far as passing along genes, bees can be easily bottlenecked as traits are only passed on from queen mother's and a single drone she's mated with. To maintain diversity, bees need to maintain colony counts as well within a mating area from diverse backgrounds. An acute and continuous selection pressure such as varroa will eliminate a lot of diversity over a short period of time and also selects for bees with a propensity to propagate (i.e. SWARM).


Just just bees, but its a general biological phenomena. Sexual reproduction is the general mechanism for trait hording. A population may not need a trait now, but it may need it if the environment changes. I heard one talk about how bee genetic diversity is surprisingly good in spite of concentration of a few queen families. But it could be better. And perhaps a hidden benefit of treating is that a bit more diversity is saved for the long run while the genetics sort itself out. 

I don't think swarming has been carefully thought out. It could be that if you empty out a habitat, the strategy that fills it best in the short term is swarmy. Once the habitat is reoccupied, the selection pressure shifts. Those that are able to find and hold large cavities and can build large populations in spring can send out multiple swarms as early as possible to fill winter deadouts. Those would be productive bees for the beekeeper.


----------



## mike bispham

JRG13 said:


> In response to Lharder, somewhat of a good point but a little misleading. I think bees can be trait hoarders somewhat, if you look at the colony as a whole, but as far as passing along genes, bees can be easily bottlenecked as traits are only passed on from queen mother's and a single drone she's mated with.



I think this needs looking at again.

Mike (UK)


----------



## D Coates

mike bispham said:


> But I'm not a commercial beekeeper like the ot, so unless I'm asked a direct question by Woodside I'm going to butt out.


I've been watching this discussion for a while and something very early on struck me. For someone who said they weren't commercial and going to butt out unless they were asked a direct question from Woodside, they've done a very poor job of it.


----------



## dtrooster

Some people can't help but argue. Even if it's with a stump about the color of the sky, lol.


----------



## mike bispham

D Coates said:


> I've been watching this discussion for a while and something very early on struck me. For someone who said they weren't commercial and going to butt out unless they were asked a direct question from Woodside, they've done a very poor job of it.


Haha, give me a date on that post will you? Also tell me how long I managed to butt out for?

Mike (UK)


----------



## dtrooster

Page1 ,,, less than 2 posts


----------



## JRG13

mike bispham said:


> I think this needs looking at again.
> 
> Mike (UK)


In what context? Every virgin queen is a combination of queen mother and a single drone she's mated with. The drones may vary per virgin, but when you look at a feral hive, how many virgin queens are being produced per year? Not very many in most cases, thus the great genetic diversity that exists stored in the queen is really not disseminated to a large degree unless the colonies in a given area are numerous, thriving, and swarm often.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> Haha, give me a date on that post will you?



In any quote, clicking the _double blue arrows_ at the top of the quote box takes one to the original quote - and then the datestamp is immediately evident.


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> Categorically, the backyard beekeeper will produce queens that are less fit than someone who can select against a potential population of breeders numbering in the hundreds or thousands. Your semi-feral queens will gravitate toward the mean -- more aggressive than domestic bees, quick to swarm, produce middling crops of honey, and suffer from susceptibility to chalk brood and the other diseases that the professionals have selected against.


come on now jwc, someone as smart as you surely knows better to apply the term 'categorically' to anything associated with beekeeping.

i've no doubt that in certain locations, yours for example, the 'mean' with respect to the feral population is somewhat less than desirable regarding the traits you list.

in other locations, mine for example, and it appears this would apply for the several dozens of others located around the country who are now appear in the 'tf members listing' thread, the 'mean' is panning out to produce some pretty decent bees.

perhaps there is _one_ thing that can be stated 'categorically' about beekeeping, and that is it is very much location dependent. in my opinion the axiom would certainly apply to the local metapopulations. gravitating toward the mean can cut both ways depending on what that mean is.

to get us back on topic, and as to whether or not the tf stock that many of us are having success with is fit for full on migratory commercial use without the need for treatments is another question entirely. i have my doubts that mine or anyone else's tf bees would fair well under those conditions without some help.

but then the professional breeders have failed as well to come up with a bee that can do so despite their best efforts and those massive numbers you say they have to select from.

and there's the whole thing about 'hybrid vigor', which i assume you think is kool-aide too, but something which those that may know more than you and i put together have expressed is somewhat of a concern when hundreds and thousands of queens are produced at the same time and in the same environment.


----------



## mike bispham

dtrooster said:


> Page1 ,,, less than 2 posts


It wasn't page number I asked for, it was date dtrooster.

So, that was exactly a year ago! I'm supposed to remember?

Most of the posts now are by the usual suspects, and are turning over the general relevant material, as often happens on old threads. I'm joining in.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

JRG13 said:


> In response to Lharder, somewhat of a good point but a little misleading. I think bees can be trait hoarders somewhat, if you look at the colony as a whole, but as far as passing along genes, bees can be easily bottlenecked as traits are only passed on from queen mother's and a single drone she's mated with. To maintain diversity, bees need to maintain colony counts as well within a mating area from diverse backgrounds. An acute and continuous selection pressure such as varroa will eliminate a lot of diversity over a short period of time and also selects for bees with a propensity to propagate (i.e. SWARM).


(Mike: I think this needs looking at again)



JRG13 said:


> In what context? Every virgin queen is a combination of queen mother and a single drone she's mated with. The drones may vary per virgin, but when you look at a feral hive, how many virgin queens are being produced per year? Not very many in most cases, thus the great genetic diversity that exists stored in the queen is really not disseminated to a large degree unless the colonies in a given area are numerous, thriving, and swarm often.


Well for one thing, as I understand it, each drone is a new combination of the queen's two inherited gene-sets. So half of each new queens alleles will be a diverse collection from the drone's history (which is also a half-share of the queen's genes - again as I understand it.

This brings back a mass of genetic diversity to each new queen. Given that a healthy feral colony might average a swarm each year, each time with a contribution from a new drone, that's hauling back diversity like nobody's business - given that it exists in the local population.

And it does: you hear a lot about 'bottlenecking' but as far as I've ever been able to discover in real scientific terms, its almost never a problem in _wild settings_, where diversity is maintained except in truly tiny properly isolated (like islands) setting. It can be a problem _in breeding_ when trying to fix genes through repeated inbreeding. 

Lets see if I've got that much right before we go on with that.

As far as swarming goes: swarmy 'Africanised' bees gave feral stock a bad name early on, and the _idea_ seems to have persisted. And perhaps settled ferals are slightly more swarmy than bred non-swarmy stock. But from all the anecdotal material I've heard here over the last 6 years or so, it isn't peceived as an issue among people who actually keep them. Its more of a theory among people who don't. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Woodside said:


> I am not a TF beekeeper... But I am a commercial beekeeper with around 2000 hives. I am interested in possibly becoming treatment free. However I am wondering if being TF is practical with 2k hives.
> 
> Some of the concerns about genetically mite resistant bees:
> 
> 1) hive size / production
> 2) wintering
> 3) Cluster size in january
> 
> When a VSH hive survives winter, does it barely survive or does the cluster stay strong throughout the winter, or does it dwindle but survive? I mean 16 frame hive dwindles to 5-6 frames by February or is it more like 16 frame hive dwindles to 10 frames?
> 
> Are VSH bees generally more conservative or does the queen lay without regaurd of resources like my current stock.
> 
> Is there any reason I cant run 2000-10000 hives TF?


Here we go...

Selection for resistance to Varroa destructor under commercial beekeeping conditions
John Kefuss, Jacques Vanpoucke, Maria Bolt & Cyril Kefuss
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2016.1160709?scroll=top&needAccess=true

This speaks to your broad query, though doesn't address your close questions.

"Abstract

A survival field test was initiated in 1999 to observe the effects of no treatment against Varroa destructor on European honey bee colony survival. After losses of over two-thirds of the 268 original colonies, new colonies were made from the survivors. In 2002, genetic material from these survivors was bred into an independent group of 60 colonies. In 2013, 519 non-treated colonies from both groups were being used for commercial beekeeping, and mite populations were very low. This indicates that under commercial beekeeping conditions, simple methods can be used to select for reduced mite populations."


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> It wasn't page number I asked for, it was date dtrooster.
> 
> So, that was exactly a year ago! I'm supposed to remember?


It didn't take you a year to forget / change mind, it took one day, as per normal LOL

06-08-2015


mike bispham said:


> I'm not a commercial beekeeper like the ot, so unless I'm asked a direct question by Woodside I'm going to butt out.



06-09-2015


mike bispham said:


> I'll butt in again


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> It didn't take you a year to forget / change mind, it took one day, as per normal LOL


Yeah, ok, looks like I changed my mind.  But that was a year ago - rather dragging up ancient history, and what's the point? Oh yeah, can't beat me with the arguments, so you jump on the personal attack bandwagon. Really impressive! Don't make it about me OT, that's just tedious for everyone. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Dude, just in the last day, post 239, you asked the question. ("tell me how long I managed to butt out for"). If you going to get your knickers in a twist about the answer, shouldn't ask the question?


----------



## AHudd

The "Twisted Knickers". That would be a good name for a band, as Dave Barry would say.

Alex


----------



## Oldtimer

Yup, and the vocalist would be from Canterbury, England.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Yup, and the vocalist would be from Canterbury, England.


11 out of 15 posts all about Mike. Good work guys. One (more) dead thread coming up.


----------



## Oldtimer

For the future - careful what question you ask, someone might answer it.


----------



## Riverderwent

mike bispham said:


> As far as swarming goes: swarmy 'Africanised' bees gave feral stock a bad name early on, and the _idea_ seems to have persisted. And perhaps settled ferals are slightly more swarmy than bred non-swarmy stock. But from all the anecdotal material I've heard here over the last 6 years or so, it isn't peceived as an issue among people who actually keep them. Its more of a theory among people who don't.


I keep settled feral bees from cutouts of particularly longstanding colonies. I don't treat. Swarming is simply not an issue for me. (Perhaps because I don't feed.) Neither is colony loss. Scaling up without treating would likely work here at this time with my bees if the beekeeper were willing to not migrate for pollination and willing to leave bees enough honey to be able to not feed. Whether it would work if the beekeeper did not feed but did transport bees to California for almond pollination is anybody's guess. If I were interested in that, I would experiment on a reasonable scale prior to going all in.


----------



## D Coates

mike bispham said:


> what's the point?


The point is you yourself said you would butt unless you were asked a specific question from another member as your not a commercial beekeeper. That didn't even hold up for a day. Then the posts come flying ad nauseum like a the repercussions from a baby who's eaten too much yogurt. 

I found it humorous. It doesn't discount your opinions at the face value. 

However, instead of laughing at yourself and your clearly incorrect statement you've now twisted it into trying to play the victim card. Even lashing out at others. That shows a bit a narcissism or at least an over inflated ego that keeps one from introspection or deeper though. That... does bring into question your opinions and ability to consider options.


----------



## mike bispham

D Coates said:


> I found it humorous.


Me too! At least I try to stick to n/t beekeeping. Attacking the facts and the argument is my thing - not the people. That I regard with the contempt it deserves. Apologies, yes, that appears to include you. 



D Coates said:


> However, instead of laughing at yourself


Actually I did! I even wrote 'Hahaha'



D Coates said:


> That... does bring into question your opinions and ability to consider options.


Thanks for reminding me! I do try, but I'm pretty human... I have considered the option of nt beekeeping about 100 hives deep. Money - and effort... where mouth is and all that. You might consider that too.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Fusion_power

100 hives does not a commercial beekeeper make. That is just enough to qualify as an abused sideliner. I don't think there is a good definition of commercial beekeeper other than that it is a full time job 16 hours per day.


----------



## D Coates

mike bispham said:


> I have considered the option of nt beekeeping about 100 hives deep. Money - and effort... where mouth is and all that. You might consider that too.


I have and will when I "retire", but not TF. I'll stay nothing more than an abused sideliner. I've gone down the current TF road enough, cleaning up the stinking dead outs in the spring to leave it to others. The effort involved in going TF will is not rewarded as the consumer simply doesn't care enough to pay for the extra effort when there's no clearly discernible difference in the final product. I'll sit on the TF sidelines continuing to watch and read.


----------



## ethanhogan

My question is after 257 post over a long time frame what does it matter if you treat or don't treat? If you are back yard bee keeper, sideliner, or commercial. It is your bees and your business. Do it the way you want. Pretty simple if you ask me.


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, sure, ethanhogan, if you live in an isolated bubble, but we all live together and what each of us does or doesn't do can impact our neighboring bees be they feral or managed.


----------



## ethanhogan

That's part of co existing imho. Everyone's decisions affect themselves and others in anything in life not just bees. That doesn't make me change the way I do things. If you own your bees, property and whatever else you are in control. If I wanna treat I treat, if I don't treat I don't treat. Regardless of my neighbor or feral bees. I can't control my neighbor or the wild bees, nor do I want to control either one. If a farmer next door sprays his corn with neo's I don't go over there and ask him not to spray. He owns that land he can spray what he wants to on it. I don't agree with that but for him it works. If I don't like it I have 2 options, I can either not keep bees there or move my bees. Simple choice. I just think we can all keep bees successfully in many ways. No one right way to do. I think if you successfully keep your bees alive year in and year out you are successful


----------



## lharder

flamenco108 said:


> Hello.
> 
> I'm not a commercial beekeeper yet, but seeking to though. I would like to recommend you to watch this *link*. It's in German, but GoogleTranslator can translate it pretty well (I used it also). It's a commercial beekeeping operation from Vienna, Austria. They already work on 7K colonies and growing steadily to the goal of 10K. They have several trucks and hire ca. 30 person during the season and ca. 12 permanently.
> 
> 
> Someone said here with a sneer 'perhaps in Europe there is another economy'. Perhaps he is right. These 7K colonies are not migratory. They are placed on ca. 500 (sic!) beeyards counting 10 to 30 beehives.
> 
> All treatments they provide to bees is a formic acid in the fall. Same dose to every hive. They also feed in February. That's pretty all, the rest depends on bees. The boss is a many years commercial beekeeper, but now he visits his yards only when losses are higher than 50% (which means they have such sometimes and they can bare it!).
> 
> Why I put this example here, in TF thread? Well, the question is if commercial beekeeping can be TF.
> 
> 1. They are not migratory. - Which means, you can do a large beekeeping operation without migration to almonds in California (in my humble opinion, the pollination of almonds is a problem for almonds producers, not for beekeepers!) or to breed in Florida. Or anywhere.
> 2. They cut all unnecessary costs - they even build their own beehives (see photos!).
> 3. *They sell their honey in retail*, not bulk.
> 4. They aquire and sell all bee-products available by their management.
> 5. They produce their own, local queens.
> 6. They are active in local societies, they support smaller beekeepers with their queens and advices.
> 7. They sell their colonies (several thousands per year).
> They are not so far from TF beekeeping (remove formic acid and you have it) - the business risk exists though, they embrace it. But anyway, their management is way different than this I could read about on this forum about commercial beekeeping in USA and Canada.
> 
> This short report is not based just on the webpage. My friend went there to learn and now we are to repeat their methods.
> 
> But in Europe in fact there is no problem with pollination - it happens anyway by itself, contracted pollination just boosts the business and is not so common. It means also, that this way of earning money by bees is rather unavailable (in Poland usually beekeeper pays to farmer! Not much, usually in honey, but pretty often).
> 
> What I wanted to show? *I think, that commercial beekeeping in the way it's done in USA and Canada is simply impossible in TF way.* It was created with different approaches and it depends on chemistry. Just no way. Perhaps the whole North American industry should change it's approach and methods to be able to survive such an experiment.
> 
> But commercial TF beekeeping seems to be possible - but it has to find it's own way.


Some good points. TF is simply a different business model, requiring more adherence to principles that make biological systems stable. Break them and treatment becomes more necessary.


----------



## Oldtimer

Riverderwent said:


> Swarming is simply not an issue for me.


I would be very interested to know what you attribute this to. 

Where I have kept bees in years past swarming has been relatively easy to control, but where I am now is a very swarmy location, probably a combination of flow patterns and a bunch of other things I guess. Hasn't been an issue in the past as I've been splitting aggressively to make hives to sell. But now price of honey is through the roof I'm running hives for honey, not splitting and finding swarm control hard work, and every one I lose is money down the toilet. Interested in your thoughts. Or anyone elses thoughts for that matter.


----------



## squarepeg

lharder said:


> TF is simply a different business model, requiring more adherence to principles that make biological systems stable.


it wasn't so much a business model nor the ascribing to any particular world view that has me not treating. in fact my background as a clinician had me totally prepared for and studying up on how to diagnose and treat colony maladies when i started with my bees.

rather it was observing that my bees were doing well enough on their own with low losses and decent productivity, and deciding that intervention was not only unnecessary but might even be counterproductive with regard to making improvements on desirable traits as i propagate the stock.


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> ...Or anyone elses thoughts for that matter.


i've had reasonably good luck these past couple of seasons with respect to swarm prevention and the commensurate honey yields, i'll weigh in if you are interested.

what is your overwintering configuration ot?


----------



## Oldtimer

OK well I've always wintered in 2 deeps, with close to a full box of honey. They don't eat it all, but come through stronger than hives with less honey, which in the past wanting to make early spring splits is what I've wanted.

Now though it's different and I lack experience with my current method. To make the big bucks, manuka honey is the crop to target, and that comes early spring and is about all over by the time most other stuff is flowering. So to get this early crop I'm following the same model as most of the other successful manuka guys, which is overwinter the hive with the queen and bees in one deep with an excluder on, and a honey super on that. The reason is the manuka is so valuable you want to harvest it all, not leave any in a brood box. So the second box is a honey box over an excluder.

Where it all gets tricky is you don't want much other kind of honey in the second super, so the bees have to be run in such a way they will about eat out all the other honey right about when the manuka flow starts. This cuts everything extremely fine and there is much less room for error than I'm accustomed to. The queen being confined to just one box also takes swarm control away from any method I have ever used in the past.

So very happy to take any thoughts or advice anyone may have.


----------



## squarepeg

understood ot. that's a very different paradigm than what is happening here. most of our early nectars don't get stored but rather get turned into brood food and i've no experience with trying to catch an early flow. hopefully you'll be able to wrestle the secrets from those over there who have worked out the details on how to get that done. i've read that manuka is commanding a very attractive price, good luck with it.


----------



## Riverderwent

Oldtimer said:


> I would be very interested to know what you attribute this to.


Oldtimer, I'm not sure why. I'll think out loud a little now, but I'll also ponder this and may add some thoughts later. I don't feed. That prevents an artificially early increase in population. I raise frugal bees that winter with relatively low populations. Local conditions, I suppose, are suited for these bees. We have mild winters with high humidity, but we don't have particularly strong or sudden early season flows. Often, our biggest flow is from tallow trees which lasts about two weeks beginning around June 1st. We also have a fairly good fall flow of goldenrod and aster. 

I'm careful about adding boxes, and early in the season, I mostly add the empty boxes of drawn comb over the brood and below the honey. (Neither "supers" nor "nadirs" I suppose.) That may help a little with swarming. Later, I add the empty boxes on top. 

I don't treat. I don't know if that affects swarming.

I use all eight frame medium boxes which results in vertical hives, to say the least. I don't see how that could affect swarming. I overwinter mostly in three boxes (24 medium frames), with a few colonies in four boxes if they need the additional honey. I put queen excluders on top of the third box in spring and take them off after our fall harvest around All Hallows' Eve. I don't see how any of that would affect swarming either. 

My management seems pretty simple compared to your hive management for manuka. I doubt that I've been much help to you, but I wish you the best in your upcoming spring season. (Y'all really are backwards down there.)


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Riverderwent, good thoughts, some of those things you mentioned, for example not feeding, would very likely be a factor. Any info from people like yourself who don't get much swarming is a big help, it can be compared to my own situation, see where the differences are, and perhaps discover something that would be of use. 

Yes we are totally backwards down here LOL, spring is nearly upon us, and the very first swarms will happen in around 6 weeks from now. Things are pretty relaxed for the next fortnight, and then there is about 2 months of very intense work, how good my beekeeping is over that time frame will determine my income for the season, then from November work load becomes less intense.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> So to get this early crop I'm following the same model as most of the other successful manuka guys, which is overwinter the hive with the queen and bees in one deep with an excluder on, and a honey super on that. The reason is the manuka is so valuable you want to harvest it all, not leave any in a brood box. So the second box is a honey box over an excluder.


Sound to me like you might be cramping bees that have been bred (by you) to have lots of space. Some bees aren't so keen on going through excluders and will dump nectar in the brood nest, adding to the problem. Maybe you are working the fine line between restricting the queen to keep clean honey and provoking swarming. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Very plausable Mike, good thoughts.


----------



## lharder

Oldtimer said:


> OK well I've always wintered in 2 deeps, with close to a full box of honey. They don't eat it all, but come through stronger than hives with less honey, which in the past wanting to make early spring splits is what I've wanted.
> 
> Now though it's different and I lack experience with my current method. To make the big bucks, manuka honey is the crop to target, and that comes early spring and is about all over by the time most other stuff is flowering. So to get this early crop I'm following the same model as most of the other successful manuka guys, which is overwinter the hive with the queen and bees in one deep with an excluder on, and a honey super on that. The reason is the manuka is so valuable you want to harvest it all, not leave any in a brood box. So the second box is a honey box over an excluder.
> 
> Where it all gets tricky is you don't want much other kind of honey in the second super, so the bees have to be run in such a way they will about eat out all the other honey right about when the manuka flow starts. This cuts everything extremely fine and there is much less room for error than I'm accustomed to. The queen being confined to just one box also takes swarm control away from any method I have ever used in the past.
> 
> So very happy to take any thoughts or advice anyone may have.


Sounds like you need lots of empty comb and lots of bees for that flow. As soon as that flow starts, swap combs with honey comb for empty ones. There was that discussion on extra deep square dadent hive type in the equipment forum. Bernard seems to have that heavy early flow kind of situation so I wonder if his methods would be of relevance. I have those potential big early flows here as as well so am considering trying that out. While I am essentially ignorant about these matters as a relative newbie  I haven't had a hive swarm yet that I know of. My local mentor (I get info on seasonal and wintering stuff from him) seems to split quite hard in spring and still chases bees. But he likes things very compact. For me if they are building they are given some extra space. However I have that one 2 queen hive in 10 medium boxes that is full of bees and nectar. I hope to hold them till the end of August (is the 2 empty boxes of extracted comb I just gave them gonna do the job?) before I break them down. A failure could be quite spectacular. Not exactly a heavy flow here but they are still accumulating.


----------



## lharder

squarepeg said:


> it wasn't so much a business model nor the ascribing to any particular world view that has me not treating. in fact my background as a clinician had me totally prepared for and studying up on how to diagnose and treat colony maladies when i started with my bees.
> 
> rather it was observing that my bees were doing well enough on their own with low losses and decent productivity, and deciding that intervention was not only unnecessary but might even be counterproductive with regard to making improvements on desirable traits as i propagate the stock.


I've been interested in keeping bees for a long time, but school, work abroad, city living etc have delayed it. I nearly had some when I was 13 until a neighbor complained and my parents decided against it. But once varroa became prominent in my last years of university, I didn't see the point. With my background in ecology and evolution, I knew the system would need some time to adapt before something like tf could be attempted. When I considered keeping bees again recently and was checking out the latest info, it seemed to me the time was right to dip my toes in the water. I also accumulated lots of tools/skills for renovation work so I haven't had to actually invest lots of money into the venture. The use of nucs to make increase and hedge against loss was key to seeing the possibility of the thing. The idea of contributing to a genetic solution is a big motivator for me. I would keep trying even with initial failure.


----------



## squarepeg

lharder said:


> The idea of contributing to a genetic solution is a big motivator for me.


yes, i too have the sense of wanting to be a good steward with this resource, which is why even though i'm very small scale at this point, i'm doing as much as i can to propagate from these bees and distribute them best i can. so far the others who have received them are having similar successes. retirement from the day job isn't too many years away and if i'm still playing with bees by then my intent is to gear up the queenrearing part of the operation.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks lharder.



squarepeg said:


> so far the others who have received them are having similar successes.


Good to hear SP, the plan you proposed some time back to distribute these bees to a wider and wider area seemed like a great plan, benefit everybody yourself included if you can have a "buffer" of them around you.


----------



## squarepeg

you make a great point ot. 

i have no way of knowing for sure, but my guess is that in the immediate areas surrounding the two yards holding most of my hives there are likely more feral colonies than managed ones. 

i happen to live where 3 different counties corner up with each other and therefore i'm about as removed from the population centers as one can get around here. a large portion of the landscape is wooded.

on the other hand, a bee supplier just one county over from here brought up 1000 packages with queens from florida earlier in the spring. a fair number of those packages ended up going to beekeepers in my county.

it is a numbers game for sure. i've thought about introducing the tf concept to our local beekeeping association (about 60 members strong), to see if there might be interest in trying to work as a group to bolster our local genetics with these that are demonstrating success off treatments.

the problems are that i don't do organizations very well, the leaders of the group have been at this much longer than i have, and they seem pretty entrenched in doing things the way that has been working. i can't say that i blame them.


----------



## Oldtimer

squarepeg said:


> it is a numbers game for sure. i've thought about introducing the tf concept to our local beekeeping association (about 60 members strong), to see if there might be interest in trying to work as a group to bolster our local genetics with these that are demonstrating success off treatments.


Yes do it.

Every bee club I've had anything to do with seems to have at least one or two strong viewed people in the top membership who know just enough to have ONE system that works, and are busy trying to enforce that on everyone else. And often it will involve one particular treatment regime, and any departure from that is seen as a risk to everyone else.

I myself was actually elbowed out of the bee club I used to be involved with over exactly this, I tried to introduce some less draconian and more intelligent mite management ideas, which eventually had me tossed out of the club along with an email sent to all members warning them of my "mistake", and not to be misled by my views. 

But nobody actually wants to treat, just, many folks have to. If they don't they lose bees so their life experience is they must treat. So not knowing your club, but my suggestion would be a gentle approach, focussing on the fact you have non treatment bees and minimal losses, phrased right it may be seen as an answer to their problems, rather than a threat. Mention your Phd.

Once people are on board an important thing would be some sort of breeding program which could in part be done by club members, to get your genetics out there in good numbers.


----------



## lharder

Oldtimer said:


> Thanks lharder.
> 
> Kinda a funny, went through my nucs today and noticed I probably lost a swarm. Sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut. It was 3 storied 5 framer, almost completely filled with honey. Shame to lose such productive bees. Quite a few swarm cells, most torn down. There may be a virgin in there.


----------



## Riverderwent

lharder said:


> Kinda a funny, went through my nucs today and noticed I probably lost a swarm. Sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut. It was 3 storied 5 framer, almost completely filled with honey. Shame to lose such productive bees. Quite a few swarm cells, most torn down. There may be a virgin in there.


Better to lose a swarm in August than in May.


----------



## beemandan

Riverderwent said:


> Better to lose a swarm in August than in May.


I've always thought that late swarmers worked in my favor. New...late season queens..... and fewer overwintering bees means I could take more honey. A win - win


----------



## lharder

At any rate it looks like I'll be able to get lots of honey out of that location. All the nucs are piling it in. They have access to an urban development with its flowering shrubs. There is alfalfa and pasture nearby, some uncut. Rangeland with a fair amount of knapweed. And this September there will be a big big bloom of rabbitbrush to finish the season off. I'm starting to think I should add a 4th box to the ones that are solidly into the 3rd one. I don't think I will have to feed much and there is a chance I may even harvest a few frames.


----------



## Riverderwent

Riverderwent said:


> Oldtimer, I'm not sure why. I'll think out loud a little now, but I'll also ponder this and may add some thoughts later.


Also, I generally let my bees requeen themselves, so my queens are naturally mated and are older on average than than those that are systematically replaced. That could affect the frequency or possibly the timing of swarming. My entrances are less than half the typical size. This is because they are only ⅜" high rather than the more common ¾", and they are only about 12½" across because I use 8 frame boxes. I also avoid deep inspections unless there is a particular reason for it. This could cause me to not see swarm cells and not realize that the bees have swarmed, particularly, later in the season when swarms are not as problematic.

There are a few other one off things that I do, such as using all cedar boxes and using a lot of foundationless frames in the brood chamber. But I don't see how those would affect swarming other than to fit together with some of the things that may affect the frequency and timing of swarming (such as not feeding) and allow them to work for me.


----------



## Oldtimer

Interesting, to me some of those things are what encourage swarming. Maybe different location, different bees?


----------



## Riverderwent

Oldtimer said:


> Interesting, to me some of those things are what encourage swarming. Maybe different location, different bees?


Definitely different location and different bees. The effects of annual requeening, and post solstice requeening are interesting to me. A "local" factor affecting swarming may be that, because of hive beetles, I'm adding one box at a time, and, because I'm using eight frame mediums, I'm having to do it frequently, and, at least early in the season, those boxes are being added under the honey and over the brood. Or, as I mentioned, I may just be missing the fact that swarms are being cast.


----------



## squarepeg

Riverderwent said:


> I'm adding one box at a time, and, because I'm using eight frame mediums, I'm having to do it frequently, and, at least early in the season, those boxes are being added under the honey and over the brood.


i've not been doing that, but it makes good sense that always having comb to fill above the broodnest would tend to preventing backfilling in the nest and thereby decrease swarming. are you using an excluder david?


----------



## Riverderwent

squarepeg said:


> i've not been doing that, but it makes good sense that always having comb to fill above the broodnest would tend to preventing backfilling in the nest and thereby decrease swarming. are you using an excluder david?


I should add that I'm adding drawn comb when I add boxes. I do use excluders. I put them over the third box. If I come out of winter with more than three boxes, I smoke the bees down before adding an excluder. I would have thought that I should use four boxes below the excluder (because I'm using eight frame mediums). But three has turned out to be the right number for my feral bees.


----------



## squarepeg

understood david, thanks for the reply. so you add the box of empty drawn comb just above the excluder, correct?


----------



## Riverderwent

squarepeg said:


> understood david, thanks for the reply. so you add the box of empty drawn comb just above the excluder, correct?


Yes. But I add excluders slightly late, like mid April. So, the first box or two may go on before the excluder, and I have to smoke the bees down below the fourth box when I add the excluder.


----------



## squarepeg

understood. are you looking for the broodnest to reach all the way up to the excluder and if so are you more comfortable with how the swarm prevention is going when it does? and, how tall are your hives by the time honey harvest rolls around?


----------



## Riverderwent

squarepeg said:


> understood. are you looking for the broodnest to reach all the way up to the excluder


Yes.



> and if so are you more comfortable with how the swarm prevention is going when it does?


I haven't thought about it because I just haven't had an issue with swarming or I haven't noticed it.[/QUOTE]



> and, how tall are your hives by the time honey harvest rolls around?


Eight or so boxes. But we harvest three times, around May 20, July 1st, and October 31st.


----------



## squarepeg

nice. can you give us a ballpark average lbs. honey per hive per year?


----------



## Riverderwent

Riverderwent said:


> Eight or so boxes. But we harvest three times, around May 20, July 1st, and October 31st.


The top box or two may not be harvested (until the following harvest) if they aren't cured and capped when we pull the honey.


----------



## Riverderwent

squarepeg said:


> nice. can you give us a ballpark average lbs. honey per hive per year?


Overall, I estimate that I've had about 2/3's of the production per hive that my friends around here who feed aggressively and treat have had. (I don't feed or treat.) It's a little hard to estimate because we're expanding and we pull some honey off of our development hives in addition to our mature production hives. I also don't keep track of the weights like I should. And harvesting three times a year, while expanding the number of hives makes it a little hard to come up with a solid annual number per hive. Last year, maybe 65 lbs. per mature production hive. This year probably somewhat better based on what we've harvested and what's on the hives now, but still depending on the fall flow. We've actually had to super some of our hives during what's supposed to be the dearth.


----------



## squarepeg

very nice david. thanks again for your replies and for the insight into using all 8 frame mediums.


----------

