# Treatment Free: It's a path, not a solution



## Adam Foster Collins

I have been treatment free for about 15 months now. I mean that in the "truest" sense - no manipulations or additions of any kind for the purpose of combating mites. The bees have struggled, and one could say that the treatment free approach I'm using is "not working" very well. So I have been considering my alternatives. And I find myself wondering if it's really fair to ask treatment free to "work". Isn't it really just choosing a different way to approach beekeeping - one with a certain set of challenges that must be overcome? One could say that it's "living with mites", but then again, that is what everyone does. I feel like it's often just about living with mites, and not fighting them directly.

I quit treating last April, and entered last winter with 11 hives. Came out with 8. Lost two or three through the spring and early summer and have built back up through cut-outs and swarms to 18 at this point. I have just set up nucs for the year. 10 of my number are those nucs.

Over the last few years I have done a lot of study; reading everything I could find on ways of dealing with varroa, working with the bees - and in the end, I feel that for me personally, it just make the most sense not to interfere with the mite.

At the end of the day, I've come to believe that keeping bees without treatments (for the most part) really just amounts to managing bees with mites. Sure, you can graft from your best and work toward a more resistant bee, but with most of us living in areas where there are plenty of other, treated bees around, your progress could be slow.

Many people who are treatment free talk about making increase from "catching swarms" and "feral survivors", but I believe that most of those bees are just swarms from other people's treated bees, so all that collecting just amounts to replacing lost bees with new bees. The only difference really is that you worked for them, rather than paid for them, and in many cases, you can at least count the fact that if they came early enough in the season, the queen probably wintered at least once in your locality.

There are so many challenges that face bees (pesticides, pests, disease, weather) and beekeepers (economics, pests, disease, weather, insanity) that the death or poor performance of a colony could be the result of any combination of things. Mites are one, albeit a major one. 

If you look at treatment free in the broadest sense; across all the people who take that approach, it really isn't about some genetic secret. It isn't about small cell. It isn't about not feeding sugar syrup, pollen sub or using three deeps or all mediums. There really isn't "a solution" in terms of some remedy that will rid the bees of mites.

It's about not treating. 

So from what I can see, it really boils down to not fighting mites, and then managing day-to-day, month-to-month around the results. It's about deciding that you don't want to artificially combat mites and then replacing the work of doing so with other work.

Isn't it?

Adam


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

I really wish you posted this in some other forum so I could say what I think on the subject, but I believe in following the rules so I'm keeping my opinions to myself.

Rusty


----------



## Beregondo

I have some colonies that have commercial queens, and some that have queens that came from colonies that were cutouts and swarms.

Of the later, have two lines that I know are from bees that had bee had survived on their own through at least one winter : 
One was a cutout from the wall of an abandoned house near my home, and the space had been occupied by bees for several years...observed to be occupied before swarm season several years running.

The other was secondary swarm from a bee tree. I haven't had that one through a winter yet.

The first line, though, has survived three winters...end of next spring will mark three full years with it.

They consistently grown quicker in spring and been more vigorous than the lines that have come form commercially raised queens.
in fact, to the degree I'm able to, I intend not to buy commercial queens any longer (unless i don't do well finding more such bees for the sake of genetic diversity).

I've not treated except one time the second year when I did a sugar shake because I'd seen a mite...nad figured it couldn't hurt.

I understand that most untreated "survivor" hives that perish due to mites or disease do so during the first three years, and that most that survive that long do well...so the jury's out til next spring, in that regard.

I jave noticed a marked difference in the performance of the "wild" line, though.


----------



## NewJoe

I am operating treatment free as well, and I pretty much agree with your post completely.


----------



## Robbin

I guess I don't understand, I fight the mites, SHB, and anything else with anything and everything except pesticides. Sounds like your definition is doing NOTHING.
I won’t stand by and allows bees to die without a fight. I couldn’t be a bee keeper if my only goal was to raise enough bees to replace the ones that died.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Robbin said:


> I guess I don't understand... Sounds like your definition is doing NOTHING.


No no, you do tons. Just nothing that amounts to removing or killing mites directly. You may do foundationless, or small cell, or selective breeding, or 3 deeps, or buying treatment free bees, or working with AHB, or make a nuc-based operation that can help you recover from loss, or whatever. You manage around the mite problem until you find a balance that works.

My suggestion is that "Treatment Free" just means that you don't treat. From there, it just means finding a way to keep bees without treating. But there are not a ton of "answers" that really work on a broad scale. From what I can see, there is no solution that one can go to, follow and get repeated or consistent success with.

In contrast, if you use say MAQS or Oxalic acid, your going to see mite loads get hammered with a pretty consistent regularity, whether you do it in Nova Scotia, or Texas, or New Zealand. Therefore, one could suggest that are a "viable solution" to keeping mites at manageable levels, and that means that the use of organic acids can be regarded as a solution to dealing with mites.

I haven't been able to see the same consistency in any non-treatment approach. For every person that says something works, there is another that says it doesn't. So the treatment-free realm hasn't really got any broadly applicable solutions, but really only shares the choice to not treat.


----------



## rhaldridge

Robbin said:


> I guess I don't understand, I fight the mites, SHB, and anything else with anything and everything except pesticides. Sounds like your definition is doing NOTHING.
> I won’t stand by and allows bees to die without a fight. I couldn’t be a bee keeper if my only goal was to raise enough bees to replace the ones that died.


Well, in a way, that's the goal of all beekeepers. After all, the bees you have now are not the bees you had this spring. Those bees are all dead, except for the queen. I don't say this to be argumentative, but to make the point that bees are different from other animals that we keep and feel responsible for.

One thing to think about is whether the things we do to combat mites and beetles and moths are good for the bees in the long run. Are we saving them, or just condemning them to a protracted and sickly end? The rate of colony loss does not seem to be improving among commercial beekeepers, at least that's the impression I get from surveys like the BeeInformed surveys, and estimates from bee scientists at Beltsville. To me, this is an indication that the approach of treating for these pests is not a war that can be won.

I'm no purist. I have SHB traps in my hives, though they don't seem to catch many beetles. I think a better approach is to have strong hives, and if a hive is weak, as in a newly installed split, I match the space to the size of the colony, so the bees have a chance of handling any infestation. I have seen a couple of beetles, but they haven't been a problem.

As far as non-pesticide approaches to controlling mites, the only one that seems to make much sense to me is the use of brood breaks. This is a perfectly natural way to control mites, and is practiced by bees in the wild, in the form of swarming. Things like powdered sugar don't seem to work very well, and things like formic acid, oxalic acid, and thymol all have negative effects on hive health.

There are approaches that can help jumpstart a beekeeper on the way to successful non-treatment. Locally adapted bees are a start. I got a local nuc this spring to start my beekeeping, and it's done very well. It's made a fair amount of honey already, and I've taken 2 successful splits from it. And there are breeders who have resistant lines of bees. My second split got a BeeWeaver queen, and she's going gangbusters so far. This has been a cheap education for me, and a whole lot of fun. Of course, the hive may decline in the fall; in fact I would be surprised if it did not, but I've sure learned a lot from having it.

I got a package of semi treatment-free bees from Wolf Creek, but that one hasn't done as well, and I'm currently trying to cure it of a laying worker problem with frames of brood from my boomer.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that being treatment free doesn't mean doing nothing. It means acquiring bees that can live in a healthy balance with pests and still be productive. You can do your own breeding, you can capture feral swarms, you can take advantage of the work that some dedicated treatment free breeders have already done. The goal is to have healthy bees that don't need to be assaulted with various substances that temporarily knock down mite levels, and which at the same time make the bees sick.

Of course, I'm a beginner, so I may be completely wrong, but this is what I think now.


----------



## zhiv9

As much as there is no magic bullet to treatment free bk, there are some commonalities amongst those that are successful. They all seem to do 2 or more of the following:

Small cell
Foundationless comb or own foundation (chemical free comb)
Large 3 deep colonies
Overwintering on honey
Overwintered nuc's to replace losses
Feral stock or locally adapted resistant stock
Live fairly isolated from other beeks

I am sure there are more.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

zhiv9: There are too many beekeepers using standard sized foundations keeping bees treatment free successfully for the first two items on your list to be of any importance. Using time tested principles of bee management are the secret to successful beekeeping. Our bees resistance to the virsues carried by the varroa improve every year, if the beekeeper does his job the colony survives and prospers.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

AR Beekeeper,

What are some of the time tested principles you are employing that you would say are your secret to successful beekeeping?
And what do you mean by "successful"?

Adam


----------



## zhiv9

AR Beekeeper said:


> zhiv9: There are too many beekeepers using standard sized foundations keeping bees treatment free successfully for the first two items on your list to be of any importance.


I am sure that there are examples for each item I listed of beekeepers that are successful without using that tactic. I haven't being doing this long enough to comment on whether or not I think small cell makes a difference. The key point on the second item isn't the cell size, but that the wax/foundation is being produced in house. I am sure that ther are people making there own large cell foundation with their own wax as well.

Just because you can do it with large cell doesn't mean that small cell doesn't help. There many that think its important. 

I do agree with you regarding good beekeeping practices - there is no substitute for that.


----------



## jbeshearse

rhaldridge,

After August, you can see if treatment free is working for you in our area. We face a more daunting task than those up north. Any hive weakened either by mites or a queenless upset in June, is very likely to succumb to SHB in August. I don't mind the mites, its the SHB that are the downfall of most of my lost hives. The hive might survive in a weakened state brought on by mites, nosema, etc, except once weakened at the wrong time of the year and the beetles will kill them off or make them abscond. Here is a link to a photo of beetles in one of my strongest hives last August. This hive survived, but imagine had it been weakened by mites. That is whay I use a miteacide (apiguard), not really because I need to kill all the mites, but if they weaken the hive, even if it survives they are goners.


----------



## ForrestB

I haven't read all the posts, so I don't know if someone has made the point... while it is true that many swarms will be from managed hives, at least in my area there are lots of unmanaged colonies in the woods and in abandoned buildings (I am in an economically depressed area - coal country - in northern Spain - whose population has been in rapid decline for decades and more homes are empty than occupied). I know that many swarms are from unmanaged colonies and as a result are likely to be more resistant. 


For me the point isn't working around the results of mites, it is trying to allow bees to develop their own resistance to a parasite, just as any other wild animal population would do. To me, treatment means sustaining inferior stock through artificial means. There are a myriad of reasons why people might want to do this, but when I look at people like Mr. Bush or Time Ives, I would rather go that route.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

ForrestB said:


> For me the point isn't working around the results of mites, it is trying to allow bees to develop their own resistance to a parasite, just as any other wild animal population would do. To me, treatment means sustaining inferior stock through artificial means. There are a myriad of reasons why people might want to do this, but when I look at people like Mr. Bush or Tim Ives, I would rather go that route.


Agreed. My goals and reasons are similar. But I'm just coming to terms with the fact that employing the methods of Mike or Tim won't necessarily work for everyone in their specific situation/location.

So if you look at treatment-free as a direction; or a challenge, then you are more likely to stay with it and succeed. I see people giving treatment free "a try", using a specific method and if it doesn't "work", then they may give up. 

I feel that if you view being treatment free as a path that you're going to take (come hell or high water) then you will succeed. But your methods may go through a few revisions getting there.

Adam


----------



## zhiv9

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I see people giving treatment free "a try", using a specific method and if it doesn't "work", then they may give up. Adam


This this is very true.

As Yoda said, "Do or do not, there is no try"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No


----------



## AR Beekeeper

Adam; You will underestand my rules are designed for my area and style of beekeeping. I am retired and do nothing but work bees, and now do some fishing with my granddaughter. I am a hobbist, and commercial and sideliners will understand my rules are for hobbist and not for someone trying to make a living with bees. A sideliner or commercial beekeeper will have already learned how to handle bees, at least they should have, before they got in the business.

My first rule is to use good bees. I keep a mix of Russian, VSH, MN Hygienic, and Weaver bees. I check for mite count and do visual inspections for no evidence of disease. I allow the colonies to supersede because I have seen some that could not seem to have a successful supersedure. At the end of March I choose my queen mothers and raise 6 queens from each. Usually from these six I will find one above average whose offspring will handle the mites well, are gentile, and are healthy and productive. Another trait that is important is how well they feed their brood. My above average queens I keep in nucs until I requeen all field colonies in August. The average queens remain in nucs to be sold or given away. 

Up until last year my health allowed me to be active and I kept up to 65 colonies and as many as 100 nucs. Now I am reducing to my goal of 6 colonies for personal pleasure, and 12 nucs to keep spare queens.

Rule 2 is to find yards that protect the hives from strong winds, give maximum sunlight and are not in damp, low lying areas. Often I have had to take what I could get and make the best of it, but I have abandoned several outyards. Now I use only one outyard and my home yard. Keep the hives on stands to get them off the ground and away from moisture. Keep yards clean and mowed. Organize them to prevent drift, and aid your working bees.

Rule 3 is inspect regularly and thourghly. In the spring look at every brood frame for disease at least three times before it is time for the surplus supers to go on. After the supers are on don't bother them until harvest except to check and arrange comb in the supers. Keep good records! Don't keep more colonies than you can handle. Every area is different, northern beekeeping is not the same as southern beekeeping, disease varies from area to area. If a prson is in a clean area a 3 or 4 frame check is good. Adapt to your beekeeping situation, study bees religiously, and above all learn to identify BS advice. Don't really believe anything until you have tried it for yourself on a small scale and found it to work.

Rule 4 is learn to raise queens on a scale suited to your operation. Learn to clip and mark them, how and what time of the year to introduce them so as to have few or no losses. Never take shortcuts with queens! They are the backbone of your operations. Learn to evaluate them, and don't fall in love with them because you are going to have to pinch their heads off eventually! I have lost some really good colonies because I tried to squeeze one more season out of a queen. In my area late summer requeening with a queen from a nuc almost eliminates winter losses due to queen failure, probably the main cause of winter losses.

Rule 5 is feed when feeding is called for. Forget all the additives, straight sugar syrup has worked for years and continues to work for hundreds of beekeepers. Learn how to feed, when to feed and why to feed.

Rule 6 is Use good equipment and keep it maintained. Standardize and don't get caught in the gimmick trap. Select your hives brood chambers based on your situation and abilities, not because someone else uses it. There are items such as double screens, queen excluders and fume or escape boards that are very handy. Learn to use them properly. Forget the gimmick of cell size, standard brood cell size is 5.2 now and was in Dr. C.C. Millers day in the 1890's. Foundationless can give good comb and it can give poor comb, just like foundations. Chems in wax will depend on your agriculture area and how much and what is applied by the farmers, the amount in foundations have little or no effect on the colony, if it did, there would be few successful beekeepers.

Rule 7 is know the Varroa Mite, it's life cycle, how it affects honeybees and what its numbers are in your colonies. I did natural fall counts the first week of the month regularly for several years, once I had bees that would live 3 years with no help from me, I do counts only to help determine which queens will be breeders. When I did the regular counts, if the count was 150+ I would watch that colony for signs of collapse. If the colony survived until August, I would treat before I requeened. If the colony started to collapse, I treated and requeened no matter what the date. Try to use only the "soft" treatments for varroa, and practice various mechanical methods to control them. Find your favorite method and use it when treatment is called for.

Rule 8 is have all colonies ready for winter 2 or 3 weeks before shut down. Have strong adult populations that were raised the two months before shut down, here I like a minimum of 6 frames of bees, 8 is better. Have enough food stores to last until spring nectar starts, this depends on the area. Here it is the same as one deep full for a food chamber, with side frames in the lower box full. Have a young queen heading the colony, and have the colony in full sun. Having a yard with wind breaks is a plus. My area is mild compared to northern standards. Seldom will a colony go longer than 10 to 14 days without a cleansing flight and snow doesn't last any longer than that, usually. Moisture is not a problem, even if the colony is on a solid bottom board. I use all screened bottoms, even on my 5 fram nuc boxes. No venting for moisture release is done. Nucs winter on their own stands, but I try to have them all two boxes high, so they are actually 10 frame colonies. The top box is all food. I check for poor colonies in the fall and combine or shake out poor ones. Take the losses in the fall, not the spring.

My definition of success is having all field colonies over winter and produce the standard for this area (1 deep of honey but usually I have 3 mediums.) I harvest little honey myself, I use it to feed nucs or I sell it to other beekeepers in the area for resale. In actual practice my overwinter percentage over the last 15 years (except for this past winter) has been better than 90% of my managed field colonies and almost that many of my nucs. 

I might add that I am not the only beekeeper in this area that has good success with bees without having to treat every year. Several in the associations I belong to have been treatment free for 5 or 6 years and their losses are very low also. They too manage their bees on standard cell foundation, feed sugar syrup when needed and purchase commercially raised queens to improve their stocks varroa resistance. Successful beekeeping is easy to learn, all a person has to do is study, not only the latest information, but the writings of the great beekeepeers of beekeeping's early years. They were practical men with great powers of observation.


----------



## LetMBee

Adam: part of being treatment free has to be accepting some losses. It is an impossible goal to expect 100% survival. In The Hive and the Honeybee, Langstroth speaks about fads and different management styles. He states that the proper thing to do is to experiment with new practices on a small number of your colonies. 

That is what I started doing back in 2010. It just so happens that as time has gone on the treatment and feed free bees have survived and the treated/fed group has become smaller due to attrition. I don't know why so many keepers feel that they must follow the entire strategy practiced by any one person. Our practices can only go through revisions if we experiment keeping with successful practices and dropping unsuccessful ones. 

One thing is certain.... The way that the vast majority of keepers are managing their bees isn't working or the the forums wouldn't be a BUZZ with all of these issues.


----------



## ForrestB

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Agreed. My goals and reasons are similar. But I'm just coming to terms with the fact that employing the methods of Mike or Tim won't necessarily work for everyone in their specific situation/location.
> 
> So if you look at treatment-free as a direction; or a challenge, then you are more likely to stay with it and succeed. I see people giving treatment free "a try", using a specific method and if it doesn't "work", then they may give up.
> 
> I feel that if you view being treatment free as a path that you're going to take (come hell or high water) then you will succeed. But your methods may go through a few revisions getting there.
> 
> Adam


Yes. From what Tim Ives has said, his first years he had high losses - I myself am prepared to go through a long shake-out period until I build a stock of reliable and resistant (and large) colonies. It certainly isn't something you just "try" like you say, it requires a committment - that is what I take from all of the successful treatment free beekeepers' writings.


----------



## woodedareas

AR Beekeeper
Thanks for the great insight. I am in my third year and I started with 8 hives this year and without going into great depth.I have 5 hives. Some have 1 super. some 2 supers and 2 with 4 supers. Given the time of the year I don't expect much to happen with the last super I placed. I do have mites but can not see any Hive Beetles that are definitely in my area. After harvesting i will do another detailed mite count on each hive but I will probably need some type of mite treatment. In that event what type of mite treatment would you suggest?


----------



## Oldtimer

Good thread Adam and some great thoughts expressed by all. Zhiv9's post #8 is quite thought provoking, hadn't looked at it like that before.

Not sure about StevenG though, I think he may only do one of the things on the list but not totally sure.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

ARBeekeeper, you have given some good, solid advice! Hope more folks pay attention to it. It works for TF or traditional beekeeping.

:thumbsup:

Rusty


----------



## squarepeg

LetMBee said:


> . I don't know why so many keepers feel that they must follow the entire strategy practiced by any one person. Our practices can only go through revisions if we experiment keeping with successful practices and dropping unsuccessful ones.
> 
> _i agree, there are a lot of variables including geographical location, forage availability, genetics ect. i have enjoyed experimenting and letting the bees teach me. _
> 
> One thing is certain.... The way that the vast majority of keepers are managing their bees isn't working or the the forums wouldn't be a BUZZ with all of these issues.
> 
> _i disagree, my sense is that the beekeepers are doing better than that, and that the bees are doing better than what is being sensationalized by the media and those with the agenda of fighting modern agricultural practices. the buzz is because beekeepers tend to like to 'discuss' things._


i also agree with the premise put forth by other posters that it all starts (and ends) with sound beekeeping practices. 

i would add that i believe nutrition is a bigger factor than it gets credit for. a honey only (or mostly) diet must surely give the bees better immunity against pathogens (vectored by the mites).

and not to sound like a broken record, but taking measures to prevent the spread of mites via robbing (vs. the hard bond method) just makes sense.

here is a recent post on bee-l that addresses the spread of mites by drift vs. robbing:

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1307&L=BEE-L&D=0&P=311347


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

> i also agree with the premise put forth by other posters that it all starts (and ends) with sound beekeeping practices.
> 
> i would add that i believe nutrition is a bigger factor than it gets credit for. a honey only (or mostly) diet must surely give the bees better immunity against pathogens (vectored by the mites).
> 
> and not to sound like a broken record, but taking measures to prevent the spread of mites via robbing (vs. the hard bond method) just makes sense.


I respectfully disagree. It STARTS with *genetics*. Only then do these other factors come into play. But without the right bees to start with, y'ain't gonna git nowheres nohow. Too many people are out there 'reinventing the wheel' instead of taking advantage of the work that has already been done. START with VSH, MN Hygienic, Carniolan, Russian stock and breed up from there. Around here the so-called 'feral' population is nothing more than escaped swarms from established hives and not some "special" or "resistant" stock that somehow managed to survive mites. No, the mites killed the true ferals a long time ago. These 'ferals' are just carrying the VSH, MN Hygienic, Carniolan, Russian genes from their original hives and THAT is the source of their 'miraculous' resistance. Sure, use them, but ADD the genetics we've already developed to increase overall resistance to disease and mites.

So start with solid genetics, follow sound beekeeping practices, let them keep their own honey instead of stealing it all, and prevent the spread of mites from failing hives infecting your hives, and you will finally be on a solid path that leads forward.

As always, JMO

Rusty


----------



## squarepeg

point well taken rusty, some strains are more resistant than others.

and after thinking about it, i would say that location may trump all of those other considerations.

the best bees kept by the best beekeeper would likely do poorly without adequate forage and clean water nearby, and not all locations will have the diversity of plant life that's necessary. 

technically speaking the 'true ferals' of yesteryear were also swarms from the european bees that the settlers brought with them as honeybees are not native to this continent.

the bees i have trace back to feral survivors cut out of trees about 16 years ago, i believe before the resistant stocks you mentioned were widely available and during the peak of the varroa epidemic. i have no proof, but i don't think that all of the ferals were wiped out around here. these bees have been surviving without mite treatments year after year, so it is possible to get mite resistant bees by finding and using feral survivors.

i was lucky to happen into these bees, and to get them adapted for my locality was icing on the cake. not everyone may have access to bees like this, and it would be challenging to know the history of any bees found out it the wild. your advice regarding purchasing stock with resistant traits is sound.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

I for one am delighted to read that someone else believes the feral survivor phenomenon to be regional - too much is made *IMO *of people who catch swarms and believe they have been gifted with precious stock. I read of beginning beekeepers who start by catching a "feral swarm" and think "good luck" but in my heart I am counting those bees as dead before the year is out. Do I think there are isolated places in the US where there are real feral bees that survive without treatments or interference from humankind? Yes. Do I think there are good and conscientious beekeepers who build up their yards with swarm catches? Yes. But I also think both those beekeepers and "feral swarms" are quite rare.


----------



## Saltybee

Wether it was feral for 15 minutes or 15 years it did come from stock that was strong enough, either with or without treatment to swarm. That puts it in the top end of stock at least. It may not have genetics on it side but it at least has prior good health on it's side.
Precious, maybe not, high average for local conditions; probably.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Sorry to disagree but disagree I must - many of the swarms we get in this area are from bees brought in to the area for commercial pollination. Swarming, especialy in a hive with a young queen, (and I am told more than a few commercial beekeepers are replacing their queens multiple times a year) is not a trait to be regarded as desirable.


----------



## Saltybee

Not a disagreement at all, just an explanation. I do not think in terms of the invasion of pollinators you see. By the time they reach you they have been working for months. It may be more a mass escape than a swarm!


----------



## ForrestB

I am in western Asturias, Spain, in the mountains. There are many abandoned hives that are occupied around here - as well as abandoned homes galore with hives in dead spaces - and almost no managed hives any more. This area is rife with feral stock. Lucky for me.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I know there are "feral survivors" out there, I just think that a majority of what people call that are actually just recent swarms from managed hives. Sometimes, you can get a cut-out or swarm from a colony that you can reasonably verify has been in existence for several seasons without treatments or management, but it is difficult to do, as unless you are very much in touch with that colony over years, it's difficult to know if it is just a location that has been repeatedly re-inhabited by swarms.

It takes some consistent and educated awareness to be reasonably sure a colony is truly a "feral survivor", and not just this spring's swarm from a treated hive, that took up residence in a dead-out in a barn wall...

Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's a lot harder to _*know*_ a feral survivor, than it is to say, "feral survivor".



Adam


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> So from what I can see, it really boils down to not fighting mites, and then managing day-to-day, month-to-month around the results. It's about deciding that you don't want to artificially combat mites and then replacing the work of doing so with other work. Isn't it?


Adam, I think you are doing great and are exceptionally well prepared and well situated to be successful in the long term. I hope you'll find as I have that after the first few years, the work done to make up the losses will diminish rapidly. Then you can focus on refining what you have, working for every beekeeper's goal of gentle productive hives. Keep working at it, and keep doing what you're doing.




Robbin said:


> I guess I don't understand, I fight the mites, SHB, and anything else with anything and everything except pesticides. Sounds like your definition is doing NOTHING.
> I won’t stand by and allows bees to die without a fight. I couldn’t be a bee keeper if my only goal was to raise enough bees to replace the ones that died.


This is one of the problems. Everything you do to help the bees positions them to continue to require your help. What you put in is what you'll need to continue putting in. If you want to put in nothing, you must put in nothing. That's treatment-free beekeeping. It is the bees' responsibility to deal with disease, full stop.




zhiv9 said:


> As much as there is no magic bullet to treatment free bk, there are some commonalities amongst those that are successful. They all seem to do 2 or more of the following:
> 
> Small cell
> Foundationless comb or own foundation (chemical free comb)
> Large 3 deep colonies
> Overwintering on honey
> Overwintered nuc's to replace losses
> Feral stock or locally adapted resistant stock
> Live fairly isolated from other beeks


If this were a poll, I'd say I do small cell, some foundationless, large colonies, usually overwintering on honey, no overwintered nucs, feral and/or locally adapted stock, and I'm not isolated. These are simply good practices. That's beekeeping. 




ForrestB said:


> To me, treatment means sustaining inferior stock through artificial means.


Completely agree.




LetMBee said:


> Adam: part of being treatment free has to be accepting some losses... The way that the vast majority of keepers are managing their bees isn't working or the the forums wouldn't be a BUZZ with all of these issues.


Not accepting losses is what treating comes from. It's fighting tooth and nail to keep a box full of insects from becoming a box without insects. It's really silly in the proper context. Treat your bees and some will die too. There is no silver bullet. You're right, a lot of bees are dying. The Bee Informed Survey shows upwards of 30% losses this last winter. That's really not good, and that represents a whole lot of treated hives.




Andrew Dewey said:


> Sorry to disagree but disagree I must - many of the swarms we get in this area are from bees brought in to the area for commercial pollination. Swarming, especialy in a hive with a young queen, (and I am told more than a few commercial beekeepers are replacing their queens multiple times a year) is not a trait to be regarded as desirable.


Keep enough hives and it won't matter much. Use them for what they're worth, make them build a couple good frames of comb, then when they die out, you got a couple good frames of comb. No need to fret over dead hives. You didn't want them anyway. A dead hive managed effectively is just as good as a live hive, just ask those guys who buy packages in the spring and kill off the bees at the honey harvest. It's all a matter of perspective. Now if you're concerned about winter loss percentage, you might want to stay away from those swarms, but that would be like a lawyer who won't take your case because he doesn't think he can win. Again, the perspective has to be correct. Also, don't bring up that replacing queens all the time thing, commercials don't like to hear that and will claim it isn't true. No need to go down that rabbit trail again.


----------



## BeeCurious

Solomon Parker said:


> A dead hive managed effectively is just as good as a live hive
> 
> Snip


I'm looking forward to hearing more about the advantages of "Dead Hive Management". More specifically, I'd be interested in knowing if you believe there's a bright future for DHM among the practicants of "natural /TF beekeeping".


----------



## julysun

DHM (Dead Hive Management) and HITS (Head In The Sand) methods are new beekeeping acronyms that I need to add to my list.

"It is the bees' responsibility to deal with disease, full stop." S. Parker
I disagree.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ha Ha is that what is meant by the HITS method LOL, head in the sand.

I've heard the HITS method referred to before but never knew what people were talking about.

Very funny.


----------



## ForrestB

Adam Foster Collins said:


> it's a lot harder to _*know*_ a feral survivor, than it is to say, "feral survivor".


In my particular area, since there are almost zero mangaged hives left (none within 5km), unless every hive is throwing dozens of swarms, then the chances of any particular colony being feral far outweighs the chances that it recently originated from a managed hive.

The probability of a colonly being feral corresponds directly to the density of managed hives in any particular area. Here in the mountains of the western Cordillera Cantábrica - a dying coal mining area - the population density is very low and declining continually. It wouldn't be hard to find areas where there aren't any managed hives within 20km.


----------



## Solomon Parker

BeeCurious said:


> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the advantages of "Dead Hive Management".


Have the courage to quote a full sentence.


----------



## Solomon Parker

julysun said:


> I disagree.


Well, that settles it then.


----------



## LetMBee

Solomon...

People have the right to disagree, but what is it with beekeeping where "I disagree" means other person is wrong. Someone can disagree with my belief that the worldis round all they want, it doesn't mean they are right. Clearly there are know problems with current "management" practices, yet people cling to them though they are failing. A dead hive of bees is not always a beekeepers fault. When a feral colony dies is it a beekeepers fault? Nope.

Beekeepers think that bees cannot overcome, but that is just an indication of human hubris. We have been TRYING to kill ****roaches, weeds, and bacterial infections with poisons for a long time, yet they adapt and survive despite our efforts to the contrary. This is done throu selective pressures. Allowing hives that cannot make it to expire leaves you with breeding stock that CAN survive. Dead hive management is working here in Indiana. since I have gone to IT I have had much better overwintering of bees. If a hive cant make it on their own they aren't going to make honey for me. Why would I want to keep them alive on chemical life support. THE treating crowd can just keep right on telling me I'm wrong. I will keep expanding.....

I would contest that continuing the failed management practices of the last 20 years is the ultimate example of putting ones HEAD IN THE SAND.


----------



## Solomon Parker

LetMBee said:


> I will keep expanding.....


I wish I could. I've already had to quit building some things, no time. A population of 25 is about what I can handle at this point. I'm going to have to let a few more die this winter so I can get back to my goal number. Hmm, think of all the comb that could free up. I could finally get all my hives to the 4-5 deep equivalent goal size. I'd probably be doing better on that front if I weren't selling dozens of frames of drawn comb in nucs every year. It all depends what your goals are.



LetMBee said:


> I would contest that continuing the failed management practices of the last 20 years is the ultimate example of putting ones HEAD IN THE SAND.


I wouldn't call them failed. Break an ankle and not be able to keep your bees for a year, and then you'll see the fail. Michael Bush was out of town for like three years and he still had a whole bunch of hives that were doing just fine. I had to leave mine in Oregon for 2.5 years and didn't lose all that many. I like Michael Bush's Lazy Beekeeping. This is much easier than all those treatments and inspections they require, put the stuff in, take it out, for crying out loud don't touch it or breathe it. How much stress is derived from being worried about getting that stuff done or your bees will die? No fun.


----------



## deknow

Saltybee said:


> Wether it was feral for 15 minutes or 15 years it did come from stock that was strong enough, either with or without treatment to swarm. That puts it in the top end of stock at least. It may not have genetics on it side but it at least has prior good health on it's side.
> Precious, maybe not, high average for local conditions; probably.


...or copiously fed.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> Ha Ha is that what is meant by the HITS method


Actually head in the sand (HITS) refers to those who state ‘I don’t test for ‘em, and I don’t treat’ and then have the audacity to claim that ‘mites aren’t a problem’.


----------



## Michael Bush

> just that it's a lot harder to know a feral survivor, than it is to say, "feral survivor".

Size is a good indicator. Natural comb bees are noticeably smaller than recent swarms from typical large cell comb.


----------



## Solomon Parker

It's hard to identify a problem when there aren't a bunch of hives dying to indicate it.


----------



## LetMBee

Beeman: if I'm not treating my bees, what good does it do to count mites? They aren't going anywhere, so bees are going to have to find a way to coexist with them. If untreated bees DO find a way to live with mites it makes counting mites irrelevant. If I'm not going to treat I figure out if varroa killed my hive post mortem. At that point my bees are dead, but so are the mites at killed those bees.

My head isn't in the sand. Whenever there are paradigm shifts in any discipline the initial challenges to established practices are ridiculed. People practicing treatment free shouldn't be belittled. If you don't believe that bees can make it on their own there are other forum sections to read. 

I am here telling of things that are Working in my operation as I believe others are. Why would anyone get on here and lie about success they are having with treatment free practices?


----------



## zhiv9

beemandan said:


> Actually head in the sand (HITS) refers to those who state ‘I don’t test for ‘em, and I don’t treat’ and then have the audacity to claim that ‘mites aren’t a problem’.


What do you call beekeepers who don't test for mites and treat everything?


----------



## beemandan

LetMBee said:


> Beeman: if I'm not treating my bees, what good does it do to count mites?


Do you also claim that mites aren't a problem?


----------



## beemandan

zhiv9 said:


> What do you call beekeepers who don't test for mites and treat everything?


This has already been rehashed over a multitude of pages. Today I was simply making sure there was no misunderstanding...again...of the HITS definition. The main focus is not testing and then claiming that they aren't a problem.
As I clearly stated in my original thread....I don't have any problem with folks being treatment free....I don't have any problem with the live or let die approach to selection. This was never a slam on treatment free folks. Just don't try to tell me that you haven't tested for mites AND that they aren't a problem...because if you haven't tested you don't know (ergo...head in the sand). I believe, particularly for new beekeepers, that they know and recognize the magnitude of the enemy.


----------



## LetMBee

Beemandan: they are a problem in some hives and evidently NOT a problem in most of the hives. Out of 30 I lose 4-6 every year. Varroa evidence is normally present, but I don't think there are any hives in Indiana without varroa. So I am left with.... Did varroa kill them or were they just a contributing factor?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Dan, would you agree that consistently low loss rates (lower than treated) would indicate that there isn't a problem? Is that not the best best and ultimate method of testing?


----------



## zhiv9

beemandan said:


> This has already been rehashed over a multitude of pages. Today I was simply making sure there was no misunderstanding...again...of the HITS definition. The main focus is not testing and then claiming that they aren't a problem.
> As I clearly stated in my original thread....I don't have any problem with folks being treatment free....I don't have any problem with the live or let die approach to selection. This was never a slam on treatment free folks. Just don't try to tell me that you haven't tested for mites AND that they aren't a problem...because if you haven't tested you don't know (ergo...head in the sand). I believe, particularly for new beekeepers, that they know and recognize the magnitude of the enemy.


Fair enough. There certainly seem to be plenty of people who think you can put a package in box of foundationless frames in the spring and come back in the fall and harvest the honey.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Have you seen any of those people in here?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Let us remember that while we Americans call it the "Bond Method," the original term from John Kefuss' publication is "Bond _*TEST*_." It is the ultimate test, and the only one that matters. Who cares if our method of testing doesn't fit what someone else wants us to do. We're not trying to do what they're trying to do.


----------



## zhiv9

Solomon Parker said:


> Have you seen any of those people in here?


No, not really, and that's part of the problem. All new beekeepers by default are TF. That doesn't mean they have made a conscious or intelligent decision to go in either direction. Regardless they still get lumped in as TF because they aren't treating.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam, so you're saying that these newbees really are dragging our success rates down such as reported in the Bee Informed National Survey where it shows there is no difference between treated and not treated success rates?


----------



## zhiv9

Solomon Parker said:


> Adam, so you're saying that these newbees really are dragging our success rates down such as reported in the Bee Informed National Survey where it shows there is no difference between treated and not treated success rates?


That's possible. Though to be fair, said newbees probably aren't bothering to fill out the Bee Informed National Survey either.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Dan, would you agree that consistently low loss rates (lower than treated) would indicate that there isn't a problem? Is that not the best best and ultimate method of testing?


First Solomon, I don't think you can say that treatment free beekeepers consistently have lower loss rates that treated. 

Solomon…I really didn’t want to get caught up in all of this but….
In my opinion, you can compare your survival rates with another beekeeper who has a different treatment philosophy and still not gain anything without comparing many other variables. You know that. 

Mostly in spring I get calls or emails, and see many posts on beesource by new beekeepers lamenting hive failures. All too often it appears that mites were the cause of the collapse. And, I contend that in practically every failure varroa are part of the equation. If you haven’t taken an objective measurement….you don’t know. Mites are a tax on your colony. They impact your bees’ ability to contend with every other parasite and pest. They weaken our bees and impact productivity. There are so many consequences.

I only want people, especially new beekeepers to understand the significance of this parasite. And if they truly understand the pest and choose a treatment free path…I say fine.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Dan, I could care less about other beekeepers and their philosophies. I want you to square your presuppositions with the evidence of my bees. If a bunch of hives aren't dying, it only follows that there isn't a problem. That is the test. You know I speak from experience. Explain my experience.

Why do you think beekeepers in the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum do not understand what they're doing and have not chosen that path? Why is it your duty to provide the disclaimers?


You have no requirement to get caught up in this. I'll be awaiting your inevitable "final word" and then eventual return to the argument. It's a bit transparent.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Sol - I think much depends on the credibility of the observations. I have read your posts long enough to conclude that you are knowledgeable and truthful. Other folks who report results on line don't have that credibility (at least with me, yet) and I need them to confirm their observations with a properly done test for me to ascribe competence to their posts. If someone doesn't care what I think and doesn't want to test, that's fine with me.


----------



## ForrestB

At the risk of stating the obvious, there are millions of species across the planet that have adapted to parasites and diseases without the intervention of human beings.


----------



## Saltybee

Solomon Parker said:


> Dan, I could care less about other beekeepers and their philosophies.


And that is your right, it is also a source of failure for many others. There are those who take the ultimate test without themselves or their bees being ready for the test. ARBeekeepers rules are a good self exam to take before taking the plunge.

It is not your job to pave the way for others to make it to the promised land of TF. You have spent many hours simply repeating that it exists to many who will never believe. Thank you for that.

There are those who recognize that they or their bees are not capable of taking the test yet. They are not wrong, at least for themselves, here they do not seem to be welcome to speak of anything less than complete devotion to TF.

My way or the highway is your right, just not as helpful. I congratulate you that you were able to breed from your survivors. For those with less skill or dead bees a slightly longer path to TF really might be a responsible choice.

Keep the faith, forgive the sinners.


----------



## LetMBee

Forrest: I agree totally, it is just lucky for those species that humans aren't micromanaging them hindering their natural abilities to adapt and respond to the rigors of life on earth. You know.... Bees doing what honey bees have done as a species on since becoming a species.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Saltybee, I would appreciate no grandstanding on a sentence that has nothing to do with what you're saying. There's a name, and that name isn't your name, therefore the post isn't for you. If you're going to treat your bees and advocate others to the same, you're going to get some friction in the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum.


----------



## Saltybee

I do not at all advocate treating my bees, I do confess to it. The only bee I want is a TF bee. That is just not the bees I have yet. Or the dead bees I had. It is the bee I will have before I am broke. (I hope).
Stratling the fence as I am now is a short term solution at best. That I know.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> would you agree that consistently low loss rates (lower than treated) would indicate that there isn't a problem? Is that not the best best and ultimate method of testing?


No it's a misnomer, or at least, it's not the full picture.

Survivability is the first, and nessecary step. But to me, speaking as someone who is in business, success cannot be claimed until a persons bees are self sustaining.

IE, the bees should at the least pay for themselves, and far me anyway I expect them to make a decent return on investment. If you have to keep pouring money into your bees, the bees are a money pit, and are not self sustaining. You could be equally well off to keep beetles or farm ants. There's no point.

I draw attention to this to illustrate the futility of saying that because the bees survive, mites are not a problem. A person who no longer treats can now claim to be treatment free. But if they do not test, have no idea what effect mites are having, and the bees have not been self sustaining, then logically they cannot rule out mites as a problem. To me live or die as the sole criterion for success makes no sense.


----------



## jbeshearse

Solomon Parker said:


> Dan, would you agree that consistently low loss rates (lower than treated) would indicate that there isn't a problem? Is that not the best best and ultimate method of testing?


different people count losses different ways. Unless everyone counts them the same, the comparisons are irrelevant. I see "ovewrwintering losses" talked about a lot, not "total losses". If you are to compare losses you must compare yearly losses,not overwintering losses. And you have to define what a loss is. I think reality gets buried in miscommunication and comparing apples to oranges in the vast majority of these discussions.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes that happens a lot.

However just read my last post and didn't want to sound offensive to those among treatment free beekeepers who are good friends.

So want to add as an adjunct to the post that I know (or at least assume), that there are treatment free beekeepers who are financially sustainable. 

The point I tried to make is that simply to say a hive survived, is not to say that mites did not have an effect on it. IE, survival alone is not the ultimate test to see if mites are still a problem.

Really, there likely is no ultimate test as there are variables. Mite counting tells something but not everything. Running treated hives alongside non treated could also be revealing. But a definitive answer nobody would argue with would be hard to come by.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Now we're debating the definition of "loss?"  Really?

How exactly are we supposed to compare yearly losses? The reason why overwintering rate is used is because of the fluid nature of hive numbers throughout the year. Is a lost hive while I have 25 more valuable than one lost while I have 50? Do you want me to count the ones that I've sold that die too? What about mating nucs? Does it have to have a mated queen? What if the queen gets eaten by a dragon fly? What if the hive gets knocked over by a rogue trampoline?

No, thanks.


----------



## Oldtimer

You may be, I'm not debating the definition of loss at all. 

The current subject is the effect of mites on bees, in other ways than just losses.


----------



## squarepeg

even though your treated and untreated were not side by side oldtimer, i think it would be fair to assume that most of the variables were somewhat controlled for, i.e. same beekeeper, same weather, same forage, ect.

you report 100% loss of the tf colonies, what about your treated ones?


----------



## jbeshearse

I am not debating anything. Management style determines when your losses occur and how you count them. Comparing overwintering losses from different management styles is not a valid method of determining viability of one style over another.

I would imagine a rogue tramploline is a viable loss for treatment fee. Those bees Should have been able to withstand it, or been prepared for it, or smart enough to not build next to it. They weren't, so they failed the survivor test.

Treatment free is great, and I hope everyone eventually gets to that point, but there are a lot of dead bees between here and there, some treated, some not.

Cheers,


----------



## Oldtimer

squarepeg said:


> you report 100% loss of the tf colonies, what about your treated ones?


Of the treated hives losses are low, but if I speak in terms of specifics I can get accused of lying etc..

However my main point was just that if a hive survives, that does not necessarily mean that mites are not affecting it at all. It's possible, but cannot be used as the ultimate measuring stick.


----------



## heaflaw

Oldtimer said:


> Of the treated hives losses are low, but if I speak in terms of specifics I can get accused of lying etc..
> 
> However my main point was just that if a hive survives, that does not necessarily mean that mites are not affecting it at all. It's possible, but cannot be used as the ultimate measuring stick.


There should be a comparison study made of the monetary value of surplus honey produced by treated vs treatment free hives. Subtract the cost of materials & labor of treatments of the treated hives. That would seem to be a good comparitive measure.


----------



## Oldtimer

It's been done. 

But yes, it would be interesting for hives of someone like say, Solomon or Michael Bush to be run against some treated commercial hives. I suspect I already know what the result would be, but doubt it would be accepted on some grounds or another.

But please just take that as a statement of what I think would happen. It does not mean I do not support the treatment free movement, I do.


----------



## Oldtimer

EDIT - somehow posted in the wrong thread.


----------



## heaflaw

Oldtimer said:


> It's been done.
> 
> .


What were the results and do you know where we could see it?


----------



## heaflaw

Oldtimer said:


> I suspect I already know what the result would be, but doubt it would be accepted on some grounds or another.
> 
> .



If the result would be the opposite of what you suspect, don't you think it would also not "be accepted on some grounds or another"?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Solomon Parker said:


> Adam, I think you are doing great and are exceptionally well prepared and well situated to be successful in the long term. I hope you'll find as I have that after the first few years, the work done to make up the losses will diminish rapidly. Then you can focus on refining what you have, working for every beekeeper's goal of gentle productive hives. Keep working at it, and keep doing what you're doing.


Sol, I appreciate you taking the time to share the encouragement. It matters. Especially in these early days - it does. Thanks.

*Oldtimer said :*

*"Survivability is the first, and nessecary step. But to me, speaking as someone who is in business, success cannot be claimed until a persons bees are self sustaining.

IE, the bees should at the least pay for themselves, and far me anyway I expect them to make a decent return on investment. If you have to keep pouring money into your bees, the bees are a money pit, and are not self sustaining. You could be equally well off to keep beetles or farm ants. There's no point."*

Oldtimer, I agree wholeheartedly on this point, and have made similar statements in other threads. I haven't treated in 15 months. I went into winter with 11 hives and came out with 8. A 27% loss (I think). Not bad in the big picture, and based on "surviving", things looked good. But compared to a good friend up here who did treat with formic, his hives in the spring were night and day compared to mine. While mine were _alive_, his were _*exploding*_.

Coupled with a slow spring, it meant he went from 28 to 52 colonies, sold about 20 nucs and will still harvest a good amount of honey. I dwindled to 5 or 6. I'm now at 18, all due to collecting swarms and doing cut-outs. Of the 11 I went into winter with last year, 5 made it through to now. So that's about 45% surviving over the year, and their health is good - but not great.

By the end of the season, I'll have put in about as much work as my friend, but will have half the hives, and a fraction of the income to show for it.

That said, I'm not giving up on my treatment free goals. But key to the equation is that treatment free bees are my central goal. I'm a designer for a living, and reaching a sustainable apiary without mite treatments is a passion. And that makes a big difference to what is "feasible".

Adam


----------



## Oldtimer

Adam Foster Collins said:


> That said, I'm not giving up on my treatment free goals.


Well said, and I'm not giving up on mine either. 

Heaflaw I can see what you are saying, but it's not my original point, which was that just because a hive is alive, does not mean mites are not effecting it.

Not really sure how to put it any plainer. The other things about comparative trials etc is something I did not even want to get into as it only causes resentment while it's only being discussed in theory. The reality is a hive with no mites has an advantage over a hive with mites. To me, that's reality. Which is not to say that trying to achieve resistant bees is a bad thing. 

I don't think a person has to be put in a box that is "all in", or "all out".


----------



## heaflaw

Oldtimer, I agree with you. Adam just said that he accepts getting less honey and money in exchange for being treatment free and I am sure I would get more honey if I treated. Mites are effecting our hives negatively-there is no doubt about it, for most of us anyway. Our treatment free beekeeping is based on the faith and logic that beekeeeping will eventually be sustainable and profitable without treatments. We also believe that by continuing to remain treatment free that each of us will be a part of that solution. 
I think that is the basis of what people like Marla Spivak are doing: developing mite resistant strains and encouraging beekeepers to use them.

I also completely agree that someone should not be labeled all in or all out. I think we have made it seem that way by too much arguing. In the end it all comes down to what "works" anyway.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Oldtimer said:


> Well said, and I'm not giving up on mine either...



I'm glad, as I respect your intelligence and your apparent interest in getting to "the nut-and-bolts" of things. I wonder if you have a plan for next steps in your efforts toward treatment free bees, as I am interested in what you are thinking, planning and experimenting with.



Oldtimer said:


> The reality is a hive with no mites has an advantage over a hive with mites. To me, that's reality...


True - to a point. And in that I mean that we don't presently (I believe) have a ton of bees around "with no mites". The treated bees are *relieved* of a certain number of mites, in an effort to find a balance that allows them to perform to our standards for production. The non-treated bees are *left with* mites in an effort to find a balance that allows them to perform to our standards for production. The key difference is of course is that treating allows you to find a balance right now, and the not treating will likely take considerably longer. But pretty much all of the bees are living with mites.

A hive without mites (if it existed) would have a temporary advantage, but one tied to the absence of mites. An absence which I think we can all agree would be temporary at best. So it remains dependent on the removal of them from beyond its own abilities. In that sense, that colony is at a disadvantage. It needs a crutch.

The hive with the mites has to deal with them, that is immediately a disadvantage, as it is a challenge. But if that challenge is overcome, the colony is stronger for having done so. And once that test is passed, the natural presence of the mite could be seen as an advantage.

This of course is the crux of the whole issue, and I know you're aware of that. It is also core to the philosophies of Kirk Webster - "mite as blessing." Clearly, a hive which has mites at a manageable level _without_ outside assistance is truly the one with the greatest advantage.




Oldtimer said:


> I don't think a person has to be put in a box that is "all in", or "all out".


No, I don't think you do either. Weaver did a scaled approach and phased it in. I've been thinking about it, but I'm not ready to try it. I think if I did, I would move to a lot of drone culling and re-queening of colonies I didn't see as strong enough. My biggest concern in a partial-treatment approach is that the strongest colonies produce the most drones. If I'm artificially creating strength through treatments, then I would be working toward minimizing the genetic contributions of those treated colonies. 

Adam


----------



## Beregondo

"And, I contend that in practically every failure varroa are part of the equation. 
If you haven’t taken an objective measurement….you don’t know."

This ranks right up there with thinking that one can't know if he has a mite problem if he is not doing mite counts.

There are other objective measures than mite counts t to determine if one has a mite problem.

Productive hive counts are an example of such objective measures.

I've been keeping hives treatment free for years now. Not many years, but years.

The hives are consistently productive and have a higher than normal survival rate.

That, friend, is what I call Not A Mite Problem


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I don't "count" mites, but I am keenly *aware* of them.

By that I mean that I am admittedly monitoring mites, just without counting specifically. When mites are high, you know it. You can see the dropped mites, you can see the damaged bees, and you can see phoretic mites. You can see the strain when their numbers are getting up.

But I'd argue that you have to learn to become sensitive to the signs. 

People who say that they don't count mites, are "counting" them in other ways. The most basic might be through the simple counting of dead hives. The actual tests for mite levels in numerical values really only matter if you're treating, and looking for particular thresholds. If you're not, then you are more concerned with "measuring" mites in how you see them affecting your colonies, and you're reacting and adjusting to the changing situation, just like anyone.

Even if your hives are thriving and you're not counting numerically, you're still measuring; taking stock of the mite situation, and happily recognizing that you don't have a measurable mite problem. 

No matter how you approach it, you're still measuring. We all are.


Adam


----------



## Beregondo

I agree with you completely, Adam.

Whether we simply count dead hives or live ones, we're measuring the same thing.

I was actually responding to 


beemandan said:


> Actually head in the sand (HITS) refers to those who state ‘I don’t test for ‘em, and I don’t treat’ and then have the audacity to claim that ‘mites aren’t a problem’.


I don't count or "test" but I am aware.

I'm also aware that there has been / is no mite problem to date.

I don't think it's because I use small cell foundation and foundationless frames.
I don't think it's diet/feeding practices.
I don't think it' because of the significant influence of feral bees in their gene pool.
I don't think it's location.
I don't even think it's because I avoid treatments.

I think it's probably a combination all of those things, as well some we haven't thought to consider yet.


----------



## zhiv9

Adam Foster Collins said:


> My biggest concern in a partial-treatment approach is that the strongest colonies produce the most drones. If I'm artificially creating strength through treatments, then I would be working toward minimizing the genetic contributions of those treated colonies.
> Adam


I think this is important. It is also important to understand that evolution happens most rapidly under selective pressure. Bees won't adapt to mites that aren't there forcing them to adapt. This is why beekeepers trying to prepare for the arrival of mites their area experience high losses even with resistant stock (Erik Osterlund for example). The bees can't learn to adapt to the mites if they aren' t their applying pressure. The Bond method/test applies the most selective pressure and should in theory be the fastest way to resistant stock. It also the hardest on the pocketbook.


----------



## jim lyon

I have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence of good mating results in yards with lots of drone strength and (most importantly) poorer results in yards with less drone strength to satisfy myself that most matings happen from local drones. I am convinced that natures way of preventing inbreeding is from multiple matings more than drones from afar. A few years ago we had some nucs weak on drones and placed them in their own yard with 2 strong yards just a mile away in opposite directions. I assumed that "sandwiching" them in such a way would result in good matings. The strong yards "caught" very well while the nucs weak in drone population did poorly.


----------



## Saltybee

Adam Foster Collins said:


> No, I don't think you do either. Weaver did a scaled approach and phased it in. I've been thinking about it, but I'm not ready to try it. I think if I did, I would move to a lot of drone culling and re-queening of colonies I didn't see as strong enough. My biggest concern in a partial-treatment approach is that the strongest colonies produce the most drones. If I'm artificially creating strength through treatments, then I would be working toward minimizing the genetic contributions of those treated colonies.
> 
> Adam


Very true and very much a concern. Somewhat mitigating that effect; even within a treated yard those strongest hives are doing much of the mite battle themselves.

The title of this thread uses the singular term path. I think it is pathways. For my location, my skills and my bees that path is not a straight line to passing the Bond test. Stating that in no way implies any detraction about anothers methods or results, it may imply little jealousy. I am not advocating for the crooked path, just admitting I am on it. Not ashamed of that either.
Wish it was a straightline for me as well.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Saltybee, I hear you, and that is in line with what Oldtimer and others are saying as well. I completely respect that approach, and every other approach - treated or not. If I had real answers, I might get pushy, but as far as I can tell, no one's got it figured out. I think the best approach is to follow what you believe and to remain open to listening to the beliefs of others at the same time.

Zhiv9, Jim, 

Ever since I heard Keith Delaplane's talk on Polyandry, I've really been convinced that the mating of a queen to as many drones from as many different strong colonies - from as many different genetic backgrounds - as possible may be the biggest key to the adaptable strength of the bee. It's as if each "family" or genetic line has slightly different strengths, and the broadest mating equates to the biggest "tool belt" for surviving all the world throws at them.

So I have to admit, even the idea of what I said about minimizing the drones in some of the colonies that are treated, or suffering from mite damage makes me wonder:

*What "tools" might be lost with those drones?*


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> *What "tools" might be lost with those drones?*


Even above the genetic level, there are things drones can do for us. The first one I can think of is a bait for mites. I posted results of a survey I did earlier this year where I actually pulled brood out and counted mites. I was very disappointed that I got no engagement on it whatsoever. I still wonder why. Check it out: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-and-Worker-Brood-in-a-Treatment-Free-Colony 

What I found confirmed the theories treatment-free beekeepers have had for a long time, that mites infest drones more, and that one method my bees use is to suppress mite reproduction. Mites infesting in drone brood preferentially leaves the hive still capable of functioning effectively with a high mite load. 

Drones can also be in large numbers from other hives which can throw in some further perplexing dynamics.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Isn't it?


Let me push on the idea that TF is a path and not a solution. It is a solution, but not a solution in the way that most treatments are solutions. They are a finite solution. There are these mite, kill them mites, mites are gone, bees go on. TF is not that sort of solution. TF is a continuing solution, like fuel injection is a solution for how to get gasoline into an engine in the correct ratio with air. It's a piece put in place but requires a little input and the rest is automatic operation, feedback and adjustment provided by the machine itself.

I see so often people claim they tried it and then resorted to treating. I don't know why if you kill mites with treatments would you expect that ceasing treatments would somehow result (in a similar timetable) that the mites would still get killed. This applies to all those newbees who buy their package in March and the hive is dead by Christmas. It's not the same sort of solution. However, when you get to the sustainable stage, the solution is there. The solution is already in place and the problem is solved. Now I worry about other things. As far as handling mites and disease, I'm at the end of the path and off down another path doing something else. Maybe TF is a destination, but if it is, it is one from which the journey may continue. Pushing the map analogy further, it's picking which state in which you want to live. Now I'm in the state, but there are a whole lot more places to go.


----------



## Saltybee

Solomon, I did read that, did not comment as a really had not and have not settled the implications to mine in my head. Not new info but a clear demonstration. Drone laying stops for the season and the mites go? 
The need to locally adapt purchased survivor stock indicates that it is not only the local bees that need improving it is the local mites. Parasites shouild not kill the host. TF keepers should sell their mite stock, not just their queens.
I know I have read it before but the worst part of treating may be that it promotes the success of the fastest breeding mites.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I posted results of a survey I did earlier this year where I actually pulled brood out and counted mites. I was very disappointed that I got no engagement on it whatsoever. I still wonder why. Check it out: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-and-Worker-Brood-in-a-Treatment-Free-Colony
> 
> What I found confirmed the theories treatment-free beekeepers have had for a long time, that mites infest drones more, and that one method my bees use is to suppress mite reproduction.


Sorry Solomon was it me you wanted to respond? I did read your post at the time but didn't think to respond as your post at the time was good information, your findings what would be expected, and the mechanisms already well understood. But I can offer some comments now if you like.

That mites prefer drone brood is not one of " the theories treatment-free beekeepers have had for a long time". It's a fact. There is no need to wonder why nobody responded, I don't think there was a conspiracy, just it's normal in any hive large or small cell, to find mites preferentially breeding on drones.

Couple of other bits of info on it you have not already mentioned, mites can reproduce from twice to four times as quickly on drone brood than worker, thanks to the better new mite survival rate, and also, infested drone larvae are more likely to have multiple foundress mites in the cell with them, allowing outcrossing of the mites through sexual reproduction with a different family, so this is probably a good thing for the mites and a bad thing for us.

As you don't treat you may not be aware, but one way beekeepers who treat decide when treatment is needed, is "maximum mite thresholds". A common maximum mite threshold is 25% of drone larvae infested, or 6% of worker larvae. I noted at the time that your hive was over this on both counts, at 7% for worker larvae, and 27% for drone larvae. Now here is where it gets interesting. When varroa were first introduced to your country and mine, the critical thresholds were higher. Then over the next few years as mite related pathogens such as DWV became more widespread, the critical threshold had to be lowered to the levels I mentioned.
So, your hive has more mites than the critical levels for both worker, and drone larvae. But ( i'm assuming), the hive appeared healthy. Is it still healthy? If so, it may be less mite resistance you have in your bees, but more of resistance to mite related pathogens. Allowing the bees to appear healthy even with a high mite load.

Just a few thoughts. Make sense?


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> Mites infesting in drone brood preferentially leaves the hive still capable of functioning effectively with a high mite load.


i suppose that explains why colonies that are strong and productive during spring and summer mysteriously crash in the fall and winter. at the end of summer when drones are no longer being raised the mites turn to worker brood for reproduction, and when brooding is over and the number of bees decreases to winter cluster size the infestation rate goes way up.

i've only got a few more supers to harvest and then we'll see what the alcohol wash counts are in my yard and how those compare to colony strength, production, and winter survival.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> i suppose that explains why colonies that are strong and productive during spring and summer mysteriously crash in the fall and winter.


That seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Therefore one would need bees adapted to deal with mites at that point, or prevent that point from happening. I had a hive that was totally visibly infested with mites at that point, yet survived the winter unfed and unprepared because I had expected it to die. So that makes winter losses that much more important an indicator in the ability to deal with mites.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oldtimer said:


> As you don't treat you may not be aware, but one way beekeepers who treat decide when treatment is needed, is "maximum mite thresholds". A common maximum mite threshold is 25% of drone larvae infested, or 6% of worker larvae. I noted at the time that your hive was over this on both counts, at 7% for worker larvae, and 27% for drone larvae. Now here is where it gets interesting. When varroa were first introduced to your country and mine, the critical thresholds were higher. Then over the next few years as mite related pathogens such as DWV became more widespread, the critical threshold had to be lowered to the levels I mentioned.
> So, your hive has more mites than the critical levels for both worker, and drone larvae. But ( i'm assuming), the hive appeared healthy. Is it still healthy? If so, it may be less mite resistance you have in your bees, but more of resistance to mite related pathogens. Allowing the bees to appear healthy even with a high mite load.
> 
> Just a few thoughts. Make sense?


Sorry to quote myself folks  but had a few more thoughts from it.

Years ago, around the turn of the century, the VSH breeding program was seen as one of the greatest hopes to produce a resistant bee. But now, years later, it has not eventuated as hoped.

This might be because VSH focusses on just one mechanism, to target mites. The bond method, in theory anyway, does not target one thing, it selects purely on the basis of weather a hive can survive in mite infested areas. That ability to survive might possibly include ability to resist mite related pathogens. The evidence presented by Sol, ie, mite loads regarded as critically high in a typical treated hive but no apparent harm, would support that theory.

Make sense?


----------



## LetMBee

Old timer: that is why the true live and let die method is what I am using. I don't care what mechanism(s) they ultimately come up with. Nature rarely comes up with a method in a methodical planned way. Nature comes up with solutions that we can't even predict. I wrote a blog piece last year about how Japanese honey bees overcome Asian hornets..... Who would have thought bees would have come up with a temperature dependent way to actively kill hornet scouts..... But ut did. It would be interesting to know how long ago Japanese honey bees came up with this defense and how long it took. 

If you read langstroth you can see how much more severe the wax moth used to be as a pest. He called it the bee wolf. Today they are a pain in weak/dying hives, but back in his time they must have been more virulent or the genetic lines of bees who existed here in America had become so weak in the absence of moths for 80-100 years.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Solomon Parker said:


> ... I see so often people claim they tried it and then resorted to treating. I don't know why if you kill mites with treatments would you expect that ceasing treatments would somehow result (in a similar timetable) that the mites would still get killed...


That's the central reason behind my original post and the tread title. As one approaches the idea of being treatment free, they shouldn't approach it in the same way they might approach the use of oxalic acid or MAQS, or wintering nucs for that matter. 

Running bees without treatments is not a solution or an answer the way specific treatments or management strategies are. Being treatment free only means not treating, and then choosing a combination of a number of methods and management techniques to find a balance where you can reach your goals with the bees. 

I think for too many people, their decision-making process around mites reads something like this:

Essential Oils.
(and/or)
Drone brood removal
(and/or)
Sugar shake
(and/or)
Organic Acids
(and/or)
Small cell
(and/or)
Thymol
(and/or)
Treatment Free

Treatment free is not a method of dealing with mites. It a choice to not treat for mites. In that sense it a direction, or the beginning of a path. Once you are to the point where you are operating successfully without treating (reaching your own goals with your bees), then I guess you could say have reached a "destination" in that you've achieved something. But you could also say that you just remain on that treatment free path toward a variety of other goals; season after season. From there it's likely just things like getting them through winter, building up in spring, selling nucs, rearing queens and making honey - just like it is for most other beekeepers. You're just doing it without treating.

So in that sense I feel that the decision should begin with 

Beekeeping with Treatments for mites
(and/or)
Treatment Free Beekeeping

Only after that decision is made does that first list of solutions come into play.

Adam


----------



## Solomon Parker

American foul brood used to be much more common and virulent as well. Ed Levi told us (at the Big Bee Buzz last year) about how it got imported from France into Egypt through the importation of queens. There, it destroyed entire apiaries, dozens of hives at once. Here in the US, where AFB hives have been burned for many years, it doesn't appear very often except in hives previously treated with antibiotics, giving it a foothold. Burning an AFB hive would be akin to the "Accelerated Bond Test" for AFB where the varroa version uses heavily infested frames to infect a hive.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Running bees without treatments is not a solution or an answer the way specific treatments or management strategies are.


Yes, but why is it so often categorized that way?

I was thinking today, relating modern beekeeping with historical beekeeping. From what I understand, the sort of increase I practice was common 80 or more years ago. However, there seems to be this pervasive undercurrent today that a hive should in the right conditions be immortal. Requeening, treating, and other practices are structured such that it is the unspoken opinion of many beekeepers that a hive should never die. I say this is all wrong, and there are so many problems that creep up. The first problem is the aging of comb as it collects environmental chemicals, viruses, bacteria, and the older it gets, the more attractive it becomes to wax moths. Hives are supposed to eventually die out just like everything else gets old and dies. I say we use this to our benefit and stop trying to manage contrary to nature. It is good to cycle out comb. It is good for weak hives to die. I agree with Kirk Webster in the idea that mites are beneficial in that they weed out the weak. Hives are not immortal and there's no reason to get worried about one dying.


----------



## Harley Craig

Solomon Parker said:


> Yes, but why is it so often categorized that way?
> 
> I was thinking today, relating modern beekeeping with historical beekeeping. From what I understand, the sort of increase I practice was common 80 or more years ago. However, there seems to be this pervasive undercurrent today that a hive should in the right conditions be immortal. Requeening, treating, and other practices are structured such that it is the unspoken opinion of many beekeepers that a hive should never die. I say this is all wrong, and there are so many problems that creep up. The first problem is the aging of comb as it collects environmental chemicals, viruses, bacteria, and the older it gets, the more attractive it becomes to wax moths. Hives are supposed to eventually die out just like everything else gets old and dies. I say we use this to our benefit and stop trying to manage contrary to nature. It is good to cycle out comb. It is good for weak hives to die. I agree with Kirk Webster in the idea that mites are beneficial in that they weed out the weak. Hives are not immortal and there's no reason to get worried about one dying.




Isn't this the way it usually works with Ferrell colonies, Mite loads get high enough bees obscond or die , wax moth, etc move in, clean out and destroy the old comb and then at some point a new colony moves in and starts the process over?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Harley Craig said:


> Mite loads get high enough bees obscond or die , wax moth, etc move in, clean out and destroy the old comb and then at some point a new colony moves in and starts the process over?


That's one way it can work. It doesn't have to be mites. In a hive able to deal well with mites, it would more likely be the loss of a virgin on her mating flight, or starvation, or a skunk or who knows what.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good post LetMBee. The bond method works in accordance with evolutionary theory. So what cannot survive unaided dies. As per evolutionary theory there have been extinctions, and that's where the bond method can fail, as a method. As in my case, my losses were 100%. Which is quite in accordance with evolutionary theory and what has happened when two alien species encounter each other, historically, more species have become extinct than are currently alive. So it didn't advance my quest to produce a better bee at all. If a person gets some survivors though, he has a chance.

Even Solomon, after some years of doing the bond method, got wiped down at one time to only two hives. He could just as easily lost everything, like me. It happens.

Re the AFB thing, there is no evidence that bees are more resistant to it because infested hives have been burned. Those hives would have died anyway if they could not withstand the disease, as has been happening throughout the ages.
The real thing that got AFB kicked off was the beginning of widespread transportation of bees and equipment last century. AFB then became an epidemic both in my country, and parts of the US. Strong government policy has now brought the disease to small proportions in both countries. Solomon if you think your bees are resistant to it try infecting all your hives with it. The likelihood is that more than 1/2 of them will become symptomatic.

How do I know that? You would be amazed at the things I have seen, and the people I have met, during my work as an AFB inspector.

So hey just kidding don't REALLY do that LOL.


----------



## eyeonyou

Dear Friends
Green Chapel Farms has maintained an experimental hive for 3 years with no internal treatment for mites. We do use beetle traps filled with mineral oil. This spring, we added a second hive. Our answer to Varroa and other bee parasites has been Lavender and Mint plantings in front of the hive. A recent "Sugar Shake" reveled no presence of the Varroa mite. This is not to say that the hive is Varroa free, but the mite has been suppressed to the point that it is not visible or detectable through this testing method. The test was conducted by a Commercial Apiary not affiliated with our study.
Our goal is self-sustaining hives. While we have not attained this goal yet, this hive is entered only 4 times a year, and is thriving. It has split twice this year, and was honey bound when the mite test was conducted 2 weeks ago. 
We are biologists and horticulturists, not professional beekeepers. This project was undertaken to test a theory about the antiseptic and insecticidal properties of certain plants.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hey good to hear from you Eyeonyou, I remember chatting with you in your introductory thread some time back and have wondered since what became of you. So pleased it's working out.

It was also an interesting thread, so here's a link to it
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?281956-Green-Chapel-Trials&p=932747#post932747


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

eyeonyou said:


> ... Our answer to Varroa and other bee parasites has been Lavender and Mint plantings in front of the hive....mite has been suppressed to the point that it is not visible or detectable through this testing method....This project was undertaken to test a theory about the antiseptic and insecticidal properties of certain plants.


Interesting. How big are the plantings? I must admit, I doubt the connection between the plants and mites, as I have these plants near my hives, (as many people likely do). However, I do wonder about the effects of vast amounts of plants such as lavender, peppermint, and thyme.

Do the french lavender apiaries have an absence of mites that could be attributed to the plants?

I did think of this when Tim Ives was touting the effectiveness of triple deeps, but on his facebook page, showed pictures of fields of peppermint, and I wondered if it was having an effect...

Adam


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Oldtimer said:


> ...The bond method works in accordance with evolutionary theory. So what cannot survive unaided dies. As per evolutionary theory there have been extinctions, and that's where the bond method can fail, as a method. As in my case, my losses were 100%...If a person gets some survivors though, he has a chance...


True, and in this case, we already have honeybees who have gone through this process - with varroa - and come through it successfully, by all accounts again thriving as they did before the mite.

We have isolated populations in France and Sweden, and then we have apis cerana who have evolved to a place that lives in balance with varroa. So in this case, we already have evidence that our bees can and will find that balance if allowed to do so.

Adam


----------



## jbeshearse

Solomon Parker said:


> Burning an AFB hive would be akin to the "Accelerated Bond Test" for AFB where the varroa version uses heavily infested frames to infect a hive.


Not at all. "The Accelerated Bond test", at least as I understand it is let it live or die on its own. Then in the process the hive sits how long before it is cleaned of the pathogen that killed it. In that time who knows how many robbers have come in to allow the pathogen to spread. With the burn test, it ends with the hive, before it dies and has the opportunity to spread pathogens via robbers etc. That is the entire purpose of burning. Do you burn your bond test failures before they die? Don't think so.


----------



## Oldtimer

Adam Foster Collins said:


> True, and in this case, we already have honeybees who have gone through this process - with varroa - and come through it successfully, by all accounts again thriving as they did before the mite.
> 
> We have isolated populations in France and Sweden, and then we have apis cerana who have evolved to a place that lives in balance with varroa. So in this case, we already have evidence that our bees can and will find that balance if allowed to do so.


Quite right!

Just remember though about cerana, since we are running with the theory of evolution, it's pretty likely they and varroa evolved in tandem.


----------



## jbeshearse

Solomon Parker said:


> So that makes winter losses that much more important an indicator in the ability to deal with mites.


How do you determine that mites were the cause of the winter losses if you are not monitoring them?



Solomon Parker said:


> Hives are supposed to eventually die out just like everything else gets old and dies. I say we use this to our benefit and stop trying to manage contrary to nature. It is good to cycle out comb........Hives are not immortal and there's no reason to get worried about one dying.



I completely agree.



Solomon Parker said:


> It is good for weak hives to die.


Depends on why they are weak. Are they weak because the virgin mated poorly due to weather, etc, or because they got into some pesticide... or just plain bad luck in the brood cycle and dearth. To let them all die for unusual circumstance is not good. If you are not monitoring your hives for problems and then determining the reason they died, you may be losing resistant bees to poor circumstance rather than poor genetics or survival skills.


----------



## jbeshearse

Oldtimer said:


> Quite right!
> 
> Just remember though about cerana, since we are running with the theory of evolution, it's pretty likely they and varroa evolved in tandem.


The crux of the problem is that we don't really want evolution to be in control. As its solution may not favor our continued existence. We may end up with cape bees that produce no honey, or bees that are so defensive they cannot be managed. Evolution is a crap shoot for us as beekeepers and as humans, and most don't want to take the chance.

All our treatments or non-treatments with selected genetics are our poor attempts to manage evolution in our favor. Our track record says we will fail.


----------



## LetMBee

Oldtimer: 

I have heard different projected dates as to how long honey bees have been on earth. I have seen 50 - 80 - 100 million years. I dont know how long they have been here, but it is a lot longer than humans. Something tells me this is not the most horrible thing they have dealt with as a species in that vast amount of time. I am thinking that the feral bees around here are already dealing with varroa. I catch swarms consistently year to year in the same locations where there is no active beekeeping.


----------



## LetMBee

Jbeshearse: if you look at how long humans have taken care of honeybees think about how long sugar has been cheaply available and treatments were even invented. There were times when beekeepers had terrible losses, but bees made it and they are still making honey. We are not the first beekeepers in history to be dealing with problems.

My bees require the use of protective clothing on hive manipulations, but they aren't mean. One more reason to leave them to their work. I have more faith in honeybees than to think that this is the end for them. I guess we will find out, but I have my money on the bees.


----------



## eyeonyou

Dear beesource Friends
Many changes have taken place since our initial introduction here.
Our first research summary was published in the Solutions Journal. A copy of the summary can be read at LINK
Our study in its entirety has not received a warm welcome from the Dept of Agriculture or any of the government agencies to whom it was submitted.

Adam
Spanish Lavender is planted directly in front of the hive entrance, so that the bees are forced to fly through it in order to enter the hive. Mints are planted to the left, Right and rear of the hive.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Oldtimer said:


> Quite right!
> 
> Just remember though about cerana, since we are running with the theory of evolution, it's pretty likely they and varroa evolved in tandem.


Quite right, to you too sir. But cerana's (japonica) specialized "tools" for dealing with pests like hornets (as mentioned in post #95) suggest an incredible ability on the part of the honeybee to adapt to overcome predators and parasites. Varroa Destructor will should be no different.

But will she be as quick to get there with all the "help" people are throwing into the mix?

Adam


----------



## eyeonyou

Addressing the hypothesis of evolution:

It is the opinion of our research team that queen building (supersedure) may be undertaken by the colony in order to address genetic deficits, Given time and opportunity (a comfortable environment) 

I must say, our control group has taught us much about the survivability of different strains under difficult conditions. The control group is made up of 25 hives of different varieties. Buckfast, Italian and Russian. During the past 3 years of this trial, all varieties in the control group have suffered winter and early spring losses except for the Buckfast, with the Italians suffering the greatest losses. 

A Buckfast Colony from the control group were our genetic predecessors.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

eyeonyou said:


> ...During the past 3 years of this trial, all varieties in the control group have suffered winter and early spring losses except for the Buckfast...


Interesting.

I brought in 5 Buckfast queens from Bill Ferguson last year, and two remain. So far, they are not stand-outs in any way. I realize, of course that it is a small sample, and the genetically diverse background of the Buckfast bee is desirable in principal, provided they are obtained from a quality breeder.

From what I gather, the Buckfast is not the Buckfast Brother Adam created, but if one can trace the stock back to his apiary, at least there's a heritage.

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

jbeshearse said:


> Depends on why they are weak. Are they weak because the virgin mated poorly due to weather, etc, or because they got into some pesticide... or just plain bad luck in the brood cycle and dearth. To let them all die for unusual circumstance is not good. If you are not monitoring your hives for problems and then determining the reason they died, you may be losing resistant bees to poor circumstance rather than poor genetics or survival skills.


I think its unlikely that the beekeeper is in a better position than nature to make that judgement. Keeping stock alive against nature, and then putting it to the breeding pool is asking for trouble, and runs counter to the essential process of population husbandry. 

If its ill, send it to market while it still has a value. Put only best to best. In an open mating population this is still more important. Interfering with nature's process by preserving weakness amounts to genetic poisoning of the local breeding pool.

Staying alive and thriving is a complex business for bees, and they need to fine tune their own mechanisms. Interfering with their health prevents that happening, period.

As a treament free beekeeper you have to focus on the health of the breeding pool, not the health of the individual. That's pet keeping.

With that said, I agree that having some bees is to be in a better position than having no bees. I think the solution must always be to make many more bees, so that you can let the dice roll with a better change of ending the game with some bees. With that priority, perhaps a good question for a new thread might focus on rapid increase without creating false readings for selection. What do others think? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> But will she be as quick to get there with all the "help" people are throwing into the mix?Adam


Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate*, Ingemar Friesa, Anton Imdorfb, Peter Rosenkrantzc

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2006/05/m6039.pdf

"Our results allow us to conclude that the problems facing the apicultural industry with mite infestations is probably linked to the apicultural system, where beekeepers remove the selective pressure induced from the parasitism by removing mites through control efforts."

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

I read your research summary, an interesting read. I think I may know one reason why it was not "warmly received", which would be the recommendation that commercial beekeepers keep their hives 200 feet apart from each other. As the recipient would know this can not happen, there is no need in their mind, to investigate further.
Having said that, I agree that having hives 200 feet apart would be a good thing from the bees point of view in several ways. Just, it cannot be done.



eyeonyou said:


> The control group is made up of 25 hives of different varieties. Buckfast, Italian and Russian. During the past 3 years of this trial, all varieties in the control group have suffered winter and early spring losses except for the Buckfast, with the Italians suffering the greatest losses.


Did any Italians survive the 3 years? And if so were they pure or hybrid, and if hybrid, do you know what with?


----------



## zhiv9

Oldtimer said:


> Having said that, I agree that having hives 200 feet apart would be a good thing from the bees point of view in several ways. Just, it cannot be done.


Seeley made a similar observation regarding the feral colonies in the Arnott forest. He suggested that the bees hadn't really developed any real resistance, but that the mites had adapted to be not as virulent. He suggested that the longer distances between feral colonies helped with this.


----------



## LetMBee

Zhive9:

More adaptive bees..... Less virulent varroa... I will take either so long as it means live colonies in the spring. There is a cup half full argument for allowing weak hives to die in the winter. The mites in those hives die too. Therefore it is the end of the genetic line for those varroa. When an untreated hive swarms less virulent varroa most likely tag along. Sounds plausible to me.


----------



## squarepeg

LetMBee said:


> Zhive9:
> 
> More adaptive bees..... Less virulent varroa... I will take either so long as it means live colonies in the spring.
> 
> _it will take both to reach a tolerable host/parasite equilibrium._
> 
> 
> There is a cup half full argument for allowing weak hives to die in the winter. The mites in those hives die too. Therefore it is the end of the genetic line for those varroa.
> 
> _not the case, the dying hive will be robbed out by nearby colonies thereby spreading the genetics of the colony crashing varroa._


jmho


----------



## Solomon Parker

jbeshearse said:


> Not at all.


Speaking in the genetic sense, about dying. Dying is my primary selection tool. It's a very effective tool.




jbeshearse said:


> "The Accelerated Bond test", at least as I understand it is let it live or die on its own.


No, that's the Bond Test. The Accelerated Bond Test is when several frames heavily infested with varroa are introduced in the hive. The hive can either then clean it up, or die, thus accelerated. What is it deknow said about staring at the link is not appropriate preparation for talking about it? http://www.meamcneil.com/John Kefuss Keeping Bees That Keep Themselves.pdf "Live and let die" = Bond Test "Survive or die now" = Bond Accelerated Test




jbeshearse said:


> Then in the process the hive sits how long before it is cleaned of the pathogen that killed it.


The difference is all hives already have AFB spores by default.




jbeshearse said:


> How do you determine that mites were the cause of the winter losses if you are not monitoring them?


Well, if the hive doesn't die, the mites probably weren't a problem. But think about what you're asking. How do I know it was mites? Why do I care? They're dead. It's not like I'm going to find a dead hive and think to myself "I better make a note not to breed from this hive, they are not good at dealing with mites." They're dead. Context. The nature of the mite causes overwintering to be one of the hardest times of the year for the hive due to lack of drones and brood, with a lowered population and therefore a higher concentration of mites after a long active season. Therefore, overwintering success is an important indicator in the ability to deal with mites, which is exactly what I said.




jbeshearse said:


> Depends on why they are weak. ...you may be losing resistant bees to poor circumstance rather than poor genetics or survival skills.


There is no such thing as luck. If they are weak, they are weak, tough cookies. If it's because of a virgin, then they superseded or swarmed at the wrong time. Suck it up and deal or face extinction. That's how it works. I keep bees, not pets.


----------



## WLC

First of all, it's the viruses transmitted by Varroa to Honeybees that do the killing. So, they need to bee virus resistant for the most part.

Secondly, investigators have now found that DWV can infect and replicate in Bombus impatiens, the common eastern bumblebee.

With a new, very large, environmental reservoir, and with the new horizontal pathway of virus transmission from Bombus impatiens, to pollen source, to Honeybee, to Varroa, and back again, I'd say that the 'Bond" hypothesis has a serious flaw.

You're better off getting resistant stock from feral trapouts/swarms or other known resistant stock.

One method can be justified as a form of conservation: removing exotic livestock from the environment.

The other one raises the question, "Why take risks with an invasive virus?" .


----------



## Michael Bush

>There is no such thing as luck. 

But there is. Survival of the lucky has always been around and the demise of the unlucky. Bees have to gamble to survive and if that gamble on when the flow will start fails miserably they die. A lot of success is timing.

>How do you determine that mites were the cause of the winter losses if you are not monitoring them?

It's not hard to count dead mites on the bottom board of a dead hive. Not hard at all to estimate if they are in the tens of thousands... or you have trouble finding them...

>This might be because VSH focusses on just one mechanism, to target mites. The bond method, in theory anyway, does not target one thing, it selects purely on the basis of weather a hive can survive in mite infested areas. That ability to survive might possibly include ability to resist mite related pathogens. 

And I think this is essential. Survival may be a complex interaction or it may just be a combination of things that reach some critical mass. In other words if there are ten things that contribute to survival, and they have seven of them that might be what it takes, no matter which seven. Reality is I don't think we know what it takes exactly. But it is easy to measure survival.


----------



## LetMBee

WLC: True it is the viruses, but the mites also parasitize the bees. You are correct though in that bees need to develop a defense against the the vector (mites) as well as the pathogenic viruses, but I do not doubt that they can do this. Varroa came from another parasite host relationship where both were able to coexist. Given time they will do the same with honeybees. The viral vector problem is not totally solved by hygienic stock. The idea of hygienic stock has been around for a little while. I don't think it is a magic bullet. 

You make an interesting point... Is all of this shipping of bees across the world a good idea?


----------



## Solomon Parker

There is chance and skill. Chance is the number of questions on the test you know the answers to. Skill is the total number of answers you know. 

Gambling is not luck. Gambling is skill and chance. The worst gambler has the chance of winning occasionally. The best gambler can win with the worst cards. Survival of the lucky is the same as survival of the treated. Once one stops getting treated, one returns to survival of the fittest. Luck is combination of things occasionally working out by chance and the human tendency to forget about it when it didn't work.

Is it harsh, are my methods cruel, am I a cold heartless so and so? Yes. But my bees are awesome. “The Bond Test keeps you very busy doing nothing” - John Kefuss


----------



## Oldtimer

Nice to find some people agreeing with me from time to time.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Michael Bush said:


> _This might be because VSH focusses on just one mechanism, to target mites. The bond method, in theory anyway, does not target one thing, it selects purely on the basis of weather a hive can survive in mite infested areas. That ability to survive might possibly include ability to resist mite related pathogens. _
> 
> And I think this is essential. Survival may be a complex interaction or it may just be a combination of things that reach some critical mass. In other words if there are ten things that contribute to survival, and they have seven of them that might be what it takes, no matter which seven. *Reality is I don't think we know what it takes exactly.* But it is easy to measure survival.


Mike, this is the sticking point for me, and what caused me to make that decision to quit treating 15 months ago. I realized that we just don't know if anything we're doing is causing as much long term harm as it causes short term gain. I realized that through everything I could see through my research and experience, the bee is largely a mystery to us. So from my perspective, the best we can do is to employ a minimalist approach - mess with her and her ways as little as possible.

Adam


----------



## jbeshearse

Solomon Parker said:


> That's how it works. I keep bees, not pets.


I keep bees not pets also. 



Solomon Parker said:


> Chance is the number of questions on the test you know the answers to. Skill is the total number of answers you know.


Chance is just a mathematical view of luck. Chance/Luck is the number of questions on the test you know. Knowledge is the total number of answers you know. Skill is knowing how to present the correct answer.



Solomon Parker said:


> The best gambler can win with the worst cards.


The only reason a gambler can win with the worst cards is that nobody calls his bluff. Mother Nature always calls the bluff.



Solomon Parker said:


> Survival of the lucky is the same as survival of the treated


Nice turn of phrase, but not an accurate analogy. 



Solomon Parker said:


> The difference is all hives already have AFB spores by default.


That is a bold, unsupported and frankly false statement.



Solomon Parker said:


> No, that's the Bond Test. The Accelerated Bond Test is when several frames heavily infested with varroa are introduced in the hive. The hive can either then clean it up, or die, thus accelerated. What is it deknow said about staring at the link is not appropriate preparation for talking about it? http://www.meamcneil.com/John Kefuss Keeping Bees That Keep Themselves.pdf "Live and let die" = Bond Test "Survive or die now" = Bond Accelerated Test


You still don’t reference that burning hives was to prevent spread, and the accelerated bond has nothing in common with burning an AFB hive, which was your original assertion and prompted my initial reply. (but you are more than willing I see to try some small digs along the way, get a bigger shovel if you need to)



Solomon Parker said:


> Therefore, overwintering success is an important indicator in the ability to deal with mites, which is exactly what I said.


Yet since you don’t monitor mites, you are guessing, and assuming that mites were the problem. You don’t know, and I know you don’t care. Which is fine. But you make an unsupported assumption every time you speculate on why the hive died. “My hive is mite resistant because it overwintered.” Yet it could have survived because a brood cycle break at the right time to keep the mite populations in check. You just don’t know. Didn’t you say you lost all your hives when you moved, mainly because they could not overwinter? Did they die because they had mites, or because they could not adjust to the new climate? I hear you say how southern queens don’t do well up north. Is it because those dang northern mites are more virulent, or is it climate. Once again, you don’t know, and you don’t care. And once again, that is fine by me. You have your ways, I have mine. Both are valid and apparently adequately work for each of us. 

A few last questions and I am done. Is overwintering success an important indicator in the ability to deal with mites in treated hives? If not, then why do they die? Possibly from the same things that caused non-treated overwintering deaths. Which is a way of me asking is it not plausible that your varroa resistance is higher than you think, since you don’t know why the hives that did not overwinter failed?


----------



## jbeshearse

Adam Foster Collins said:


> So from my perspective, the best we can do is to employ a minimalist approach - mess with her and her ways as little as possible.
> 
> Adam


I agree completely. I think where most get into issues is trying to determine what "as little as possible" is.

On one end of the spectrum we and do nothing at all, place them in a manmade structure and use them as much as we can. On the other end, we do everything humanly possible, within our knowledge to aid in their survival, due to the circumstances we have placed them in, which are not natural. Is one right the other wrong, I don't think so, we are all capable of choosing our own path, ad that is what your thread is about and a good one at that. I agree it's a path, not a destination, as is life in general. Its all about the trip, not the arrival.


----------



## mike bispham

jbeshearse said:


> ... we are all capable of choosing our own path, ad that is what your thread is about and a good one at that. I agree it's a path, not a destination, as is life in general. Its all about the trip, not the arrival.


I think the thread title is stimulating, but I'm not sure I'd agree with it as a statement of what is. 

Traditional husbandry/the Bond Method _is_ a solution to the problem of the day. That is, poor health bought about by mites. (The viruses that are vectored by mites are btw incidental - there is little point in paying them any attention as without mites they are nothing.)

Proper population husbandry fixes the problem, which is non-adaptation, due to: first, introduction of a foreign parasite, second, prevention of adaptation/co-evolution by systematic widespread treating. 

Getting to the point where the new/old system is working, ticking along as natural and human selective mechanisms systematically maintain the what-it-is-bees-need-to-thrive is what I'd describe as the journey - to the destination - which is the new/old equilibrium. 

The method/s are both the path (which way to go) AND the solution. 

Non-treatment is both the goal and the means to the goal. And the means to maintaining the goal.

Stopping smoking cigarettes is the solution to stopping nicotine addiction AND the goal of the path 'giving up smoking'.

The goal is an equilibrium between mite, bee and beekeeper. That is not a state where the beekeeper can do nothing because everything is 'fixed.' That isn't how population husbandry works. And there isn't a (successful) other sort.

Ruminating over, thanks for the opportunity.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Good post LetMBee. The bond method works in accordance with evolutionary theory. So what cannot survive unaided dies. As per evolutionary theory there have been extinctions, and that's where the bond method can fail, as a method. As in my case, my losses were 100%. Which is quite in accordance with evolutionary theory and what has happened when two alien species encounter each other, historically, more species have become extinct than are currently alive. So it didn't advance my quest to produce a better bee at all. If a person gets some survivors though, he has a chance.


Its worth remembering that evolution works on lots of different levels, and offers explanations for different things. In the main it supplies the scientifically accepted explanation for the rise of new species. That addresses as specific questions like: how did the different species arise; why do there appear to be similarities across species, close-cousin species and so on. So that is about the causes of life-forms and their relations and differentiation. Its also a big part of the explanation of how life itself arose in the first place. 

Natural selection for the fittest strains is that part of evolutionary theory that explains the mechanism by which evolution occurs. 

Separately (though in a related way) NSFTFS offers an explanation for how populations maintain health in the face of changing environments, in particular, new predators. This addresses questions about the here and now, rather than deep historical ones. 

NSFTFS (together with an understanding of genetic inheritance and genetic diversity) explains the ability of populations to adapt to such changes as new parasites and diseases, through changes that are often not evolution in the sense of something new arising, but still evolution in the sense that those best fitted to the present enviroment tend to reproduce in the greatest number. 

That is the bit that husbandry focuses on: trying to stay one step ahead of nature's winnowing (negative selection if you like) by emphasising the parental selection processes (positive selection - which also operates in lots of different way in nature - in competitive mating behaviours for example). 

In husbandry that parental selection process has two aspects: a) obtaining sound breeding stock in the first place, b) keeping the population healthy by selecting the healthiest parents to make each new generation. These aspects supply principles, are conditions that, to the extent they are satisfied, will alleviate the dangers of failure due to inadequate genes. In all forms of husbandry they are the primary health tool.

I think Oldtimer that what happened to you was that nature terminated your bloodlines (for whatever reasons.) That doesn't have very much in common with the idea of extinction. Its just husbandry gone wrong because one of those conditions wasn't sufficiently satisfied, or because something external to genetics occurred, or both.

Mike (UK)


----------



## eyeonyou

Dear Oldtimer

Mt Toler has kept an italian hive afloat, but he has had to feed these bees and monitor them quite a bit. Although I cannot state this with any surety, I would say the Italian hives are hybrids. I will inquire.
The Buckfast Queens in our control group were purchased from Canada. Ferguson Apiaries.
Mr Toler has had little success with Buckfast Queens purchased in the US. In fact, Both Buckfast queens he purchased from R Weaver this year, were destroyed by the colony within 30 days of their introduction and replaced with a custom queen.


----------



## eyeonyou

Dear Adam Foster Collins

It is interesting to observe, that a strain or Queen, warmly received by one colony can be soundly rejected in another. Colonies are certainly aware of their own needs, and by our observations, waste no time in setting about exacting changes to fulfill those needs.

Dear Oldtimer

You have surmised the basis of an element of our rejection to be sure. We have learned that there will never be a "meeting of the minds" between Conservationists and Commercial beekeepers. 

I'm sure you noticed that we disenfranchised the Naturalists as well, by using Bayer Chemicals within a close proximity of these hives. We are after the truth in these matters, and have not landed soundly in one Camp or the other. We will continue to publish our findings,....and buy a stainless steel umbrella.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

eyeonyou said:


> Dear Adam Foster Collins
> 
> It is interesting to observe, that a strain or Queen, warmly received by one colony can be soundly rejected in another. Colonies are certainly aware of their own needs, and by our observations, waste no time in setting about exacting changes to fulfill those needs.


True. In our case, the Buckfasts were accepted readily enough, and they survived the winter. They just haven't yet been stand-outs in terms of health or performance, and some failed during our poor spring. Still too early to give a true assessment, and in truth, I'd like to import some more in order to make sure it wasn't "luck of the draw", or just my own failures that caused them to struggle.

Adam


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

mike bispham said:


> I think the thread title is stimulating, but I'm not sure I'd agree with it as a statement of what is.
> 
> Traditional husbandry/the Bond Method _is_ a solution to the problem of the day...
> 
> The method/s are both the path (which way to go) AND the solution.
> 
> Non-treatment is both the goal and the means to the goal. And the means to maintaining the goal.
> 
> Stopping smoking cigarettes is the solution to stopping nicotine addiction AND the goal of the path 'giving up smoking'...


Not everyone who is treatment free is will be practicing traditional husbandry. Many many treatment free beekeepers (and I might even venture to say the majority of treatment free beekeepers) will simply be buying more bees next spring. I say that based on my own experience in communicating with new beekeepers who are working just a hive or two and going treatment free.

So while breeding is a method that can be seen as a solution, simply not treating is not a solution in itself.

Quitting smoking is not a method of quitting smoking; it's just the path - moving from a state of active engagement in an addictive practice, to a state of abstaining, and then (hopefully) to a state where you just don't have the urge anymore, and don't miss it. How you manage to quit could involve innumerable methods along the way. (For me, it took 12 years and all kinds of methods). Seems simple enough, but somehow it isn't.

Stopping smoking or treatments is not a solution, but a momentary decision which must be made over and over again, each time the urge to "medicate" arises, until it is carried through to a state where "all is well" without the "medication". So with bees, it may require husbandry, raising nucs, catching swarms, etc. etc. etc. To reach the goal of succeeding without treating. But just not treating is not that big a deal, because you could start again tomorrow without actually having made an ounce of progress. 

Just like I could say that I stopped smoking every time I put one out. Then I started again when I lit one up. In truth, I "quit" probably 50 times over that 12 year period. Oh yes, it was a lot more complicated than just "stopping". It involved a lot of stress, behavioral changes, physical withdrawal, etc. etc.

The same is true for Treatment of honeybees. The stopping of treatments is easy - but running a successful, sustainable, healthy apiary without treatments is a road you take, and a state you (hopefully) reach.

To your interest in husbandry specifically,

I heard a recent talk called Honeybee Breeding: Fact or Fiction by Dr. Keith Delaplane about the importance of polyandry in honeybee breeding, and the genetic strength of the honeybee as an organism. Since then, my ideas about what the best approach to bee breeding might be have been challenged. I wonder how you see finding a balance between selection and polyandry - two seemingly contradictory ideas.

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Not everyone who is treatment free is will be practicing traditional husbandry. Many many treatment free beekeepers (and I might even venture to say the majority of treatment free beekeepers) will simply be buying more bees next spring.


I wouldn't call that being a successful treatment free beekeeper, or a husbandryman. That's being a bee user. Unless you are using ferals of bred resistant bees you're just having someone else do your treating for you. And your drones are undermining the development of resistance in your area. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You are right Adam to point up the complications that arise when we try to express these ideas in clear and simple terms. 

We don't really get to make up language, to decide what terms will be adopted, and how they should be used. But we do need clear language in order to be able to converse effectively. I think I object to the practice of using 'treatment free beekeeping' for that sort of activity. Thanks for bringing this to our attention - I think its important.

Perhaps we should try to develop the language we need to work with maybe using stronger terms to make the character of our activities plain. Bond Method beekeeping would work. 



Adam Foster Collins said:


> So while breeding is a method that can be seen as a solution, simply not treating is not a solution in itself.


I agree - not anyway while simple replacement (with treatment-addicted bees) is being done.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> Quitting smoking is not a method of quitting smoking; it's just the path - moving from a state of active engagement in an addictive practice, to a state of abstaining, and then (hopefully) to a state where you just don't have the urge anymore, and don't miss it.


I think the process of becoming free of nicotine addiction (I'll put it like that because otherwise patches and the rest will get in the way) involves stopping ingesting nicotine in the first place, and becoming used to that situation secondly. 

If we use the analogy of 'path' or 'journey' (remembering that is is an analogy) then we have to see that what the path 'is' changes as the process unfolds, and that it is different for different circumstances. But it has an element in common, an unbreakable principle: to treat (and then allow to mate) sabotages the goal - freedom of the need to medicate. Just as to start smoking again sabotages the main goal of becoming free of nicotine addiction.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> How you manage to quit could involve innumerable methods along the way. (For me, it took 12 years and all kinds of methods). Seems simple enough, but somehow it isn't.


Same here. I found it easy to quit but hard to stay off, till I found a mechanism that would keep me off (a solemn promise to my kids that I'd never puff on tobacco again). Then it was simple. Every time I was tempted I had to ask myself: which is more important, the promise I made, or a cigarette? The promise won every time, no contest, a second's thought - and the desire for the cigarette disappeared just as fast.

So maybe a special mechanism is needed here too. A determination to succeed at proper bee husbandry together with an understanding that just stopping treaments might well be catastrophic might be what is needed to ensure a proper plan and sound preparations are put in place. A determined willingness to see the project through come what may will also help if the temptation to treat arises. 



Adam Foster Collins said:


> Stopping smoking or treatments is not a solution, but a momentary decision which must be made over and over again, each time the urge to "medicate" arises, until it is carried through to a state where "all is well" without the "medication".


Or, as above, a plan can be made that involves never treating. A good plan will put in place the elements that will make success likely. (Success = realization of the goal of sustainable and enduring mite-managers)

A good plan can only be assembled with a clear understanding of the mechanisms involved in raising mite resistance. But you can also use other's plans to good effect - Solomon Parker's, Michael Bush's or John Kefuss's for example. There are other models.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> So with bees, it may require husbandry, raising nucs, catching swarms, etc. etc. etc. To reach the goal of succeeding without treating.


Yes



Adam Foster Collins said:


> But just not treating is not that big a deal, because you could start again tomorrow without actually having made an ounce of progress.


As I said above, I don't think that counts as being involved in working toward the goal of not needing to treat.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> [As with nictine] The stopping of treatments is easy - but running a successful, sustainable, healthy apiary without treatments is a road you take, and a state you (hopefully) reach.


Yes. That is what I meant when I said that it is both things. Its the end and the means. And the 'end' is a continuation of the same thing (appropriate population husbandry - NOT 'just not treating')



Adam Foster Collins said:


> To your interest in husbandry specifically,
> 
> I heard a recent talk called Honeybee Breeding: Fact or Fiction by Dr. Keith Delaplane about the importance of polyandry in honeybee breeding, and the genetic strength of the honeybee as an organism. Since then, my ideas about what the best approach to bee breeding might be have been challenged. I wonder how you see finding a balance between selection and polyandry - two seemingly contradictory ideas.
> Adam


Its a rather long talk. Any chance you could summarise the key points Adam?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

mike bispham said:


> ...
> Its a rather long talk. Any chance you could summarise the key points Adam?


Sure, as it's something I think is really key to going forward on successful breeding, and I'd like to hear more thoughts on it.

Dr. Delaplane's key points are:

*• For all the time and effort that has been put into bee breeding, how much success have we achieved? How much genetic "progress" has been made for the amount of selection we've done over the last century? He argues - not that much.

• Bee breeding is centered on polyandry, or the drive for the female to mate with many males.

• He and a team have done experiments, and although it is early in their project, they are finding that there is a direct relationship between the overall performance of a colony and the number of males the queen was mated with.

• He points out that the polyandry (more genetic input) and selection (less genetic input) are seemingly at odds. And wonders who the two might be better reconciled for more effective breeding. He wonders if the trading of drones might be something that should receive more focus than it currently does.*

To my own thinking, the fact that bees mate multiple times, and take multiple mating flights to do so is proof of it's importance to their survival. Mating is so perilous, that if polyandry weren't so important, multiple matings would have long since disappeared, as there are always going to be more living queens who have mated fewer times, than there are living queens that have mated many times.

Yet somehow, those who mate more times continue to be more successful.

So I wonder - as we stop our treatments and turn to husbandry, how can we accommodate polyandry into our plans in a meaningful way?

Would it mean raising stocks with a fairly wide genetic background and a focus on creating strong drone populations - or drone colonies specifically - to provide the breadth of high-quality males to mate with?

Or should the typical practices be enough? Is Dr. Delaplane onto something? Or just on something? 

Adam


----------



## rhaldridge

That was a very interesting talk. One thing I took away from it is that perhaps a successful treatment free program should have as much variety in its genetic sources as possible. I think there's some evidence of that in the observation that many successful treatment free operations make a large portion of their increase from swarms.

Just by luck, I've sort of started out that way. Of the six colonies I presently have, the bees come from 5 different sources. I have Wolf Creek bees, New World Carniolans, Italians, a BeeWeaver queen, and a local nuc of mutts from a guy who raises a few every year. The local nuc has produced the best, and been the healthiest.

Of course, this wide variety may be of more benefit to my neighboring beekeepers than to me, but still... 

Anyway, the main takeaway from the talk is that breeding bees is nothing like breeding cows or chickens. The unique breeding strategy of hymenoptera species makes it a lot more complicated.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

rhaldridge said:


> ...Anyway, the main takeaway from the talk is that breeding bees is nothing like breeding cows or chickens. The unique breeding strategy of hymenoptera species makes it a lot more complicated.


At least in the ones that are genetically predisposed to mate with multiple males. That's the crux of it - the seeming opposition between how we tend to get what we want (traditional selection - narrowing) and the bee's version of that (selecting through a wider selection).

The bee still selects, but she does so over the broadest range possible. So how do we foster that? If we just provide her with lots of males from a few sources, she may mate plenty of times, but she's not getting the depth of genetic material.

Is that something we want to foster? More depth? And if so, how?

Adam


----------



## squarepeg

good info adam, thanks.

the two operations i know of that are treatment free and sustaining well are my own (four years) and my bee supplier (16 years).

we are both in locations that are heavily wooded (over 2/3rds of the landscape) and we think there are plenty of feral colonies surviving in the area (which are contributing to the dca's).

i have been assuming that in addition to having favorable weather and abundant forage, the genetic contribution from the unmanaged survivors is helping to make being treatment free here possible.


----------



## LetMBee

Adam: one thing I am doing to foster this is NOT taking any drastic matter to stop my out yards from swarming. I catch 15-20 swarms per year, so I don't sweat giving up a couple to see if feral populations can get going. If they get established I hope to be able to catch their swarms down the road.


----------



## rhaldridge

One criticism I would make of Dr. Delaplane's talk was that he didn't mention what sort of treatment regimen he used on his breeding experiments, or if he did I didn't catch it.

One aspect of this subject that always strikes me as a little strange is that those who treat their bees seem reluctant to admit that the treatments themselves have negative effects on hive health. They will say that if they had not treated, then varroa and viruses carried by mites would have killed the hive, so the damage done by treatment is inconsequential in the big picture. The problem with that analysis is that *something* is killing treated hives at what seem at best uneconomic rates. I can't help but wonder if treatment is contributing to hive loss in ways not easily categorized. 

For example, a lot of beeks who treat will attribute the loss of some hives to queen failure. Non-treaters, it appears from my research, have queens that live a significantly longer time than treated queens do. How much does treatment contribute to queens with higher mortality?

We all accept that pesticides can have sub-lethal effects. Why is it so hard to accept that treatments (some of which are in fact pesticides) may also have negative sub-lethal effects? Many folks treat with several different things for mites, for bacterial diseases, for Nosema. We know very little about the synergistic effects of this brew of chemicals. And we know even less about the cumulative effects of outside chemicals, of excessive feeding, etc.

Anyway, I guess my point is that even with the best breeding, treatment regimens may overwhelm the bee's natural mechanisms for surviving and adapting to new challenges.


----------



## jim lyon

Ray: Excellent points all. There is already evidence that Amitraz can cause some issues with queens and we know for a fact that hives treated with Coumaphous cant raise cells. I wouldnt be surprised to find out fluvalinate has some issues as well, these are pesticides designed to kill insects, albeit insects smaller than honeybees. Spring treatments (while making increase) in particular have to be looked as a potential reason for under performing or early failing queens.


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> (R.H. Aldridge:"...Anyway, the main takeaway from the talk is that breeding bees is nothing like breeding cows or chickens. The unique breeding strategy of hymenoptera species makes it a lot more complicated.")
> 
> (AFC) At least in the ones that are genetically predisposed to mate with multiple males. That's the crux of it - the seeming opposition between how we tend to get what we want (traditional selection - narrowing) and the bee's version of that (selecting through a wider selection).
> 
> The bee still selects, but she does so over the broadest range possible. So how do we foster that? If we just provide her with lots of males from a few sources, she may mate plenty of times, but she's not getting the depth of genetic material.
> 
> Is that something we want to foster? More depth? And if so, how?
> 
> Adam


That's easy. By keeping large hives of our own bees in and around our apiaries, and by increasing their drone numbers artificially if needs be. By trying to minimise input from treated hives (the real problem) by having our breeding yards remote from large numbers of them. There's nothing complicated about it. 

That particular premise falls flat on its face. 

Selective bee propagation (population husbandry) is, yes, done at arms length rather than precisely as with sheep and cows. You have to work with odds, and boost the odds in your favour. But that's every bit as effective - if you can achieve it. 

And it works with exactly the same principle at its heart: the healthiest bees are made from the best of the present generation. 

Don't let people bamboozle you with complexity. The principle of inherited traits and qualities is a simplicity that underlies all the complexity. Natural selection for the fittest strains, and its human equivalent, make a critical difference. No amount of talk about complexity alters that fact.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> (Sure, as it's something I think is really key to going forward on successful breeding, and I'd like to hear more thoughts on it.)
> 
> Dr. Delaplane's key points are:
> 
> • For all the time and effort that has been put into bee breeding, how much success have we achieved? How much genetic "progress" has been made for the amount of selection we've done over the last century? He argues - not that much.


I don't know how true that is for professional bee breeders, but for many beekeepers who are no longer treating, that's just plain wrong. Perhaps professional breeders are aiming at a goal that cannot exist. A colony that can take massive abuse of the kind expected of migratory and intensive beekeeping, and thrive just isn't possible. The same goes for geographic universality. 

Bees that can survive sensible low intensity management without treatment seem to be becoming more commonplace, as more people are learning the arts of population husbandry - which is 'breeding' of a kind -
- and the ferals are adapting to varroa. 



Adam Foster Collins said:


> • Bee breeding is centered on polyandry, or the drive for the female to mate with many males.
> 
> • He and a team have done experiments, and although it is early in their project, they are finding that there is a direct relationship between the overall performance of a colony and the number of males the queen was mated with.
> 
> • He points out that the polyandry (more genetic input) and selection (less genetic input) are seemingly at odds. And wonders who the two might be better reconciled for more effective breeding. He wonders if the trading of drones might be something that should receive more focus than it currently does.


This is a abstract argument that appears to be attached to the realities, but actually, isn't. A mating process that limited sperm doners (AI) might well do that - but, yet that would be, like the whole business of AI itself, a poor idea.

Dr. Delaplane seems unaware of the traditional practices of bee farmers, where male side genetic input has just as much emphasis as female side. And where straightforward (if a little arm's length on the male side) selective propagation techniques have been used to maintain health and productivity for a long time.

But yes to more attention to drones...



Adam Foster Collins said:


> To my own thinking, the fact that bees mate multiple times, and take multiple mating flights to do so is proof of it's importance to their survival. Mating is so perilous, that if polyandry weren't so important, multiple matings would have long since disappeared, as there are always going to be more living queens who have mated fewer times, than there are living queens that have mated many times.
> 
> Yet somehow, those who mate more times continue to be more successful.


Bees are a genetically local species. They don't migrate, or get blown great distances. Their breeding pool, in the natural state, is limited to those within a few mile radius. And they have evolved to best manage that context. Polyandry may be a strategy that helps overcome the over-inbreeding that occurs in geographically limited populations. It undoubtedly it confers a range of other benefits to this unique species. (The fact that the species has evolved to best locate and store energy within a small area might lead us to pay more attention to localism in beekeeping. Bee populations have evolved the capacity to attune themselves to the local forage and climate.) 



Adam Foster Collins said:


> So I wonder - as we stop our treatments and turn to husbandry, how can we accommodate polyandry into our plans in a meaningful way?


I think the remarks above have already made clear my views about that. Use locally adapted bees, help with (and certainly don't interfere with) the essential selection processes, making increase from best colonies and allowing or encouraging large drone populations in sound hives. Encourage feral activity.



Adam Foster Collins said:


> Would it mean raising stocks with a fairly wide genetic background and a focus on creating strong drone populations - or drone colonies specifically - to provide the breadth of high-quality males to mate with?


No to the first - unless there are no locally adapted bees, and you need to fish for strains that will work in your area. Perhaps adding in some likely helpful new genes from time to time would be a good thing. Yes to the second.

On drone populations: I've raised a few ideas on this topic before, but never really got to the bottom of things. Drones are obviously massively important, and the drone side needs the same sort of attention as the queen side. This is what I've thought about:

First, in nature larger colonies, I understand, tend to raise a disproportionately large number of drones. This could easily be seen as a natural mechanism that helps the strongest get the best representation in the next generation. It is therefore something we interfere with at our peril. Controlling, or just discouraging drone numbers in our best hives may well undercut the health of the next generation. 

Second (getting further out there now): a failing queen will often lay large numbers of drone eggs. Again its possible to see this as an evolved process that serves the same sort of purpose. The larger colonies will be able to support vast numbers of drones from a 'failing' queen - maximising the transmission of her genes. 

Third (now off the scale). Laying workers.... again supply male transmitters of the colony's genes. Again the larger and best stocked hives will be able to sustain the greater number of gene transmitters.

The point of this speculation is: to the extent that any of this is true, it means that any interference we do in that limits the natural course of things in terms of drone production in largest number from largest hives, and in whatever circumstances, is undercutting what might be a highly influential evolved health-seeking mechanism. 

Perhaps we need to view drone laying queens and laying workers not in terms of something gone wrong, but as something going right?

Mike (UK)


----------



## rhaldridge

Mike, you should really take the time to watch the video.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Dr. Delaplane seems unaware of the traditional practices of bee farmers, where male side genetic input has just as much emphasis as female side.


That's an assumption about the Dr, and frankly a bit of a stretch.



mike bispham said:


> a failing queen will often lay large numbers of drone eggs. Again its possible to see this as an evolved process that serves the same sort of purpose. The larger colonies will be able to support vast numbers of drones from a 'failing' queen - maximising the transmission of her genes.


No. Doesn't work that way.



mike bispham said:


> Laying workers.... again supply male transmitters of the colony's genes. Again the larger and best stocked hives will be able to sustain the greater number of gene transmitters.


Again, no.



mike bispham said:


> Perhaps we need to view drone laying queens and laying workers not in terms of something gone wrong, but as something going right?


Again, no.

Interesting theories Mike but perhaps you are overthinking the issues. What you describe is not the reality.

Your ideas are not how I have found it works in practise. Drones raised in worker cells do not get much / anything done in the quest to mate if up against normal drones. Unfortunately I cannot show you what I've learned by experience, and if I told you it's likely you would reject it anyway. But I can suggest you look at it logically although this may be less compelling. Hives with laying workers, in the wild, are doomed. So breeding hives with a tendency to go that way is at odds with producing hives that survive.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

rhaldridge said:


> Mike, you should really take the time to watch the video.


Yes. It could be my weak interpretation, but I feel like Dr. Delaplane has way too deep a resumé to dismiss what he's saying too quickly. Then again, I may be too ready to listen deeply to those with way more experience than I - leading to lots of indecision and rethinking of methods. Keith Delaplane has more experience, more formal education in the field of entomology, and access to a much broader range of beekeepers and geography than I do. I can't help but approach things he and people like him say with an open mind. I start by assuming they know something I don't, and then try to "catch up" with further consideration and research.

I think he makes some very interesting points, and ones worth serious consideration. But again, it could be just me.

Adam


----------



## rhaldridge

The most interesting part of the talk, to me, was his description of the experiment where they inseminated queens with, I think, the semen of 15 drones, 30 drones, and 60 drones. The results were pretty astonishing. Makes one think that the whole business of bee breeding is almost incomprehensibly complicated.

(For folks who haven't watched the video, the colonies headed by the 30 drone and 60 drone queens were significantly healthier, and maybe smarter-- the pink syrup portion of the experiment.)


----------



## Oldtimer

rhaldridge said:


> For folks who haven't watched the video


Sometimes, RAldridge, your droll humour is quite funny LOL. 

Also the part you refer to about the benefits to the colony from larger numbers of drones mated with was very interesting and something I had not really considered in the past, I only thought it mattered that she had "enough". 

I found the video a bit slow moving and after a while considered turning it off, but in the end it was a worthwhile watch and along with RAldridge, without naming anyone, would recommend it to any "folks who haven't watched the video". LOL


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> No. Doesn't work that way.
> 
> Again, no.
> 
> Again, no.


That doesn't tell us anything about 'why not'. Just saying 'no' is very easy' But it just presents an opinion. It has no force in knowledge terms. 

Substantiating it is more useful, constructive and admirable. But it takes work. 



Oldtimer said:


> Interesting theories Mike but perhaps you are overthinking the issues. What you describe is not the reality.
> 
> Your ideas are not how I have found it works in practise. Drones raised in worker cells do not get much / anything done in the quest to mate if up against normal drones.


You could well be right, but my question to you is: how do you know that? What evidence can you offer? Do you analyse the drone's entrails on the return of the queen?

Or is it an assuption, an opinion, posing as knowledge?



Oldtimer said:


> Unfortunately I cannot show you what I've learned by experience, and if I told you it's likely you would reject it anyway.


You could try telling me how you manage to tell that worker-laid drones don't get to impregnate queens. You may well be right. But saying 'in my experience they don't' doesn't offer a convincing case. 



Oldtimer said:


> But I can suggest you look at it logically although this may be less compelling.
> Hives with laying workers, in the wild, are doomed. So breeding hives with a tendency to go that way is at odds with producing hives that survive.


That demonstrates a light grasp of population breeding dynamics. 

I know it seems wierd, but you have to think, first, of the genes as the objects that strive for survival and reproduction - continuously. The gene is the 'unit of reproduction'. 

The bodies that contain them can be regarded as simply equipment to that end. If a gene survives for 20 million years it has been successful for that time in contributing to the raising of bodies that have reproduced. Period. This will have occured through countless bodies, and often through many species. 

Second, a species, population, or strain, that has the most effective mechanisms for translating the genes of the healthiest parents into a high proportion of the next generation will be favoured over other strains. For the simple reason: the oncoming population will be stronger, healthier.

This has led to several key mechanisms that aid the selection of the fittest individuals in each generation. An example would be the almost universal phenomena of physical competitive mating. Those strains among a population that engage most determinedly in competitive mating will, all else being equal, be healthier than those that don't - because they'll be fathered, continuously, by the strongest male present. 

Note that it doesn't matter if the strongest male is old and grizzled, has cancer and just three months to live. If he's the strongest, he wins the ladies; that's the game. And that, in deep terms, is because his genes 'want' to move into the next generation, as often as possible. Genes don't give up. They don't program bodies to give up. (Or rather, any that do are soon swept away by those that don't.)

The drones produced by a failing queen carry her genes - I'm led to believe exactly. If she is an outstanding queen, she will have a large well-stocked hive capable of bringing all to maturity, and spreading her excellent genes around like confetti. If she is mediocre, her 'body' (the colony) will only be able to raise a few of her final drones. The feature of life-end drone raising will therefore give her strain an advantage over any strain that, say, systematically slaughters the drones of failing queens. And so the feature has evolved and taken hold. 

Its there because it serves an evolutionary purpose well - to help populations take their genetic material in larger measure from the healthiest of the previous generation. Just like competitive mating.

That's my theory, logically (re-)presented, and, I hope you can see, your logical argument successfully refuted. 

I understand it's a bit counter-intuitive, and it certainly runs against well established thinking about the desirability of failing queens. But think just how much - and for how long - beekeeping has been focussed on individual hives, rather than the breeding population. When you are thinking about individual hives, and about such matters as productivity, drones are the last thing you want - and almost every effort is made to reduce them. It is part of my argument toward the benefits of shifting the focus to the breeding pool that we re-examine this long-assumed good - and all the lore and assumptions that have developed with it. 

We have to think 'breeding pool' always, and how we're are going to stock it with the best material. I think, thus far, we might be able to relax a bit about failing queen hives - if and only if - they've been outstanding; in the understanding that we are allowing one of nature's important mechanisms to play out. 

I could be wrong about this. But I'm curious.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Yes. It could be my weak interpretation, but I feel like Dr. Delaplane has way too deep a resumé to dismiss what he's saying too quickly. Then again, I may be too ready to listen deeply to those with way more experience than I - leading to lots of indecision and rethinking of methods. Keith Delaplane has more experience, more formal education in the field of entomology, and access to a much broader range of beekeepers and geography than I do. I can't help but approach things he and people like him say with an open mind. I start by assuming they know something I don't, and then try to "catch up" with further consideration and research.


I'm probably equally guilty of assuming he's on the academic bee funding bandwagon, the 'Beekeeper Support Industry' (BSI) - and being suspicious about where the funding is coming from, and how its shaping the research. 

I'm deeply cynical about this. My thinking isn't helped by reading, this morning, a devastating critique of the effects of the chemical industry - now one of the most powerful and influential industries on the planet - on other fields - Will Self in The Guardian writing about psychiatry:

"".... treads a familiar path in his critique of the influence of the multinational pharmaceutical companies on the structure and practice of psychiatry. If you aren't familiar with the fact that almost all drug trials are funded by those who stand to profit from their success then … well, you jolly well should be. You should also be familiar with the extent to which university research departments and learned journals are funded by those who stand to profit – literally – from their presumed objectivity. The money generated by the SSRIs in particular is vast, easily enough to warp the dynamics and the ethics of an entire profession..."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/03/will-self-psychiatrist-drug-medication

The same criticisms can be made of academic work in the BSI. That's not to say all academic work (does anyone else here remember when 'academic' meant 'studiously impartial'?) is tainted by the need for university funding geared to political and corporate objectives - but that enough probably is to take the position that some sort of taint ought to be presumed, and unpicked as part of the reading of the paper (or lecture).

You're all right though, I ought to watch it all before forming any judgements.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

rhaldridge said:


> The most interesting part of the talk, to me, was his description of the experiment where they inseminated queens with, I think, the semen of 15 drones, 30 drones, and 60 drones. The results were pretty astonishing. [...]
> 
> (For folks who haven't watched the video, the colonies headed by the 30 drone and 60 drone queens were significantly healthier, and maybe smarter-- the pink syrup portion of the experiment.)


Very interesting, thanks. I wonder how we might take advantage of that understanding?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike I will not answer everything you raised, point by point. Too boring.

But in general terms, in the latter part of your post you explained your rational for thinking drone laying queens and workers are a good thing in the general scheme. I have already considered the theory you presented years ago and discarded it. I was also thinking about this theory at the same time I wrote my previous post that you claim to have refuted. Your theory is not something nobody has thought about before. And your theory certainly does not disprove my previous post. It's another theory that's all, and a rather bad one. There's a difference.

You ask why I just said no without explanation? And you suggested I am lazy. That was funny, cos you are right. I am too lazy to offer explanation when I know you will not accept it. But just cos I'm a nice guy, I'll give it a shot. 

But first, you demand proof. But, when you made your original assertion in post #146, you didn't offer any proof. So, why do you demand higher standards from others, than yourself?

I have not dissected all returning drones after a queen mating to examine their entrails, you are correct. But by saying that you may have outsmarted yourself not me, because mated drones do not return to the hive. Surprised an expert such as yourself did not know that LOL.  I still find you light on facts. 

However the reasons I have for believing that drones raised in worker cells do not compete successfully with normal drones, is from what I have read, and from personal experience. According to the reading I have done, drones raised in worker cells are viable, and capable of mating. But dissections have found they contain very little and sometimes no sperm. The belief of authors I have read is they are little or no use if you want queens mated. my own experience in this matter is not conclusive, but is certainly consistent with what I have read. Sometimes in winter a queen will go drone layer, and sometimes in a strong hive (our winters are mild), a hive can get filled with literally thousands of worker sized drones. On two occasions when this happened, as an experiment, I have made bees raise queen cells to see if they will mate. But despite the presence of a hive nearby with thousands of these drones, and the drones flying busily on warm days, none of these queens ever mated. 
OK so it's only 2 experiments so not conclusive. But it is consistent with what I've read.

I have no references to my reading material so call me a liar again if you wish. It's stuff I read over the years probably not even on the net. I do recall Mike Bush discussing it at least once but cannot give you the reference for that either.

So you may go ahead and attempt to disprove everything that I said, but it won't bother me, I don't care. I am happy to discuss stuff with the willing, but have no interest in trying to convert anyone who refuses to accept anything I say. What you accept or don't accept is entirely over to you, and is not my problem. Refute away.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> I was also thinking about this theory at the same time I wrote my previous post that you claim to have refuted. Your theory is not something nobody has thought about before.


A major part of bringing it up is to try to discover whether anyone has considered it before. Especially in a scientific fashoin. 



Oldtimer said:


> And your theory certainly does not disprove my previous post.


It does undermine your rationale for dismissing it. 

I'm not looking to proove anything by the way. I'm trying discover what the evidence is for certain beliefs, in order to be able to base my reasoning on that evidence. And I haven't asked you for proof. I've asked for evidence that supports your opinion. Evidence that might - and might not - convert that opinion to some sort of firmer knowledge.



Oldtimer said:


> You ask why I just said no without explanation? And you suggested I am lazy.


I'm not sure I did. I did try to point out that giving good reasons is a lot harder than just throwing assertions and opinions about. But infinitely more constructive.



Oldtimer said:


> But first, you demand proof.


Evidence



Oldtimer said:


> But, when you made your original assertion in post #146, you didn't offer any proof. So, why do you demand higher standards from others, than yourself?


I didn't make any ungrounded claims, and was clear that what I suggested was speculative. And I gave a detailed rationale. 

If you want to _show_ that the rationale is flawed, either through poor reasoning, flawed premises, or counter-examples, or any other (valid) way, go ahead. You haven't done that yet.



Oldtimer said:


> I have not dissected all returning drones after a queen mating to examine their entrails, you are correct. But by saying that you may have outsmarted yourself not me, because mated drones do not return to the hive. Surprised an expert such as yourself did not know that LOL.


What I said was:

"You could well be right, but my question to you is: how do you know that? What evidence can you offer? Do you analyse the drone's entrails on the return of the queen?"

Rather shot yourself in the foot there didn't you .



Oldtimer said:


> However the reasons I have for believing that drones raised in worker cells do not compete successfully with normal drones, is from what I have read, and from personal experience. According to the reading I have done, drones raised in worker cells are viable, and capable of mating. But dissections have found they contain very little and sometimes no sperm.


That is very interesting, thank you. Is there any chance you might direct me to the reading?

Note, that doesn't impact on my speculations about failing queens...



Oldtimer said:


> The belief of authors I have read is they are little or no use if you want queens mated. my own experience in this matter is not conclusive, but is certainly consistent with what I have read. Sometimes in winter a queen will go drone layer, and sometimes in a strong hive (our winters are mild), a hive can get filled with literally thousands of worker sized drones. On two occasions when this happened, as an experiment, I have made bees raise queen cells to see if they will mate. But despite the presence of a hive nearby with thousands of these drones, and the drones flying busily on warm days, none of these queens ever mated. OK so it's only 2 experiments so not conclusive. But it is consistent with what I've read.


Again, interesting, thank you.



Oldtimer said:


> I have no references to my reading material so call me a liar again if you wish. It's stuff I read over the years probably not even on the net. I do recall Mike Bush discussing it at least once but cannot give you the reference for that either.


Asking somebody for the reasons for their beliefs doesn't amount to calling them a liar. 

So, if we accept your position, the laying-worker thesis is in doubt. That still leaves the (stronger) failing queen thesis in play, doesn't it?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Well there you go. As I said would happen, you have not accepted anything I said. Which is why to you, I'm lazy. I'll waste some time on a likely pointless execise, but not endless amounts of time. Especially when getting something across to you matters not.

This though is an aspersion on my character



mike bispham said:


> Asking somebody for the reasons for their beliefs doesn't amount to calling them a liar.


Of course it doesn't I was obviously not referring to that. I was referring to this.



mike bispham said:


> Solomon says there are plenty of reasons for naysayers to talk up failures. And when people get cagy about their stories, that does, inevitably, create the suspician that all is not what it seems to be.


That statement does certainly raise the finger of suspicion that I have been dishonest. But even more transparent is that altyhough (not quoted, you brought it up and made the implications, you also tried to make it seem it wasn't you making accusations, it was Solomon. What a hoot! :lpf:

For the record, I was not being "cagey with my stories". I just didn't feel like spending endless time writing a report for you, in view of the arrogant, superior, and disparaging manner you asked for it, and when frankly, it has already become obvious that anything you had to say on it would be more of the same. IE, your pet theories, as I have previously explained. We are different personalities, you like theories, I like facts. As I already know all your theories, and you have nothing else, I cannot gain anything from you in this way and I won't be taking the time to write you a report. Don't like that? Not my problem.

What is particularly weird with this, is that your dishonesty claims, if anyone wants to look up the thread, were because I had discussed the failure of 100% of my treatment free hives. As if you considered this could not possibly be true.
But then a few posts ago you discussed your own prospects of success and said that you are not totally certain you will succeed. Having said that, it is hypocritical when I say I did not succeed, to accuse me of not being honest. One standard for you, one for me.

The rest of your post, tempting to comment but no, you carry on believing it.


----------



## rhaldridge

I've come across the the theory that a laying worker hive is a last-ditch attempt to pass along its genes, in that the drones produced from laying workers pass along their patrilineal genetics. This to me presents no contradictions with evolutionary strategy, in that most often a hive goes queenless not because of any genetic weakness, but because a bird ate the queen on her mating flight. A big strong laying worker hive would produce many more drones than a weak sick hive, so the better genes would tend to dominate.


----------



## Oldtimer

That's what Mike has just been trying to say for the last few posts, did you read them?

This is the problem with having a theory and working things out by logic (ones own of course), but being light on facts.

While it is a tidy little theory that a doomed drone only hive is trying top pass on it's genetics, the reality is that a hive with failed queen and drones in worker cells is actually an aberration brought about through a failure of some kind. IE, the queen was not able to mate properly, or she died prematurely without the bees having a chance to supersede.

As I've pointed out, all the evidence is that worker sized drones contribute virtually zero to the mating pool. So a hive will contribute the most, by running normally, and contributing a good number of drones throughout the season. Not just a quick spurt of stunted ones while the hive has it's death throws.

In addition, drone laying workers in EHB are almost invariably brought about by some mistake, or series of mistakes, made by the beekeeper. They rarely occur in the wild when the bees are left to their own devices. They are an aberration, not a breeding strategy. And prior to mites, drone laying queens where a rarity. When I started beekeeping there were no mites and we used no chemicals in the hives. Drone laying queens were such a rarity that my first season in an outfit with 4,000 hives I didn't see one. The next year we had one or two can't remember. Now drone laying queens are so common that even in my small outfit I get several per year. I believe it is brought about by our assault on the bees and their environment with chemicals, it is not natural, nor a breeding strategy, it is an aberration.


----------



## Oldtimer

Reading all these theories people are putting together, without backing them on facts, is kind of like science fiction, and I believe there are some members here with good potential as designers of a science fiction scenario for a story.

In science fiction, entire planets are created with life forms etc all tailored to the planet environment and relationships with each other based on adaptively. I enjoy these type of films, Avatar was a great example. A neatly designed planet ecosystem all fitting together and working within the theories of evolution. Such a place could exist. But that does not mean it does exist. In the pages of theories presented here, all logical of course, there is a lack of facts, in other words, while logical, much is conjecture.

Such as, this drone theory. Neat theory, but, not the reality.

Do you guys really want to construct a theoretical world around you partly true partly false? When postulating theories at least take the time to see if it is also the reality. There are pages of theory here without one supporting fact.


----------



## julysun

Is there any information, studies if you will, on how far drones travel to breed? Treated drones, I am sure you are aware, could hamper your TF work.


----------



## JWChesnut

In German studies, drones traveled up to 5 km. A single Drone Concentration Area had 238 separate colonies represented (based on mark and recapture studies). In an Arizona study, a 2 x 5 km block had multiple flyways and congregation areas (26!) where flyways crossed. 

The discussion in both studies have drones making optimization decisions -- they distribute over several areas and optimize for time spent aloft, and mating likelihood.

A recent German study shows strong bias by drones to the closer DCA versus distant. No description of the Queen preference.

A obligate out-crossing mating system with promiscuous queens is going to maintain enormous variability in the F2 generation (i.e. the daughter queen's workers). 

Most of the discussion on this forum conflates bee genetics with dog breeding. It is very different imperative-- the whole evolutionary strategy of the bee is stable morphology-- it is all about forcing flowers (and parasites) to evolve to what the bee desires, not changing the bee to the flower. 

There is fascinating microsatellite studies of Mediteranean bees. In Algeria, where thousands of Italian queens were imported during the colonial period, there are zero Italian genetics in the mitochodria DNA-- it is all the native "Moroccan" subtype. Mitochondria descends outside the nucleus recombination-- and indicates the wild type has completely suppressed the "improved" introduction at tje queen level. This can be interpreted both as a case study in "local" races and as a cautionary tale about improving genetics in bees through wild out-crossing. 

Yes you can change the genetics of the honeybee, but to maintain lines with high entropy, you need isolation and saturation. Think offshore islands (per Baton Rouge trials), multi-hundred unit daughter colonies surrounded by sterile water or cornfields. Saturation and Isolation-- the keys to moving an outcrossing genotype -- unless you have that the "selection" is going to revert very quickly. Remember the future colony will express the F2 generation in its social survival-- double hybrid distance from the mother queen. 

If you are in a suburban backyard with a woodlot of hollow trees and a yard of 15 to 20 hives-- your genotype is going to regress to the wild norm-- simple and cruel mathematics. (Many of the most vocal advocates of TF beekeeping are in this type of apiculture). 

In order to resolve whether this type of yard has any contribution to make to changing genotype through non-treatment selection, an evaluation of the "survivor hive" concept needs to be made. Two possibilities pertain: wild hives reflect the agricultural predominance of the southern queen breeders, or wild hives represent a unique "survivor genotype" local to the area. I haven't seen real evidence to support the "survivor hive" theory, but the published record is riduculously spotty for the core question. Some of my reluctance to embrace the "survivor hive" postulate is due to the Africanized Hybrid that increasing dominates my region -- the genetic drift is moving to AHB, and not to some other equilibrium.

Sources:
Arizona Study: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25085360?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102527347043
German Study: http://dunkle-biene.de/downloads/dca---drone-congregation-areas.pdf
German Near site selection: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00040-004-0763-z#page-1


----------



## Oldtimer

Check out the work of Freidrich and Hans Ruttner. (I think it is)

There's likely other stuff also, I know it has been studied.


----------



## mike bispham

julysun said:


> Is there any information, studies if you will, on how far drones travel to breed? Treated drones, I am sure you are aware, could hamper your TF work.


Friedrich Ruttner (Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee) at first seems to recommend 8km between mating stations and unwanted genetics, though he seems to moderate this to 4km a little further on.

He also recommends raising vast numbers of drones from selected queens. His method is to tie in bits of drone comb to make whole frames, have them laid up by the selected queen/s, and then raised and housed in nursery hives that become 'drone colonies'.

He also talks about a 'guard ring' of such hives around the mating station, outlining the sorts of numbers required for mating a specific number of queens. 

He speaks of the short lives of drones, and the need to co-ordinate drone-raising and mating requirements.

Mike (UK)


----------



## julysun

Friedrich Ruttner. Seems to be out of print, will look a little more, thanks.


----------



## mike bispham

julysun said:


> Friedrich Ruttner. Seems to be out of print, will look a little more, thanks.


Try Northern Bee Books (UK), and the electronic print gizmo markets. If you get stuck ask Northern Bee Books - if there's someplace you can find a copy they'll know.

Mike (UK)


----------



## JWChesnut

Journal article available online -- Use Google Scholar Search -- specialized search option just for Academic sources.

Honey Bee Drone Flyways and Congregation Areas: Radar Observations
Gerald M. Loper, Wayne W. Wolf and Orley R. Taylor, Jr.
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society
Vol. 65, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 223-230
-- really cool paper on flyways and DCA is Arizona. MUST READ


Drone competition at drone congregation areas
in four Apis species1
Nikolaus KOENIGER, Gudrun KOENIGER*, Michael GRIES and Salim TINGEK
Apidologie 36 (2005) 211–221
-- Great bibliography

Koeniger N., Koeniger G. Pechhacker H. (2005) The
nearer the better? Drones (Apis mellifera) prefer
nearer drone congregation areas, Insectes Soc. 52

Landscape analysis of drone congregation areas of the honey
bee, Apis mellifera
Alberto Galindo-Cardonaa*, Journal of Insect Science: Vol. 12 | Article 122


----------



## julysun

Thanks JWChesnut!:applause: Exactly the info I wanted! Short and filled with information on Drones and drone flyways and collection areas, DCAs.

http://www.beeculture.com/storycms/index.cfm?cat=Story&recordID=603

Forgot to mention...25000 drones in one DCA! For one queen! Been in a few bars like that!


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Interesting paper.

Of central interest to me is the idea that to get good breeding, we need to maintain drone yards, or drone colonies at least a mile from the apiary containing our mating nucs. Do we?

So quotes from the paper:

*"Selected drone congregation areas were regularly observed for five years to verify that the dimensions of these congregation zones did not change greatly during this time (Ruttner and Ruttner 1968). When strange colonies were introduced into the vicinity, new drones were found at the congregation areas on the first day in equal proportion with local drones. This was true for congregation zones both near and distant to the apiary (2-3 km)...

"Drone congregation areas are commonly visited by drones from almost every apiary in the neighborhood..

"Areas as far as five km from an apiary may be visited regularly by numerous drones; some drones were found coming from more than six km away...

"Although the number of drones in a congregation area is quite variable, one such area had an estimated 25,000 drones from more than 200 colonies (Winston 1987). Several regularly frequented DCA’s were observed 500-1000 m from the nearest apiary.

"it was determined that the composition of the DCA contained equal representation from the local colonies, approximately 240 in number. Considering the density of colonies around the congregation area and average flight ranges of males, the results suggested that most colonies within the recruitment parameter of a DCA delegated equal proportions of males to a DCA. Consequently, the relatedness of a queen to her mates – and ultimately the inbreeding coefficient of the progeny – should be minimal. The relatedness among the drones mated to a common queen is also very low, maximizing the genetic diversity among the different patrilines (paternal sub-families) of a colony."*

Now, reading that, I feel like it really wouldn't make a bit of difference if I went to the trouble of locating drone yards a mile away. All the DCA's in the area are still going to be frequented by those drones; in relatively equal parts to other colonies in the area. So diversity is maintained through the drones splitting up and spreading themselves out between DCA's. Queens don't really need to do anything to "avoid" their own drones, as the genetics are as diverse as there are enough healthy colonies in the area to produce drones.

It seems to me that it is enough for me to maintain healthy bees, graft queens and open mate. My colonies will influence the gene pool of the area proportionately. 

So if you really want to influence the genetics, you have to have more colonies in the area than anyone else. And that "flooding the area" approach is done by many, and has been done for a long time.

Trying to maintain yards at distances for better mating with your own queens might just be a waste of time...

Adam


----------



## JWChesnut

Erickson published the "recipe" for breeding resistant stock in 2000. This recipe is very distinct from an undirected "Bond" approach.
His six steps are:
1. Identify Varroa-tolerant colonies in your
apiaries.
2. Move all colonies identified as Varroa tolerant
to a single isolated test apiary. This
apiary should be at least 3-4 miles from
managed colonies treated for mite control.
3. Monitor Varroa levels in the selected
colonies every three months.
4. Graft only from those colonies with the
lowest mite loads…Never use colonies
with known problems such as disease,
poor productivity or unacceptable defensive
behavior, no matter how Varroa-tolerant
they may appear.
5.Mate all queens in the isolation test apiary.
6. Requeen colonies in your other apiaries
as queens become available. Once requeened,
these colonies become candidates
for future selections of improved
Varroa-tolerance, hence, the need for
good record keeping. (viz: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/169463...roducing+varroa+tolerant+honey+bee+RECIPE.pdf )

The promoters of a "Live-and-let-die" theory don't address the issue of inbreeding or genetic swamping -- the Erickson prescription and the Russian program address these explicitly.

On inbreeding read: Harbo and Harris : viz: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...unselected_drones/file/9fcfd50c8b649c009c.pdf

Note they did 3 conditions: Resistant x Resistant crosses, R x Control , and C x C. The R x R queens were 100% hygenic, but produced on 1/2 the brood of free mated sisters. The loss of productivity is the mark of inbreeding. The Russian breeding program now takes out-crossing very seriously through grafting from one lineage for the virgin queens and yearly drone hive circulation from out-yards to saturate drones of a different lineage.

Improved selection requires A) isolation and B) saturation. There is very strong inertia in the bee breeding system (promiscuous obligate out-crossing) to revert to the normal genotype.


----------



## mike bispham

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Trying to maintain yards at distances for better mating with your own queens might just be a waste of time... Adam


It might be unnecessary, but it might also tip the scales your way. It will be dependent on how many treaters you have around, and how many resistant hives you have. You wouldn't expect to be able to maintain resistance with a few hundred treated hives around if you only had half a dozen. From that extreme example, and its reverse, you can extrapolate that the more you can get your drones into the game, the better.

As I said before, it seems to me that more attention you pay to this aspect, the more you increase your chances of success - at least if there are treaters around. If there are ferals all around your yard its a different story. I haven't read anything yet that makes me think its not a good idea, for me, to try to maintain say 4 outstands at a mile or two's distance around my yard as a genetic measure. And to encourage them to raise good numbers of drones.

We've read that ""it was determined that the composition of the DCA contained equal representation from the local colonies... " and that DCA's are populated more by nearer colonies. The latter makes more sense to me. As distance increases the likelihood of drones from a given colony must decrease. 

I've read somewhere that you only need a few patrilines with mite-management behaviours to provide resistance. Probably there's an optimum of some sort, though given that there are several distinct behaviours the picture must be rather complex. But I think an equally important issue is that you want to maximise the chances of the daughter queens of the one mated to carry the right genes - not just for immediate purposes, but into the future. The next generation queen will be a product at random of her mother and one of the mated drones, and may or may not inherit the required behaviours from her mother (50% chance in each case). So the more resistance-carrying drones her mother has mated with the better - at least up to a point. 

That's my attempt at rationalising matters on the info we've seen. But really I'm running with the intuition that more good colonies * more drones = more positive matings, and the longstanding understanding of people like Ruttner, Manley, and Solomon, that keeping dedicated drone colonies around a mating yard makes a positive difference. It makes sense, whereas taking no action against my local treaters doesn't. I don't need to know the ins and outs of it all.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Suze7

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I have been treatment free for about 15 months now. I mean that in the "truest" sense - no manipulations or additions of any kind for the purpose of combating mites. The bees have struggled, and one could say that the treatment free approach I'm using is "not working" very well. So I have been considering my alternatives. And I find myself wondering if it's really fair to ask treatment free to "work". Isn't it really just choosing a different way to approach beekeeping - one with a certain set of challenges that must be overcome? One could say that it's "living with mites", but then again, that is what everyone does. I feel like it's often just about living with mites, and not fighting them directly.
> 
> I quit treating last April, and entered last winter with 11 hives. Came out with 8. Lost two or three through the spring and early summer and have built back up through cut-outs and swarms to 18 at this point. I have just set up nucs for the year. 10 of my number are those nucs.
> 
> Over the last few years I have done a lot of study; reading everything I could find on ways of dealing with varroa, working with the bees - and in the end, I feel that for me personally, it just make the most sense not to interfere with the mite.
> 
> At the end of the day, I've come to believe that keeping bees without treatments (for the most part) really just amounts to managing bees with mites. Sure, you can graft from your best and work toward a more resistant bee, but with most of us living in areas where there are plenty of other, treated bees around, your progress could be slow.
> 
> Many people who are treatment free talk about making increase from "catching swarms" and "feral survivors", but I believe that most of those bees are just swarms from other people's treated bees, so all that collecting just amounts to replacing lost bees with new bees. The only difference really is that you worked for them, rather than paid for them, and in many cases, you can at least count the fact that if they came early enough in the season, the queen probably wintered at least once in your locality.
> 
> There are so many challenges that face bees (pesticides, pests, disease, weather) and beekeepers (economics, pests, disease, weather, insanity) that the death or poor performance of a colony could be the result of any combination of things. Mites are one, albeit a major one.
> 
> If you look at treatment free in the broadest sense; across all the people who take that approach, it really isn't about some genetic secret. It isn't about small cell. It isn't about not feeding sugar syrup, pollen sub or using three deeps or all mediums. There really isn't "a solution" in terms of some remedy that will rid the bees of mites.
> 
> It's about not treating.
> 
> So from what I can see, it really boils down to not fighting mites, and then managing day-to-day, month-to-month around the results. It's about deciding that you don't want to artificially combat mites and then replacing the work of doing so with other work.
> 
> Isn't it?
> 
> Adam


I heard an interview with Thomas Seeley on NPR. He remarked that if bee keepers were to stop treating their bees for mites, they would loose some of the colonies, but the ones that remained after 3 years would be the ones that had figured out how to manage their mite problem and, since bees pass on learned behaviors to their offspring, as long as that colony continued, the management problem would be solved. I've been a bee keeper, with two top bar hives and one Warré hive for 10 years. Occasionally I see mummies thrown out of the hive and a couple of times I've seen K wing but not for long. My bees appear to be mite free and when I inspect the hives in the spring, I look for mites on the floors of my hives. I occasionally see 2 or 3, but when I inspect my bees as they are flying in, I don't see mites. The only thing I've done so far for the bees is to feed them their own honey in a dearth, cover them with hive cozies and put up robber screens in late summer. Robbing has been a real problem in the past, but the robber screens make a huge difference. Check out Backyardhive.com to see the robber screen they have developed.


----------



## GregB

Suze7 said:


> I've been a bee keeper, with two top bar hives and one Warré hive for 10 years. .......I don't see mites.


Good for you.
Thanks for reporting.


----------



## Saltybee

Agree. Success with letting them die is a better theory than fact for most. Reaching out may provide a spread of success ( or maybe not).


----------



## mike bispham

Saltybee said:


> Agree. Success with letting them die is a better theory than fact for most. Reaching out may provide a spread of success ( or maybe not).


Its what I did. But I did it quite large, and two key things were in my favour: feral bees and relative isolation. I have zero varroa problems now.


----------



## GregB

mike bispham said:


> Its what I did. But I did it quite large, and two key things were in my favour: *feral bees and relative isolation. * I have zero varroa problems now.


And I got neither. 
Well, now I know.


----------



## Oldtimer

Did you get to your 200 hive target yet Mike?


----------



## crofter

Adam F C; What is the up to date progress on being treatment free? Is it still working for you?


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Did you get to your 200 hive target yet Mike?


No. I'm still on my own, and doing everything with 100 ish hives will be my limit until my son joins me. Its a good thing, now I have a resistant strain I can focus on becoming a better beekeeper. I still have to spend quite a lot of time working up my infrastructure. I've just had a fun summer trying to raise queens. Got the hang of it just too late to mate them I expect! All in place for next year though.


----------



## Litsinger

Suze7 said:


> I've been a bee keeper, with two top bar hives and one Warré hive for 10 years.


Suze7:

Thanks for the post- glad to read that things are working out for you. I spent my earliest years in Golden and my mom worked for Coors- in retrospect it seems like there are certainly a lot worse jobs than that, especially in the days of free beer at lunch.

I do hope you'll continue to share your experiences here in the TF subforum.

Russ


----------



## Suze7

Litsinger said:


> Suze7:
> 
> Thanks for the post- glad to read that things are working out for you. I spent my earliest years in Golden and my mom worked for Coors- in retrospect it seems like there are certainly a lot worse jobs than that, especially in the days of free beer at lunch.
> 
> I do hope you'll continue to share your experiences here in the TF subforum.
> 
> Russ


I'm kind of in and out, but would love to share and learn. As an organic gardener and former RN, I'm not fond of chemicals.


----------



## Gray Goose

mike bispham said:


> Very interesting, thanks. I wonder how we might take advantage of that understanding?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Hi Mike
replying to an old post with Old empirical data.
I see you popped up a few days ago on the 200-100 hive question.

In my misspent youth I did 2 queen hives the way the book "Hive and the Honeybee" describes.

the understanding of many or more drones IE patra lines in a hive could be pushed with 2 queen hives.
where if each queen had 18-20 drones mating the dual queen hive could Have 38-40 patra lines.

Sisters in the same yard would likely have less , but different lines in different yards bred in different DCAs could bring about a bigger number of patra lines.

In the 2 queen hives I had they got very big and "a bit unruly" I often used a ladder to put the top few boxes on, and needed bracing screwed to the hives going out in all 4 directions to keep them from blowing over in the wind. they did produce like crazy , 7 to 10 supers was common. (mediums) with 3 or 4 deeps of brood chamber.

However with a long hive and 2 excluders in 2 places one could have a 3 queen hive which would be even more numerated with partra lines. 

this would have that advantage of having more "drones" partaking in the hive.
IMO when i have done this for a bit the colony does not care if there are 2 queens, the queens do,, and must be kept separate. I have often seen 2 queen hives (mother , daughter) they did seem very healthy, as were the 2 queen hives I made on purpose.
I did this in the 1980's and it was for production, and they did produce.

GG


----------

