# My TF foundationless experiment



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

As forum denizens recall, I run a TF apiary yard at a remote location to test the various prescriptions put forward on the web for keeping bees TF.
This year I have a number of grafts off a VSH artificial inseminated breeder queen. I am running these on FL mediums.

What did I see today -- We are in the midsummer transition, just as the crushing summer dearth in California kicks in. The brood area is backfilled with Toyon and California buckwheat, reducing the laying area. In this transition, the drones are often ejected.








Foundationless frames have a huge issue/problem with the bees building drone comb. I mate queens so I like drones. 

The issue with this abundance of drones becomes obvious when you freeze and scratch the drones to assay the mite loading.















I believe the density of drone larvae on the comb is driving a mite epidemic. Rather than searching for an infectable cell -- the mites have hit an unlimited and rich target-- this contributes to a huge population explosion. When the drone comb is backfilled the mites are pushed off the "breeding grounds" and infect the worker brood. I see a characteristic fall collapse in my TF experiment, and I think the foundationless prescription is driving a greater mite fecundity than in a hive that has more restricted drone areas.

One thing I noted today, was mites entombed in the cocoon capping. Have others observed that?








The Foundationless prescription has been pushed by folks with "big reputation" without any testing (or any objective reporting). What I see is a definite downside to the this system. No amount of "belief" will make these mites go away.

The observation of the mite explosion driven by the predominance of drone in Foundationless hives illustrates the reason I believe "prescriptions" should be tested rigourously. I find nowhere that "gurus" responsible for the Foundationless fad have ever attempted a side-by-side trial. They dismiss its necessity. Until you test something against a control -- you have no idea what the effect actually is.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I'm sure you've posted this but give us, again if you will, a little background of the "Genesis" of this apiary? "Clean" packages? Or some other startup procedure.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I have been running a TF experiment in the San Luis Obispo Chorro Creek valley below Hollister Peak since 2001. I have a matched treated apiary on a nearby mountain. 

The TF gets stocked with 10-15 hives. I attempt to replicate the "state of the art" -- when "feral survivors" were the rage, I collected feral swarms from the Ventana Wilderness in Big Sur, and some desert oasis. I've done the SBB, the small cell fantasy thing, all the "fairy dust". Recently, I have stocked various queenlines (Pol-Line, pure VSH, and an unusual East European Black ).
When the mite threshold manifests as "terminal", the hives are withdrawn and I attempt to salvage them. I split to manage swarminess, but don't attempt to "expand" my way out of declining hives, as I am attempting to measure mean survival of individual colonies.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> One thing I noted today, was mites entombed in the cocoon capping. Have others observed that?











I think this is similar.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Are you seeing any evidence of longer survival or lower mite counts in any of the TF colonies?

What is the "East European Black" bee you mention?


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

I think your vsh poline is not working.
The vsh is not that good compare to the allogrooming survivor and the
mite biting bees I think. Maybe you should get FP and SP's survivor tf bees to
evaluate them further. Those larvae are contributing to the collapse of the
colony in this Autumn if the bees cannot get rid of them. I will be back to square one again if
my hives are like your situation right now. In any tf operation the beekeeper need to rebuilt after
the harsh crashed. Salvage any survivor stocks to grow them again. Have any been crashed yet and
you salvage them to expand?
Now is the time to make some after the solstice queens to out run the mites! Split them I say.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> What is the "East European Black" bee you mention?


Don't know the exact details. These are selections sponsored by one of the emigre beekeepers in the Great Valley. They put much stock in the bee, and there are mythical tales about how it came to America. They are exceptionally rapid in build up, will go broodless in a dearth, make honey like their is no tomorrow, and will tear your face off if work them without a veil. I have one hive left in the TF yard, and the others are exiled to a distant mountain.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

JWChesnut said:


> They are exceptionally rapid in build up.


This statement stands out to me, as none of my best stock shows this amount of extreme build up. What I have documented, which admittedly I am new to this, is a slow gradual build up resulting in enough stores for survival through the year/dearths to prepare for winter build up. I have very little honey to show for it, but I think keeping mites in check takes a lot of the workforce, which would lead from my experience a slower rate of growth.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> I've done the SBB, the small cell fantasy thing, all the "fairy dust".

Maybe you could elaborate on exactly how the "fairy dust" is applied and what exactly it is? I'm afraid I missed that. Specifics are oh so much more elucidating than these generalizations.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't think we understand the influence of drones very well. Letting the bees raise whatever drones they want invokes a number of possible selection pressures. Raise too many at the wrong time, then a hive may be doomed. Or they may need to be really good at cleaning up to keep infestations under control. 

But in hives that do survive, lots of drones may be really useful in spreading resistant genetics the following year. There may be selection taking place within the drone population within the hive, with drones that are resistant enough to survive their local environment contributing to population genetics. 

I do know that not many drones are being raised now in my foundationless hives. Most drone cells seem to be used for nectar storage. I have lots of frames that are half worker brood, half capped honey.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Forgive my comment on this, being a newcomer still.

We try to manipulate the bees with the aim to help them to prevent too much mite infestation, that`s the idea.

I use foundations 4.9 with cut out drone corner, 8-10% on every foundation. This, to draw the mites into drone cells on every comb, we believe they are not crossing the whole hive to go into a drone frame at the end of box.

But there is natural behavior, which could be contra. 
Now I believe, there is a trigger in giving them this foundations so they regress on smaller cells , but in the end, they do as they like and follow their needs, no matter natural comb or foundation.

If the trick is to select the mites into drone brood, they go into drone brood, no matter how much. So we want drone brood the whole year.

My picts show 
1-- the foundation
2 --spring time, many drones needed, they build much more drone cells on small cell foundations even in areas that are not cut out
3 --later in year drone cell surplus is filled with honey, only small drone corners are used for brood. As you can see they used the cutouts for worker brood and build the drone cells on the other side on a new foundation
One colony, european black bee, mother origin canary island

The bees teach us what`s "fairy dust" , not the beekeepers. 
Sibylle


----------



## bentonkb (May 24, 2016)

JWChesnut, 
This experiment has been going on for 15 years! Surely by now you can draw some conclusions. What are the TF concepts that fail and which ones succeed?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Best memory serves from when I was reading Lusby, she limits drone comb to around 10% of total brood comb area.

If a hive is totally natural and of average size they will commonly have a little over 20% drone comb in area. However if a hive is switched from worker only foundation to foundationless, my own experience is the bees in their desire to finally get the chance to build drone comb will sometimes overdo it and have a massive amount of drone comb, higher than natural levels.

As Lusby is the one who is successful enough to actually have bees productive enough to enable her to harvest enough honey to make herself a living, I would give her methods the most credence, in the world of TF. Although it also has to be considered that her bee strain is a bit different to everyone else.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Are you sure those are the black bees?
I thought they are the carnis bees.
Around here I call them the carnis because of the local bee association that
keeps them around.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

"_I believe the density of drone larvae on the comb is driving a mite epidemic. Rather than searching for an infectable cell -- the mites have hit an unlimited and rich target-- this contributes to a huge population explosion. When the drone comb is backfilled the mites are pushed off the "breeding grounds" and infect the worker brood. I see a characteristic fall collapse in my TF experiment, and I think the foundationless prescription is driving a greater mite fecundity than in a hive that has more restricted drone areas.
_"

Interesting theory!


"_I use foundations . . . with cut out drone corner . . . . This, to draw the mites into drone cells on every comb, we believe they are not crossing the whole hive to go into a drone frame at the end of box._"

Interesting application of the theory to control mites! (as opposed to the well-known method of using a single frame of drone cells for mite trapping)


One question I have: How far is too far for a mite to travel to a preferred drone cell before it simply scuttles into a much closer but less desirable worker cell? In other words:

1) Are drone cells really needed on every frame to draw mites, or is a single frame of drone cells able to draw mites from the entire hive despite being far away from many of the other frames in the hive, or, conversely; 

2) Is having drone cells in a single corner of the frame enough to draw most of the mites from the rest of the frame? Maybe the cutout for drone cells needs to be in the center of every brood frame? But the bees prefer to make drone cells on the periphery of the brood nest, so maybe such a centralized configuration isn't really possible?



.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Best memory serves from when I was reading Lusby, she limits drone comb to around 10% of total brood comb area.

I think it's more accurate to say she has a target of 10% drone. She purposely creates 10% drone area. She leaves a gap at the bottom of the foundation on all of all her frames for them to build drone comb.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >Best memory serves from when I was reading Lusby, she limits drone comb to around 10% of total brood comb area.
> 
> I think it's more accurate to say she has a target of 10% drone. She purposely creates 10% drone area.


Not criticizing, just trying to make sure I am understanding the fine points here: That seems like a pretty small distinction . . . limiting to 10% vs. target of 10% . . . is there a functional difference between the two?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

She's encouraging drones. That is very different from trying to prevent them.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Okay. Thanks.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> I think it's more accurate to say she has a target of 10% drone. She purposely creates 10% drone area.


I believe that Oldtimer's memory is correct.
From Dee's own writing:
It is critical this third year of hive retrogression to continue culling all combs not drawn-out properly. CULL ANY COMBS WITH MORE THAN 10% DRONE CELLS DRAWN ON ANY ONE FRAME SIDE. MAKE THIS A MANDATORY FIELD MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE
http://beesource.com/point-of-view/dee-lusby/year-3-in-the-field/


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Twist and Spin!

I know my bees sure wont self limit to anywhere near as low as 10 % drone except in 4 or five frame nucs. They would probably run up over 30% drone before they started to fill the cells with honey.

I find the scattered drone brood makes the hive to hard to work and endangers the queen when pulling frames. I need the bees to be raising workers in the spring build up, not drones. I suppose if you are not going to do inspections, split by the box, run unlimited brood nests and take the honey at the top of the stack in late fall, then you can live with whatever the bees choose to do.

The bee inspector has mentioned what it is like trying to do an inspection on a colony that has been managed this way. Maybe I just did not try hard enough to live with it, but in any case I am (edit) _Not_ (edit) going to revisit that experiment!


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

crofter... I concur with the 30%, but I will say that they make hardly any burr comb with just two frames of foundationless drone comb in a 20-30 frame broodnest.

I had a 2nd year colony (100% foundationless by the way) last year draw no less than six drone combs before reverting back to drawing worker sized combs. That's in addition to what they already had in the broodnest as a result of being foundationless. In a double deep 6 of 20 is right at that 30% range you speak of. But I have noticed disinclination to make burr comb at just 7-10% drone comb. Not counting reworked areas on foundation or whatever remnant of drone they have in any other foundationless frames they might have. It's likely in the 10-15% range.

I very rarely have to deal with burr comb even in really big colonies. And then there's always the bonus of having that comb on the outside of the box collapse and bow... gives them some additional space to make a mess for you weeks down the road when you finally pull it.

The joys of foundationless.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good observation about the burr comb JWC, my own experience also. To produce plenty of drones around my mating sites I give the desireable hives 1, 2, or occasionally 3 combs of pure drone, even though this is not the full natural amount of comb it makes the whole hive way different to work in terms of pulling boxes apart, so easy with little or no burr comb glueing the boxes together. I have observed the same when watching videos of Dee working her bees, her boxes just come straight apart.

Interesting points raised about not making the mites walk too far. I put the drone combs outside edge of the box, and when I was attempting treatment free and thus had some high mite levels, it was apparent the mite infestation central brood area could be severe even though the drone comb on outside of box was there and plenty of drone larvae not utilised by mites, I concluded they just don't wander around too much looking, which may be why Dee is so pedantic about having some drone comb on every comb.

If collapsing combs an issue, wire them even though foundationless, that's what I do works well.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I agree that trying to eliminate all drone comb construction results in gobs of drone built between frames. I dont agree that allowing the bees to build all the drone cells wherever they want and as many as they want with foundationless abandon is very practical. Better to stage the building of it on dedicated frames so it can be cut out or where it is most likely to get filled with honey.

When I speak of difficulty pulling frames, that refers to random patches of drone that project beyond worker brood and often interlocking with corresponding low spots on the adjacent frame. Bees certainly will readily draw whole frames of foundationless drone cells as long as you dont have the whole hive foundationless! Whole hive foundationless is what I will not be revisiting.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

We tried the foundationless scheme. Costly. The only upside is all the nice wax melted down after the fact. Hobbyist and small sideliners might get by but anyone with the notion of managing hives to generate income should not even think about it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I believe that Oldtimer's memory is correct.

Yes, she culls down to 10% and she leaves a gap at the bottom of the foundation on every single frame to GET 10%. This is her TARGET. Her goal is NOT to eliminate drone comb but to keep it at 10%. Having a target of 10% and purposefully encouraging 10% drone comb on every frame is quite different from trying to eliminate drone comb.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

crofter said:


> I agree that trying to eliminate all drone comb construction results in gobs of drone built between frames. I dont agree that allowing the bees to build all the drone cells wherever they want and as many as they want with foundationless abandon is very practical. Better to stage the building of it on dedicated frames so it can be cut out or where it is most likely to get filled with honey.
> 
> When I speak of difficulty pulling frames, that refers to random patches of drone that project beyond worker brood and often interlocking with corresponding low spots on the adjacent frame. Bees certainly will readily draw whole frames of foundationless drone cells as long as you dont have the whole hive foundationless! Whole hive foundationless is what I will not be revisiting.


When I had bee researchers come by to visit my hives, the commented on how clean/organized everything was in the hive. I think with the foundationless, they were half expecting a big cluster**** when they tried to do their work. They also commented on how nice the bees were. Perhaps they were a little happier having their stash of drones, and not having drones torn up when frames were removed.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

>Yes, she culls down to 10% 

Please read carefully.

>CULL ANY COMBS WITH MORE THAN 10% DRONE CELLS DRAWN *ON ANY ONE FRAME SIDE*. MAKE THIS A MANDATORY FIELD MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE

If the 'mandatory field management technique' is done as she has described, the result would keep the drone cells significantly below 10%.
Heck...culling those with more than 10% 'on any one frame side' has the potential to keep the level below 5%


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

You are missing what she is doing though. She is leaving 10% of the frame free of foundation in the first place. There is a gap at the bottom of every frame for drone. She is encouraging drone comb on 10% of every frame. Then she is culling anywhere they have exceeded that. She is not keeping it below 10%. She is keeping it 10%. She is encouraging 10% and culling anything over that.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Are we getting tangled up around words Michael?

All I origionally mentioned is that she culls drone comb, and it turns out that's to a maximum of 10% on any one side of a comb.

If we want to say that means limit to 10%, or target of 10%, seems like hair splitting to me. Since she culls, I would say limit, but end of day call it whatever you want, I'm fine.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> She is encouraging drone comb on 10% of every frame.


Dee goes on to explain her rationale:

>to prevent reproduction of mites in drone brood

Maybe you are confusing what you do with what Dee proposes.

PS Nowhere in those writings do I see any suggestion of a 'target' of 10%. Will you direct me to that?


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

SiWolKe - in the first photo in you Post #11, the cutout section of the frame corner looks like a 30-60-90 triangle. Any reason for that shape of a cut out? Would a 45-45-90 triangle-shaped cut-out work just as well? Any other shapes tried?

TIA


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Maybe you are confusing what you do with what Dee proposes.

No. What I do is entirely different. I don't cull drone comb at all. I have gone to Dee's many times over the years. The first was when Ed was still alive. I helped her put the foundation in and embed it. Dee and I and others have discussed this many times over many years.

>PS Nowhere in those writings do I see any suggestion of a 'target' of 10%. Will you direct me to that?

Here is a quote from Allen Dick on his visit to Dee and Ed:
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/DesertStorm.htm

"Since it was Winter, there was no noticeable drone brood at the time of our visit, although Lusbys deliberately encourage up to 10% drone cells on a frame by having the foundation stop about three eighths of an inch above the solid bottom bar. Therefore, we were unable to examine drone brood for mites, but I doubt we would find many."


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I think everyone gets it Michael not sure why the bickering over words.

Or if the wording is super important, I'll withdraw my origional word _limits_, and go with Dees own word, _cull_. Dees own word so hopefully you'll be OK with it.

What could be more useful than exact word used to describe her ideas on culling drone comb, could be understanding why she does it, what her rational is. She clearly sees it as extremely important.

I'm always amazed at the energy of the woman, for someone who makes her own comb foundation one piece at a time, she is very ready to melt the whole comb down if the bees haven't drawn it exactly how she wants. That's both excess drone comb, and improperly regressed comb, a lot of work!


----------



## Sunday Farmer (Nov 13, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> > I've done the SBB, the small cell fantasy thing, all the "fairy dust".
> 
> Maybe you could elaborate on exactly how the "fairy dust" is applied and what exactly it is? I'm afraid I missed that. Specifics are oh so much more elucidating than these generalizations.


Michael I know this one. So like on social media there are some popular memes that get tossed around and one of them is a cartoon of a unicorn flying over a rainbow with fairy dust coming from its backend. (Sometimes it is even accompanied with a character riding it bareback!!) it kind of meana like make believe things or, oh yea right like that works and fairy dust.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

A big issue I see with the op's experiment is the close proximity of his paired yards. Evolutionary a hive is basically rewarded for collapsing quickly...still gets to be part of his immediate drone pool.


----------



## Sunday Farmer (Nov 13, 2013)

intothewind said:


> A big issue I see with the op's experiment is the close proximity of his paired yards. Evolutionary a hive is basically rewarded for collapsing quickly...still gets to be part of his immediate drone pool.



Jwc is talking about issues with amount of drone cells and mites switching to worker brood. That's not a genetic topic but a functional one.


----------



## bentonkb (May 24, 2016)

intothewind said:


> A big issue I see with the op's experiment is the close proximity of his paired yards. Evolutionary a hive is basically rewarded for collapsing quickly...still gets to be part of his immediate drone pool.


Calling it an experiment is far too generous. He just has an outyard where he has been allowing mites to take over for the last fifteen years. Based on the failure of all those hives he seems to claim that TF methods don't work.

I would call that an extraordinary claim that lacks the required extraordinary evidence.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

It is indeed interesting. I understand a hive can do as much as 35 percent drone comb during active season. Is their any way that drones could export varroa from the hive? Consider that hives that cannot control varroa should have more sickly drones...id imagine breeding success of these to be markedly lower. Unless the hive is treated, of course...again leveling the evolutionary playing field. 

I am sure bees differ on how much drone comb they will build given the opportunity, too.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

Bentonkb: that is unfair to suggest...he has been open to share...and what tf methods would you suggest he take to control mites???

I wonder if an additional advantage of expansion is young colonies may make fewer drones at first? The main reason why you expand is to roll the genetic die more than once every year or two. Afterall, if a hive supersedes it now has a new queen and shares halcf that hives genetics. By splitting you increase the number of genetic dice rolls you can do.


----------



## bentonkb (May 24, 2016)

intothewind said:


> Bentonkb: that is unfair to suggest...he has been open to share...and what tf methods would you suggest he take to control mites???
> 
> I o.


JWC says he has a treated yard that he is happy with, so he already has ways to control mites. My complaint is that he implied that he has done a long term experiment on TF methods, but failed to explicitly state his conclusions. He called some unspecified subset of TF methods "fairy dust" which suggests that he is making an implicit claim that they don't work. 

I think the claim that "TF methods don't work" is an extraordinary one and requires extraordinary evidence.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

BentonKB, I would usually weigh in on the other side of this issue, but in this case, JWC has stated his position repeatedly here on the forum. For his conditons and with the bees he is using, TF has been a multi-year failure. It is not his responsibility to prove to you or me or to back up his statement. Said another way, JWC could just as easily ask you to back up your position that TF works.

With that said, I've got 11 years of proof that TF works. Can you make a similar claim?


----------



## bentonkb (May 24, 2016)

Fusion_power said:


> BentonKB, I would usually weigh in on the other side of this issue, but in this case, JWC has stated his position repeatedly here on the forum. For his conditons and with the bees he is using, TF has been a multi-year failure. It is not his responsibility to prove to you or me or to back up his statement. Said another way, JWC could just as easily ask you to back up your position that TF works.
> 
> With that said, I've got 11 years of proof that TF works. Can you make a similar claim?


I have made no claim about whether or not TF methods work. I am agnostic. 

I have also not read all of JWCs previous posts. 

His claim is not explicit, but his tone is dismissive, so I assume that he thinks that this TF "fairy dust" is bunk and won't work for anyone, anywhere. 

If you claim that TF works for you, in your location, then only one of you is right. Who is correct?

For the record, my own experience is so insignificant that it doesn't warrant reporting. I'm just trying to figure out who is giving me good advice, who is providing unbiased reports, and who can provide a reasonable roadmap for success.


----------



## dtrooster (Apr 4, 2016)

> I'm just trying to figure out who is giving me good advice, who is providing unbiased reports, and who can provide a reasonable roadmap for success.
> 
> 
> > sad to say you'll have to figure that out for yourself same as I will. Take the thread we happen to be in, so far I've had foundationless drawn flawlessly whereas foundation not so much. But it's still early in the game and I wouldn't stick a fork in either way yet


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Taking this thread in the logical direction, my success in keeping bees TF for 11 years is from a combination of major factors.

1. I was able to find some resistant genetics
2. I was able to flood this area with resistant genetics
3. I am not surrounded by treating commercial beekeepers
4. Alabama has a no import law that limits the number of colonies coming into the state

JWC can't meet #2, #3, and #4. He is in California with the worlds greatest influx of treated bees coming in for almonds. Those bees bring varroa and hive beetles in overwhelming abundance. His area is flooded with susceptible genetics and overwhelming mite populations.

Virginia has a few beekeepers that are treatment free. If you can contact one or more of them, it is highly probable you will be able to get some treatment free stock.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Bentonkb as you travel your beekeeping journey you will find that often not everybody except one person is wrong.

I think much of the argument about wether TF "works" or not is because some people found it didn't, and some people found it did. Both of them are right.

Probably a good 1/2 of the people who are now TF started out by getting some hives, putting them somewhere, and leaving them to it, and discovered it "worked". Some of these folks claim to have never even lost a hive. So your claim that JWC is somehow doing it wrong lacks credence.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

bentonkb said:


> I'm just trying to figure out who is giving me good advice, who is providing unbiased reports, and who can provide a reasonable roadmap for success.


Going to the Treatment Free Beekeeping sub-forum for _unbaised_ reports!? Now that right there is funny.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

shinbone: that is also uncalled for, also. Bees live, bees die. We cannot deny many folks are successful without treatments. Lets not stoop so low as to doubt what people post on here.

We also cannot deny that JWC has provided records and for whatever reason his bees at this location keep dying. We may bring our own color and interpretations but these two things stand.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

intothewind said:


> shinbone: that is also uncalled for, also. Bees live, bees die. We cannot deny many folks are successful without treatments. Lets not stoop so low as to doubt what people post on here.


My comment was directed to whether the TF forum provided a balanced view of TF beekeeping. For better or for worse, it is explicitly clear that it is the most highly controlled-for-content of the Beesource forums. The TF forum is intentionally biased, and the bias is explicitly written into the Unique Rules for this forum.



intothewind said:


> We also cannot deny that JWC has provided records and for whatever reason his bees at this location keep dying. We may bring our own color and interpretations but these two things stand.


There are a few notable members, and JWC is one of them, who's posts on the TF forum are perhaps the most valuable posts on all of Beesource. It is only from this tiny fraction of posters in the TF forum that there is any transparency and concrete information. Many other TF posters are all rainbows and butterflies and staunch opacity, which does no favors to those like me hoping to learn about TF beekeeping, and does nothing to help the credibility of the general TF community. 

JMHO


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

Shinbone: Ok, I understand what you are saying. I think that it simply is to keep this forum from devolving into a constant debate on the merits of T vs TF. Just like how we might not want people babbling away on cricket husbandry in the beekeeping main forum. I too would love to see more records from TF folks about factors of success(and lack thereof-otherwise most folks would not be treating) in TF beekeeping.

I live a few counties north of JWC. Here, a large percentage of hobbyists do not treat(I have met a couple that run small numbers of quite healthy looking hives), and I am unaware of much commercial presence of bees. A couple apiaries that operate here are mostly residential and some treatment free and must be small due to the nature of real estate here. The beekeepers association has been keeping track of colony losses year by year, which show that OA treatment has a marked affect on increasing survival. The data shows that first year swarms and local nucs have a lower mortality rate than packages. Losses for the last year data was analyzed were a bit under 40%


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

It is very difficult to discuss politics or religion on a forum because the underlying beliefs are highly polarizing. Treatment Free is also a highly polarizing issue therefore the TF forum is moderated and regulated to prevent mud-slinging and name calling. Squarepeg, myself, and several dozen beekeepers in this area are managing our bees sans treatments. It is working for us mostly because we have some unique factors in our favor. JWC's experience with TF failure is the other end of the spectrum. His experience is just as valid as mine because the conditions he has to deal with are different that the conditions here where I live.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

I am but a humble beginner, and I am saying in all honesty, if someone wants to ask me about how I keep TF bees, I will not only respond but will talk about it until they are tired of the subject. I am lucky in the sense that I am surrounded by amazing bees. This is no rainbows and sunshine statement, but the way it is in my area. I'm sure that treatment free success is as variable as the hobby itself, a large determining factor being location, location, location.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

I understand why the content control on this forum, and I am not trying to say it is unneccessary. I am just noting that because of the extraordinary control on the sub-forum, it is the _most biased_ of all the Beesource forums.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Fusion_power said:


> Squarepeg, myself, and several dozen beekeepers in this area are managing our bees sans treatments.


Yes. I should have been more explicit in saying that in my Post #49 some of the notable beekeepers who's posts are so valuable to Beesource are treatment free beekeepers. I didn't want to start naming names because I would invariably forget someone and that wouldn't be good.


----------



## BeekeepingIsGood (Aug 12, 2012)

> One thing I noted today, was mites entombed in the cocoon capping. Have others observed that?


Yes, I've seen it too. I imagine it happens when there is lots of mites or little brood.



> The issue with this abundance of drones becomes obvious when you freeze and scratch the drones to assay the mite loading.
> 
> I believe the density of drone larvae on the comb is driving a mite epidemic. Rather than searching for an infectable cell -- the mites have hit an unlimited and rich target-- this contributes to a huge population explosion.


If the mites are virulent, and if the bees are susceptible, you will likely breed lots of mites. I have resorted to freezing drone frames to keep the mites down. In one hive last season where all the drones cells were mixed on comb with worker cells I wasn't able to freeze drones till very late in the year when fewer drones were being raised. At that point I found at least 50% infestation on the only drone brood comb in the hive. Often with multiple mites in a cell. I still wasn't seeing any mites on under the SBB, and very very few with a full colony sugar dusting. While there was evidence a month later of DWV in the fall, it was at a lower level than I've seen in hives that were truly crashing. The hive survived without chemical treatments last fall.

The idea of encouraging a little drone comb on each comb is interesting. I've been lamenting and recently started cutting out drones from mixed frames as it's much simpler to freeze drones if they are all on solid drone frames. My above experience had led me to believe that mites are very good at finding the drones. However, I wouldn't be surprised if ease of access can play some factor. I have some very tall hives right now with a few small patches of brood in the upper boxes. My current feeling is that I'm not so likely to find mites when there's just a handful of drones a little out of the way of the primary breeding grounds.


----------



## intothewind (Jul 17, 2016)

Do high drone brood counts necessarily mean these mites will successfully migrate to worker brood?


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm finding here the same as what JWChesnut posted. Drone comb, too much of it, end of spring the bees backfill it, worker brood gets infested. Hives halved in populations from first of June to middle July, now I'm fighting heavy mite infestations. Busy now getting plastic drawn to replace all that foundationless that I'd gotten drawn last year.


----------



## sakhoney (Apr 3, 2016)

Guys - I'm running 300 TF bees and I have at least 6 or more commercial operations all around me. I will say this - it was a very rocky start - 100 hives to 20 the first year. Talk about a kick in the nuts - but from there I built back with survivor stock and haven't looked back - And as far as JC
I have read about every thing he posts - he's a hell of a lot of help and he's usually spot on
As is Fusion power, old timer, Michael Bush, all the modulators, and the list go's on and on - these guys go out of there way to direct you - not tell you how. That is what you have to figure out (I'm sure I have left some out - sorry - brain fart)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

intothewind said:


> Do high drone brood counts necessarily mean these mites will successfully migrate to worker brood?


Once drone raising season is done, where else can they go?

In fact, that may be one of the contributors to the often told story about a hive going super well and making a big honey surplus, then crashing really fast late fall. ( "The bees were fine a month ago" ). IE, drone breeding ended and worker breeding slowed, heaps of mites all jammed onto the remaining worker brood and an entire bee generation raised with blood sucking disease infested little critters in their pupal cell with them.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

>Once drone raising season is done, where else can they go?

Is it possible they stay on the drone? And disappear with them too? Some say adult mites prefer to feed on drones.

I let my feral survivors raise as much drone brood as they want, I even open up the brood nest with empty foundationless frames, they make tons of drones in the spring so much so the inner cover can be packed with them, by mid simmer most are gone, the mite population does not significantly increase going in to fall, on feral survivors. There are many studies that also show this.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

intothewind said:


> I live a few counties north of JWC. Here, a large percentage of hobbyists do not treat(I have met a couple that run small numbers of quite healthy looking hives), and I am unaware of much commercial presence of bees. A couple apiaries that operate here are mostly residential and some treatment free and must be small due to the nature of real estate here. The beekeepers association has been keeping track of colony losses year by year, which show that OA treatment has a marked affect on increasing survival. The data shows that first year swarms and local nucs have a lower mortality rate than packages. Losses for the last year data was analyzed were a bit under 40%


http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ee-Survey-Hobby-keepers-a-net-population-sink


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

jwcarlson said:


> http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ee-Survey-Hobby-keepers-a-net-population-sink


That is a super good thread!!


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

I prefer the strategy of free drone rearing. I cannot understand why would they make too many of them, especially in TF beekeeping.

In TF beekeeping drone rearing success is dramatically lower than normally. Give a hive a drone frame and what you get, sometimes nothing. The hives with best drone frames are always the absolutely best ones.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> SiWolKe - in the first photo in you Post #11, the cutout section of the frame corner looks like a 30-60-90 triangle. Any reason for that shape of a cut out? Would a 45-45-90 triangle-shaped cut-out work just as well? Any other shapes tried?


I followed what my mentor did. My first hive, which was on natural comb build corners like that, so maybe it`s just the natural way for some colonies.

But I don`t think it`s important, because they use other space, too.
Like that:
My bees came on Zander and my system is Dadant. With this frame I forgot to extend with a strip of wood.









Drone rearing is important for us because we want to have our own drones in summer or later to do some stress breeding, if possible. That means, if a hive is managing very well and has enough bees before breeding winter bees we try to do another split with the queen being mated by our own drones.

We need the drones throughout the season too using them as varroa trap, so we do not select the mites into the worker brood.


----------

