# Winter losses vs. Summer gains



## Solomon Parker

From time to time, there are complaints that there is too much bickering and arguing and people aren't getting to talk about what they want. Well, I can't do anything about that, people are people. 

But what I can do and what I like to do is answer questions. So I want to give everybody the free and explicit opportunity to ask serious questions. If you want to be treatment-free, or if you are weighing your options, ask away. I want to help you. I'm not going to be answering challenges or defending my methods or viewpoint. I want to help you if you want to be helped. I want to tell you what you want to know, not what you want to hear. I had tons of questions and many of them will be the same ones you are asking now. You can even go back to 2003 and see them for yourself in the archives.

So ask away. You have my ear.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

solomon, it sounds like the size of your operation and mine are about the same. you have mentioned your engineering background and liking 'numbers'. can you trace back your ten years in terms of winter losses vs. summer gains, either in real numbers or percentages?

i.e. 2005-2006 season: 2 losses, 8 gains, net gain = 6 hives.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I can try. I have recorded this better on my blog, so you can do in depth research there if you like, these are just the numbers as I remember them of the top of my head.

This year, I went from 10 to 23 net or so. Lost one of 11 over the last winter.

Last fall I sold two, lost four over the summer, I remember I added four new queens last year and split one hive into seven or so. Beyond that escapes me right now and I don't have time to go look it up. But my blog has it recorded several times.

My worst loss was in the winter of 2009 or so when I lost 5 of 7.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

many thanks sol, i'll visit your blog.


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon - I have been treatment free for over five years. Every year a lot of my bees die. My bees on small cell die as fast as the bees on large cell. I followed Dee Lusby's suggestion and put them in an isolated apiary. 100% died the first winter. This year one produced 160lbs in spring and died leaving me the crop. All the dead hives leave me lots of black comb with which to win bait swarm catching challenges here on Beesource, which is very satisfying. But I do not think that Charlie properly anointed me as winner. As a moderator, can you see that he awards me the proper accolades?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I am not a moderator.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Ollie, I am under the impression that virtually all your bees are swarms you catch locally from commercial beekeepers, is that correct? Do you do any breeding of survivors?


----------



## BeeGhost

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> But I do not think that Charlie properly anointed me as winner. As a moderator, can you see that he awards me the proper accolades?


Its my fault Ollie, i asked Charlie for a recount and he will be auditing exactly how many swarms you caught last summer and will get to that between furlough days, vacation and sick days and time when he is not working on the 300 swarm traps he is making out of paper political signs.


----------



## BeeGhost

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Ollie, I am under the impression that virtually all your bees are swarms you catch locally from commercial beekeepers, is that correct? Do you do any breeding of survivors?


I believe his swarm catching prowness takes advantage of "residential" beekeepers. People who have pretty hives in their backyards to show guests from the porch screen window. Oh and Charlies rooftop apiary.


----------



## JRG13

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon,

Do you think small cell or natural comb contributes anything to survivor stock or is it mainly genetic traits that attribute to your success in the TFB area.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I do not know JRG, I have never been able to separate the two. I know it is done without small cell, however I have never done it. I do happen to have about two dozen large cell plastic frames, maybe I should try.

As to what to attribute my success, again I cannot say. I know genetics has a part of it, but small cell has always been a part of it.


----------



## bendriftin

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I think one thing to keep in mind about being treatment free is location. Those in california have it tough because of the huge influx of migratory bees. Dr. Russell mentioned one time that even great genetics can fail when you have hives close by that are mite factories. In order to be treatment free in areas where you get a lot of migratory bees passing through I think you have to use every trick in the book until those migratory beekeepers have moved on. That means drone comb usage along with screened bottoms and powder sugar dusting. Not to mention other things that may help with nosema and foulbrood. I certainly would keep the dark comb to a minimum in my brood chambers as it can contribute to foulbrood in my opinion. If some of you that have bees surviving these conditions and would be willing to do some queen exchanges I would love to get work on promoting those genetics through selective breeding. I have some queens that are two years old and went through one year of almond pollination with minimal treatments.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

That is not a question. Please see original post.


----------



## Riskybizz

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon Parker > " As to what to attribute my success, again I cannot say. I know genetics has a part of it, but small cell has always been a part of it". 

Would you mind elaborating a little bit on your definition of success. I'm know you have stated that you have not been keeping bees that many years so I realize your practical experience is limited to that duration, but are you basing this "success" on what percentage of colonies you manage to keep alive every year? Is there another definition you equate to this success? Certainly loosing 5 of 7 over wintered hives would not generally be considered a success. Does the fact that you use no treatments on your bees and still manage to keep "some" alive translate into this success? I do not use any treatments whatsoever on my bees and I manage to keep most of them alive. I consider this a success in itself. But if I lost 30% of my hives over winter I would not be pleased with that end result, whether or not I used treatments or not.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Riskybizz said:


> I'm know you have stated that you have not been keeping bees that many years so I realize your practical experience is limited to that duration, but are you basing this "success" on what percentage of colonies you manage to keep alive every year?


I don't know how many is not that many, but I have been on Beesource for ten years and have been keeping bees for nine and a half. I generally base my idea of success on the fact that I have never lost all my bees at the same time. Lately, results have been much much better than just that.




Riskybizz said:


> Is there another definition you equate to this success?


Maybe, that's a pretty open ended question. I am enjoying what I am doing, some years more than others, so I guess you could say I am more successful some years than others. I'm still learning and I enjoy that as well. This year I grafted and raised queens and I was very pleased.




Riskybizz said:


> Does the fact that you use no treatments on your bees and still manage to keep "some" alive translate into this success?


This last year, it was 10/11. Is 90% "some?" While that was an odd a year as the year I lost all but two, my losses have been better than the national average for several years now. I feel I'm doing just fine.


----------



## bbrowncods

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sol,
How do you work "top entrances" into your hives? Do you still have bottoms?


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon, thanks for the opportunity for the questions.
You went from 10 - 23 net this year. Do your records allow you to distinguish whether hives that died are splits/nucs or hives that are in their second year or beyond?
If so I would appreciate this data.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Brad, I use shims made of 3/4" material and held together in the frown by a board serving as a landing board or awning. I have been using them in awning configuration lately. Lower entrances are the same sitting on an inverted migratory style cover. Nearly half now are founded on a ten frame nuc with a single inch and a half hole in the front.I build everything but the frames. You can find plenty of pictures on my blog and website. I reduce both upper and lower in winter.

Adrian, I don't usually keep track of which ones die, though I have in the past. I do know that the three nucs that died this summer were made up of one year old queen purchased from Zia, quite a performer but mean, one swarm caught two or three years ago, and one hive purchased in 2008. All others that died this summer were new nucs. The one that died last winter I believe was a swarm. In the past I seem to lose most hives not accustomed to our short harsh winters, hives from Oregon and Georgia come to mind.


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Ollie, I am under the impression that virtually all your bees are swarms you catch locally from commercial beekeepers, is that correct? Do you do any breeding of survivors?


We have no commercial beekeepers (one that I know of), this is suburbia, population 718000. The local bee club imports 200+ packages from Olivarez, and the local oak trees are full of bees. The best strains I catch are at the site I have maintained since 1970. I introduced imported queens to that site for decades, Weaver Buckfasts, All Americans, Kelly Starlines, Carniolans, Kona queens, others that I do not remember. 

That is why I doubt the theory that bees must be localized, at least not in my easy climate. Most of the bees I imported thrived. I see the age of the queen of being important to survival here. The smallest latest swarms I catch generally survive the winter and explode in spring. I am now fighting increasing EFB on the swarms I catch, even on new combs.

I don't breed survivors, I have none.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## MattDavey

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hi Solomon,

I'm interested in your square/cube hive bodies.
(It's been a while since I've looked at your blog.)

1. Have you made half width boxes, so that they could also be used as 6 frame Nucs?
2. Have you run it as a two queen hive?
3. Have you tried the boxes at right angles and does it act as a queen excluder?
4. Are there disadvantages to this size box, other than the weight of a single box?

Thanks
Matthew Davey


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



MattDavey said:


> I'm interested in your square/cube hive bodies. (It's been a while since I've looked at your blog.)


Unfortunately it's been a while since I updated it. I now have a full time(ish) job while I finish up my Master's Degree. Give me some cold winter days when I can't go outside and it will all come flooding back to me.




MattDavey said:


> 1. Have you made half width boxes, so that they could also be used as 6 frame Nucs?


I have made one six frame medium nuc, but not any boxes separate from that. I had some lumber left over from making boxes that made shorter end walls and so I put a nuc together. I imagine I will use it next year when I start producing queens and nucs in medium equipment rather than just deeps.




MattDavey said:


> 2. Have you run it as a two queen hive?


I have not, though one of them did exist as a two-queen hive for a short time when the old queen was superseded the second time. She didn't survive the second time at least not for six months like she did the first.




MattDavey said:


> 3. Have you tried the boxes at right angles and does it act as a queen excluder?


Yes I have, and I have not seen queen excluding as an effect. I did notice brooding further out to the edges than you might normally see, but that may be a subjective viewpoint.




MattDavey said:


> 4. Are there disadvantages to this size box, other than the weight of a single box?


Yes, there are. First, it's an odd size, so not necessarily compatible with the rest of my equipment though you can make little boards to mitigate that. They are heavy, though a 12-14 frame medium should be no heavier than a deep. Because they are wide, they are a little more awkward to lift, your center of gravity is thrown out further than with a narrower box. I will have to keep an eye on them to make sure water doesn't pool in the bottom, but that has more to do with the materials and design I used than anything else. I have noticed quite a bit of burr comb, but that is probably a symptom of using PF-120 frames or of the bees themselves rather than the boxes. I will add a couple foundationless frames in the spring to see if I can get some controlled drone comb and cut down on burr comb.


----------



## RickD

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

This is a little off the thread, but I am in need of a reply from someone. I have been reasonably treatment free, albeit I do sugar dusting in the late summer/early fall. i have bought into the idea of small cell and trusted the bees. I monitored this year after the last dusting and had high mite counts...averaging almost 100 with a 24 hr drop. I did a wintergreen syrup treatment which had little aggregate effect. I just did a formic acid treatment with the Mite Away 2 strips...I was scared out the wazzoo after reading the instructions. anyway, when I went in to do the deed, I had not opened the carton before going in because of the scare messages, and while at the hive discovered that the strips are too long to go across the 8 frame hive with 2" from each side as recommended. I cut them in half and placed them in the hive as the directions were drawn, but they said nothing about halving....what the hell? It is early winter, and bees are drawing back, s this can only have a helpful effect, I suspect. Was this the wrong thing to do? Should I have placed two strips lengthways in an 8 frame hive..even tho they are very robust, they are not what they have been....I obviously do NOT like chemicals.....they flat out RAN from the strips, like they flat out AVOIDED the wintergreen feed (completely in the case of a nuc)....


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

This is not a question I'm willing to touch and not a question that deserves an answer in this forum.


----------



## zhiv9

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



RickD said:


> This is a little off the thread, but I am in need of a reply from someone. I have been reasonably treatment free, albeit I do sugar dusting in the late summer/early fall. i have bought into the idea of small cell and trusted the bees. I monitored this year after the last dusting and had high mite counts...averaging almost 100 with a 24 hr drop. I did a wintergreen syrup treatment which had little aggregate effect. I just did a formic acid treatment with the Mite Away 2 strips...I was scared out the wazzoo after reading the instructions. anyway, when I went in to do the deed, I had not opened the carton before going in because of the scare messages, and while at the hive discovered that the strips are too long to go across the 8 frame hive with 2" from each side as recommended. I cut them in half and placed them in the hive as the directions were drawn, but they said nothing about halving....what the hell? It is early winter, and bees are drawing back, s this can only have a helpful effect, I suspect. Was this the wrong thing to do? Should I have placed two strips lengthways in an 8 frame hive..even tho they are very robust, they are not what they have been....I obviously do NOT like chemicals.....they flat out RAN from the strips, like they flat out AVOIDED the wintergreen feed (completely in the case of a nuc)....


You will have much better luck posting this in one of the other forums. I am surprised the post has been deleted/moved already.


----------



## zhiv9

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hi Solomon,

By forcing bees to use foundation of a fixed size, be it 4.9, 5.1 or 5.4, are we not eliminating their ability to adapt their size to the local conditions and climate? 4.9mm may be the ideal size for Arizona, but what about northern climates? Or wetter climates?


----------



## RickD

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> This is not a question I'm willing to touch and not a question that deserves an answer in this forum.


OK...Oops, I guess


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

So as I understand it from you answers in this thread.

Success is anything greater than total failure.

That your acceptable threshold for results lays somewhere between 71 and 9% losses.

You then add that you enjoy what you are doing is your measure of success.

You are successful but cannot say why.

Does The above look to you like a convincing case for treatment free beekeeping? Do you have any interest in making a case for treatment free beekeeping? If so and you agree that the above does not get it done. What do you think will be required to support treatment free beekeeping?


----------



## pamelissalan

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hi Solomon, I have not ysed any c hemicals this season adn now find two of my three hives queenless in November! What on earth can I do? Pam


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



zhiv9 said:


> By forcing bees to use foundation of a fixed size, be it 4.9, 5.1 or 5.4, are we not eliminating their ability to adapt their size to the local conditions and climate? 4.9mm may be the ideal size for Arizona, but what about northern climates? Or wetter climates?


Dee Lusby actually made a map of what she considered natural cell sizes. You can find it on the POV section of this website. I can't find it right off the bat, but here is the Lusby's POV page: http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/ I recommend reading the whole thing through to get a good foundation in treatment-free beekeeping. I did. 

Oh, here it is. http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ta-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/climate-map/ The very coldest and high altitude zones show 5-5.2mm according to her map.

I find that on small cell, much more than on large cell, with wax foundation, the bees are more likely to build what they want anyway. A perfectly drawn 4.9mm frame is very rare. It's not a bell curve. What I mean is, smaller foundation does not *force* anything like larger foundation seems to. Plastic is another issue.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Success is anything greater than total failure.


Only if you define failure as loss of all hives at one time. That is the thing that I'm trying to avoid. I find backyard beekeepers typically remain beekeepers until such time as they lose 100% of their hives at which point many of them quit. That's the very real possibility I design my systems to avoid. But there's much more involved with it, building my own equipment, rearing queens, selling nucs, all sorts of fun stuff that isn't necessarily tied to how many hives die each winter. But my first goal is a system for backyard beekeepers. They are my target audience.




Daniel Y said:


> That your acceptable threshold for results lays somewhere between 71 and 9% losses.


Again, pessimistically viewing my operation in this way is like buying a car based on how many wheels it has.




Daniel Y said:


> You then add that you enjoy what you are doing is your measure of success.


I didn't then add anything.




Daniel Y said:


> You are successful but cannot say why.


I have been saying why for ten years.




Daniel Y said:


> Does The above look to you like a convincing case for treatment free beekeeping?


The above is not my case for treatment free beekeeping.




Daniel Y said:


> Do you have any interest in making a case for treatment free beekeeping?


Of course I do. I'm offering to answer questions. People who ask honest questions are open minded and seeking the facts. Even if my case isn't all roses and Laffy Taffy, it is the facts. Similarly, treating doesn't guarantee survival yet the two positions are held up as opposite sides of the same coin. The truth is, if you flip a coin, you also have a third outcome, you can drop it.




Daniel Y said:


> What do you think will be required to support treatment free beekeeping?


It doesn't need any support. It is the default.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



pamelissalan said:


> I have not ysed any c hemicals this season adn now find two of my three hives queenless in November! What on earth can I do?


Pam, I cannot make any diagnoses without more information. Are you certain that the hives are queenless rather than just shutting down brood rearing for the winter?

Queenlessness is a beekeeping issue, not treatment-free issue. There are no treatments that I know of that will keep your hive from going queenless, but I do know of at least one which will give it a good chance of going queenless. In Massachusetts in November, my first guess would be that they are not queenless, just not brooding, which is what they should be doing this time of year.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon:

I have a TBH with 3 screened air holes on the top (just below the cover), and 4 entry holes on the bottom (The two end ones are plugged with corks, which allows for entry and exit only at the lower, center of the hive.) Our weather in this area of Texas just turned cold for these parts (high 30s at night and low 60s during the day). Should I plug up additional screened holes to help the hive maintain a warmer temperature during these cold snaps? I've read of the importance of ventilation, but am concerned that there may be TOO much ventilation when these cold fronts come in.

Sondra


----------



## RiodeLobo

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon, can you comment of condensation?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sondra, I like to err on the side too much ventilation. The bees heat the cluster and not the hive. I don't yet keep top bar hives though I'd like to try them out, so I can't comment much more than that.

Dan, sure, I can comment on condensation. As you know, bees eat honey during winter. Like most fuels, when "burned," honey turns into water and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide escapes naturally as its condensation point is -70 degrees, though the lowest recorded temperature was -128 F. Just a fun fact. Anyway, for those not familiar with the process, the water vapor released by the bees will condensate on the interior of the hive if it is cold enough and the humidity is high enough. One may do a few things to keep this from happening. First, you can keep the humidity low by increasing ventilation. Second, you can insulate the hive so that the interior surfaces do not reach a low enough temperature to cause condensation. Some people use thick insulation on the roof of the hive so that any condensation will be on the walls and will run down the sides harmlessly. Water dripping on the cluster is likely to kill the colony.

My method is to increase ventilation, lowering the humidity in the hive and greatly diminishing the possibility of condensation. Having large hives with empty comb in the top few boxes over winter also helps baffle any falling water, keeping it from reaching the bees further below. This last winter, my ten frame nucs bottom boxes gave a good case study. Throughout the winter, I was able to look in the hole in the front and see the cluster a mere three inches in despite single digits and bitterly cold winds outside. For this reason and others (including infrared camera data) I am convinced that bees only heat the cluster and they are able to provide the necessary heat to keep themselves alive in all but the most unfortunate conditions such as the lid of the hive blowing off in a blizzard. I feel insulation is unnecessary and further aids the bees in unnecessary ways allowing some to survive which might not otherwise. I am also unconvinced by tales of *the chimney effect*. The one thing a hive has in it that distinguishes it from a chimney is stuff. Chimneys full of stuff don't pass fluids well. Comb makes a very effective baffle. My recommendation is to use an upper entrance on hives in the winter. A lower entrance is less important. Our hives are quite a bit different in many ways than tree hollows or underground cavities. Problems with condensation are the beekeepers fault, not the fault of the bees.


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



SRBrooks said:


> Should I plug up additional screened holes to help the hive maintain a warmer temperature during these cold snaps?


If I may offer an opinion, I would let the bees decide. They can close up the ventilation if they want to with propolis. I have ventilation openings in my hives that are closed or opened by the bees to whatever extent they want. They are always a little different.

Ted


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon,

I am looking for a suggestion on preparations for next year. I understand you don't have any crystal ball, but you have a lot more experience than I do. I have been a little worried about asking on Beesource because people don't seem very friendly many times. Thanks for this thread! Anyway, here is my question.

How many hives should I have prepared for next year?

Now let me give you some details. I have 5 hives going into their first winter. I hope to grow to about 12 hives. 4 of the 5 hives were from early swarms, so those queens have all overwintered. One hive is mean. I hope to catch swarms to help grow my colony count. I caught 6 this year. Now here is the real meat of my question. I want to grow my own queens and keep them in nucs until needed. Clearly, I need 7 more hives to get to 12, but how many nucs beyond that would you recommend for mating and holding queens, splits, and building comb? I am assuming that some of my hives will survive the winter, of course.

Ted

PS: I love your web site!


----------



## RiodeLobo

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thank you for the summery. I have a follow up question. Would you make any alterations to your conclusion based on a substantially colder climate. I also am keeping boxes on this year and use a top entrance. However I am 13 degrees colder than you on average and think top insulation is quite beneficial (I have not had winter a winter loss yet, but have had several crash due to mites in the fall), and I have not had the courage to not insulate.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



taydeko said:


> How many hives should I have prepared for next year?


I'd say have several more than you need. For nucs, have more available than you plan to use. Make more than you plan to keep because you'll have a certain proportion of failures and dinks.

The great thing about hives is that they're not perishable if kept under cover. 



taydeko said:


> PS: I love your web site!


Thanks. I'm planning an update here in the near future if you have any suggestions. I'm always looking for "frequently asked questions" to answer on the website.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



RiodeLobo said:


> Would you make any alterations to your conclusion based on a substantially colder climate.


That's a good question. There are those who swear by insulation as you'll find around here. I have a couple of ways to think about it. First is mathematically. I keep such large hives and the local strain of bees tend to keep quite small clusters. Therefore, mathematically speaking, the hive is significantly larger than the hive and no insulation would do any good as the heat will still escape at a greater rate than the bees can create it. 

On another level, I look at Michael Bush whose bees go uninsulated (though many are on 14 hive pallets) and he has appalling weather conditions with 60 mile an hour winds and temperatures at -20 and lower for extended periods of time. Virtually all his hives have upper entrances and the lion's share have lower vents of sorts as well. A good portion I saw had no wind breaks whatsoever. His hives do pretty well as long as the wind doesn't blow the bricks off the lid which does happen from time to time.

The hive will gain some temperature from the presence of the cluster of course, the question is how much and where it goes and the effect of humidity. What is true is that "plenty of ventilation" will remove water vapor, but it will also drastically reduce the temperature in the hive.

Other than this, I cannot give you too much more. Your record cold temps are 20-30 degrees below the records here and 30-40 below where I grew up in Oregon, so you're kind of out of my realm.


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> I'd say have several more than you need. For nucs, have more available than you plan to use. Make more than you plan to keep because you'll have a certain proportion of failures and dinks


It is the plan that I am asking about. I am making my own equipment so I am wondering how many I should plan for. Is there a rule of thumb or ratio you use? Like one nuc for every hive or is it one nuc for every two hives to mate and house queens? Maybe it doesn't matter, and it is just what I am willing to play with or pay for. 

So I am thinking that an average of 7 mediums per hive (two 8 frame mediums equal one deep) would be an adequate number of boxes for the main hives, plus some number of nuc boxes for splits and queen rearing, etc. The failures and dinks are what I am concerned about. Whats a dink? Is that a technical term?

Ted


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



taydeko said:


> It is the plan that I am asking about. I am making my own equipment so I am wondering how many I should plan for. Is there a rule of thumb or ratio you use? Like one nuc for every hive or is it one nuc for every two hives to mate and house queens? Maybe it doesn't matter, and it is just what I am willing to play with or pay for.


That's a good rule of thumb. I like to build mine nowadays. Just for numbers, I have enough boxes for 20 hives of four deeps a piece, approximately. To go with that, I have made about a dozen plywood nucs, and ten queen castles, each housing three nucs of three frames a piece. I figure that about covers what I need, though I could use some more lids.




> So I am thinking that an average of 7 mediums per hive (two 8 frame mediums equal one deep) would be an adequate number of boxes for the main hives, plus some number of nuc boxes for splits and queen rearing, etc. The failures and dinks are what I am concerned about. Whats a dink? Is that a technical term?


"Dink" is a term I use for a hive that won't grow but also won't die. It's used by some other beekeepers too. An I idea I have adapted from Michael Palmer was to divide them up in the spring for mating nucs and/or keep them in five frame nucs where they can draw comb until they die of something. Sometimes, just pinch the queen and merge with another hive or requeen with a nuc.

I think your math is good. I like to plan for more than I need that way if I catch more swarms than I'm expecting or need to split up a hive preparing to swarm, I have what I need. It's a great way to expand the amount of drawn comb you have, splitting and merging.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Dear Ted:

Oh, D-U-H. Good point. Why do I always feel I have to DO something?

Thanks...

Sondra


----------



## sfisher

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Ted I read somewhere, I forgot if it was from Mike Bush or a book, it wasnt from the forum. To have one nuc for every two hives. I keep six hives and eight nucs, because thats all I can fit in my backyard. I really like the nucs I wish I had more, they are fun to play and experiment with. I have all eight frame mediums, six boxes per hive. If I run out of boxes I can pull a couple off harvest the honey, and throw them back on, that hasent happened yet. The nucs are all five frame medium, two boxes each.

Wikipedia/dink = A woman in the James Bond movie Goldfinger.

Steve


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sondra, I will take a shot at an answer to your question. You are keeping bees not having them. pat yourself on the back.

On the issue of a "Dink" I don't know if comments about this are just starting to stand out to me or if there is suddenly the appearance of them. But I ran into one of this this past summer. it was a swarm I caught and put in a top bar hive back at the beginning of June.

My question is. Do they ever get going or will they remain a lethargic colony? I chose to leave them alone and see what happens next spring but if their is no hope I could have used the bee population to boost two nucs I started. I may still get weather warm enough to combine before winter sets in. Only 41 degrees this morning. today may look like a good one to attempt it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Do they ever get going or will they remain a lethargic colony?


I may have mentioned this before, or may not have been clear about it. I have found that even if they are not the sort to build up and bring in honey, they still seem to do well in five frame nucs drawing out a frame of foundation at a time. Perhaps it has something to do with the natural size of a colony of bees. Give me twenty years and maybe I'll have a better answer and a bigger sample size.


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sfisher said:


> The nucs are all five frame medium, two boxes each.


OK, that leads to some more questions: 

If an 8 frame medium is 1/2 a 10 frame deep and a regular nuc is a 5 frame deep, why not just use one 8 frame medium for a nuc? Is it because of the vertical brood nest? Your 5 frame nucs with two boxes are only a little bigger than an 8 frame medium also.

Do you have to feed your nucs to get them through the winter? Of course your winters are pretty mild, but how much honey can they have going into winter? Certainly not as much as they recommend for a full hive. The fact that they are nucs keeps the population small, therefore the winter cluster is small and they don't need as much food?

I was thinking about just putting the nucs on a shelf unit of some sort, with them stacked on the shelf. Is there any reason why that would not work? They might be a little hard to manage if there wasn't room behind them, but that shouldn't bee too bad.

I was thinking about making 8 frame boxes that have a slot in the ends where I can put a piece of 1/4 plywood or hardboard to make a 4 frame nuc to use as queen castles or stacked nucs. Would that work, do you think? Can you overwinter queen castles if they only have 4 frames or do you have to put them in a larger hive for overwintering?

Ted


----------



## Andrew Dewey

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

'Tis the season for planning next year, and one of the things I'm considering is working at getting small cell or foundationless frames drawn. Do you have a preference and any techniques to pass along? I currently use Permadent plastic foundation in wooden frames, the Parmadent gets painted with my own (melted) cappings.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Ted, I wish I had more info for you about overwintering nucs, but I haven't gotten there yet. I will tell you that experimentation is a lot of fun, sometimes even if it fails.



Andrew Dewey said:


> 'Tis the season for planning next year, and one of the things I'm considering is working at getting small cell or foundationless frames drawn. Do you have a preference and any techniques to pass along?


Foundationless will be easy as long as you are not concerned about what sort of comb you get. The bees will like it just fine, but you may not. If you want to get brood comb, it needs to be right in the middle of the broodnest, early in the season. As far as getting small cell done quickly, I'd say your best option is Mann Lake PF-1xx frames. They are drawn out acceptably more than 90% of the time. However, they still have all the downfalls of plastic foundation. Some beekeepers have cut out the foundation and used wooden frames. Barry posted in a thread about that, you can find it somewhere in TFB.


----------



## sfisher

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Taydeko you pretty much answered all of your own questions Ted. I just asked Mike Palmer about the 8 frame medium as opposed to the nuc for overwintering, and the answer was "the bees like to work up, not across. And yes the nucs dont need as much food as a hive, theres not as many bees. I dont know how your winters are, but mine are pretty mild. It didnt even get in the 20s last year. I would say the avg for dec-jan is 40. I just saw in a post on beesource that bees use the least amount of stores at 40 degrees. I dont see why the shelf wouldnt work for overwintering because you wont be doing any inspections. I dont think that you would want them that way permmanently. 4 frames for overwintering? I wouldnt try it, but if they were stacked to 8 frames, is a differnt story. Steve


----------



## sfisher

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Andrew I am getting ready to put all of my bees on small cell. I asked Mike Bush what I should do, and he told me to wait for the flow this spring, and start putting them in the middle of the brood nest a couple at a time. I plan on moving my capped brood above an excluder and replacing the brood with small cell foundation. And then letting them use old brood combs for honey. I am cutting out PF foundation like Barry did, and putting it in wood frames. I also plan to use all of my nucs for comb factories, to help draw out all of the small cell. Steve


----------



## sfisher

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sol can you tell me what your drone managment practices's are?


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon:

I went up to my TBH the other day and saw no activity at the entrance. I put a Boardman feeder of honey inside the hive, and closed it up immediately. Within less than a minute, the entries looked like O'Hare airport. The bees were coming in so quickly that they were hitting up against the observation window on the other side of the hive. Serious robbing, I assume. My question is, how the heck did other bees know so quickly that it was time to rob? Can bees smell a food source that quickly? It was as if they had scouts hanging around my hive, just waiting. 

Thanks for your time and input.

Sondra


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sfisher said:


> Sol can you tell me what your drone managment practices's are?


My only drone management practices are to move frames with excessive amounts of drone (more than 10-20%) to the outside of the broodnest and eventually up to the supers. I will occasionally scratch open some drone brood to check mite levels, but that's about it. Even so, some hives will produce more drones than others, filling up every bit of that 10% while others may ignore it or only fill what's inside the sphere of the broodnest.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



SRBrooks said:


> I went up to my TBH the other day and saw no activity at the entrance. I put a Boardman feeder of honey inside the hive, and closed it up immediately. Within less than a minute, the entries looked like O'Hare airport. The bees were coming in so quickly that they were hitting up against the observation window on the other side of the hive. Serious robbing, I assume. My question is, how the heck did other bees know so quickly that it was time to rob? Can bees smell a food source that quickly? It was as if they had scouts hanging around my hive, just waiting.


I believe the interpretation of what you are seeing may be a little off. I would submit that the bees smacking into the hive are the ones that belong in the hive and you've blocked their access. It is impossible for robbers to get the scent that quickly, unless the hive is dead and they were already coming and going as they please, in which case the whole story is over.

Hives always need access to the outside in flying weather. They need to eliminate waste, collect water or pollen or nectar if it is available and new foragers need to orient.

Bees that belong in a hive will usually fly right in, maybe landing within just an inch or so from the entrance and crawling the rest of the way. Robbers will fly around, following the scent looking for an opening. Don't confuse them for new foragers, they will fly back and forth, keeping the entrance in sight as they get further and further from the hive. Every few minutes they will come back and land, later to take off again. Some times during the day, I have found, new foragers will be out in force orienting, usually in the evening, but it may be different among different populations. Robbers will try to get in screened entrances, the home bees will know where the real entrances are.

In summary: Don't feed unless it is necessary, unless you know feed is needed, otherwise you're just inviting problems. I don't recommend ever using a Boardman feeder. If feeding is necessary, this time of year calls for the thickest syrup you can make or granulated sugar. When the weather gets cold enough, they will quit taking the syrup.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sfisher said:


> 4 frames for overwintering?


Michael Palmer is known for overwintering four frame nucs with a feeder in Vermont. Videos available on my website and blog.


----------



## sfisher

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

What kind of a feeder can you use in Vermont in the middle of winter?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

He uses division board feeders. Like the one on the right in this picture: http://parkerfarms.biz/feeding.html#Division_Board_Feeder

These are both from Kirk Webster's operation, but they're both in Vermont and they both use the same feeders as far as I'm aware.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Bees will take feed from an inverted can or bottle placed directly over a cluster at far lower temps than they will from a division board feeder.


----------



## Riskybizz

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The question was " what kind of a feeder can you use to feed bees in the middle of the winter in Vermont" I'm sure that Webster and Palmer use division board feeders in their operations, but I doubt very much that your going to find them filled with syrup in the middle of a Vermont winter. I also agree with Jim.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Dear Solomon:
Please let me clarify. Usually there are obvious guards at the entries. I have blocked no entries, as you said earlier to err on the side of too much ventilation. Good advice, because the weather is moving into the 80s here again. 
What I meant about the observation window is that the bees were flying in so quickly from the entrance side that they were slamming into the BACK side. (This is a top-bar hive.) No guards, or at least not a strong enough force to monitor the entrances. I have never seen this hive without guards.
I do think they recently swarmed. It used to be a spooky-strong hive only a few weeks ago. I saw two empty queen cups, and my hive recently went from having bees crawling all over the inside of the hive, to being down in numbers, lethargic and unmotivated-looking. 
I will take your advice and stop the feeding. They do have capped stores. I'm thinking I need to make sure this hive is queen-right. I see no eggs, and just a marginal amount of capped brood. 
(P.S.: The only reason I use a Boardman is because I can actually place it INSIDE the top bar hive, not out in the open like it's designed to do for a Lang.)
I think the hive may be weakened due to a swarm, and I set them up the other day for serious robbing, even though the feeder was hidden inside the TBH.
What do you think???

Sondra


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Candy Board for feeding in winter.


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sol, I have another question. I think in a recent post you indicated that you don't requeen until after the main honey flow is over. That surprised me. Can you explain the rationale?

Ted


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



SRBrooks said:


> What do you think???


I'm not sure what to think, it's hard to troubleshoot without seeing things. I'm a visual thinker. If they did swarm, it's possible they have a hatched virgin running around the hive and time will tell what's going on. Generally speaking, doing nothing rarely makes things worse.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



taydeko said:


> I think in a recent post you indicated that you don't requeen until after the main honey flow is over. That surprised me. Can you explain the rationale?


Anything you do in the hive during the productive times of the year will have some effect on hive operations. Changing out queens (especially if you do something like a walk away split) will have more effect and leave time during which there is no new brood being produced. You want your hives to have all the chance they can to bring in honey. That's also why I use queenright cell builders, because the original hive can continue on without much interruption. Even if you do major things before the flow, you're still interrupting the production of brood which will affect the field force during the flow.

Once the flow is mostly over, you know what hives produced and what ones didn't, you can replace the worst ones. At the beginning of the year, I use the slowest builders for brood for mating nucs. Those hives weren't likely to make any honey anyway. It's an adaptation of Michael Palmer's methods. He advocates leaving the good production hives alone during the flow. Split up the weaker hives for nucs and such, but don't make queens from them.


----------



## GLOCK

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hi SOLOMON i'm a third year beekeeper with the first being a failure. At the begining of this year i had 3 hive that i over wintered from the year before.
The 3 hives where nucs i got off a apiary here in PA . Any way this year i made out of them hives 5 splits cought 8 swarms{from my hives i'm guessing} and i bought 3 more nucs from another apiary in PA. and i raised some queens Going in to this winter i had 17 hives and 2=3 box nucs . I have lost 5 hives so far and 3 i knew had real high mite counts and all where the 3 oridinal hives i started with.
Then i lost one to a late swarm in sept.{i cought it} and it may been mite pressure that made them swarm any way that hive truned into a dinky and died out. Then this last week we had a nice day close to 70 and i walked up around my be yards and i had 2 hives that looked like they where bring in alot of necter and i know one was being robbed and one was doing the robbing anyway the next day the temps. droped and i went up and did the ear to the entrance and sure enough i had another deid hive this one was weak going into winter and i know it was going to be lucky if it made it.So now i have 13 strong hives and 2 strong 3=box nucs what should i be doing come spring as far a SPM and varroa destructor and if i want to allways have 10 strong hives how many nucs would you work with? I don't ever want to buy bee's again do you think i can raise good bees{mite resistant } on my 12 acers i think i'm the only person with bee's for many miles and theres not much agricultural growing of much so i think i'm isolated . Thank you .


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



GLOCK;873766 if i want to allways have 10 strong hives how many nucs would you work with?[/QUOTE said:


> I've come to the conclusion here that nucs don't work year 'round. I just don't have the conditions. Nucs pretty consistently die in the summer and there's no fall flow to speak of so they don't work going into winter either. They certainly have their place, I use them as stepping stones to get colonies into bigger hives. But for me, they are not useful after June.
> 
> I do however have a goal number of hives to keep. I want to have about 20 hives. I have three apiaries, two with 8 hive stands, and the home apiary has 9 to 11. I figure if those are all filled going into winter, I should have right about the correct number of hives come spring. Your mileage may vary, but the same concept should serve.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

good answer. thanks sol.

i'm doing the twenty hives spread over three yards operation too. one yard will be exclusively for nucs, and the other two pretty much for production. the goal is to have the nuc yard sold off by fall.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Back from Christmas break if anybody has any more questions. Beekeeping season is ramping up again. Time to prepare for spring.


----------



## zhiv9

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hi Solomon,

I have spring prep question. I have a single hive (1 deep and two mediums). Assuming that it survives I am looking to increase by splitting this hive in the spring, but I need to decide soon how many queens to order. Would it be reasonable to order two queens and expect to split this hive 3 ways. This will be my first split(s), and I want to make sure that I have realistic expectations. I have two nuc's on order already, with the plan to go into next winter with ~5 hives.

Thanks,


----------



## Maddox65804

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Not a question - Sorry Sol.

Just a hearty Thank You! for hosting just such a thread as this. It is a great community service.

I also feel it is a gutsy move deserving appreciation because this forum is too often used for personal attacks instead of good solid discussion. Having suffered several myself, I applaud your courage for putting yourself out here. 

Good Job


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



zhiv9 said:


> Would it be reasonable to order two queens and expect to split this hive 3 ways.


While I can't speak to the precise conditions of the area or the hives, I see no reason why a reasonably strong hive could not be split into three especially with queens being provided. My mating nucs consist of one frame of brood and one frame of honey and the ones with good hatched and mated queens go into winter occupying more than ten frames and not having been fed. That being said, conditions and results will vary.

Remember to prepare ahead of time for equipment needs. It's no fun getting out there on the day and realizing you don't have enough lids or something else.


----------



## whalers

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Here's one for you Solomon.

I want to try something this year but before I do I would like some feedback. In an attempt to give my stock a better chance at surviving without treatment (chemicals) I am looking to order up "Survivor" trait queens and put the survivor queen in the package to be released in place of the queen that came with the package. (The replacement queen would be added the same day I get the package.) I have purchased "stock" packages of bees since beginning beekeeping and they simply dont last. Therefore I end up purchasing more bees each year. I want to attempt to upgrade my hives with queens that are bred to survive treatment free.

So two questions. Anyone see a problem with this? If so what would it be?

Second question - Can you suggest someone who sells "survivor" queens. I know of Oliverez (sp?) but would like to look into others just for comparison purposes.

Dont get hung up on the logistics of getting them both at the same time, I think I have that handled.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



whalers said:


> So two questions. Anyone see a problem with this? If so what would it be?


Sounds like a plan, however any package has less than stellar chances of surviving in my view. I prefer nucs. Give the bees plenty of time to get accustomed to the new queen after they've been stuck in that cage with the old one for several days.





whalers said:


> Second question - Can you suggest someone who sells "survivor" queens. I know of Oliverez (sp?) but would like to look into others just for comparison purposes.


Check Old Sol in Rogue River. Other than that I don't know. I haven't lived in Oregon for eight years.




whalers said:


> Dont get hung up on the logistics of getting them both at the same time, I think I have that handled.


Okay.


----------



## whalers

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

So by plenty of time for the bees to adjust to the new queen you mean days? I'm thinking by the time they can free her from the cage they should of had enough time to adjust. What do you think?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Should be. This is more of a general beekeeping question, and one with which I don't have any experience. Lots of people are going to tell you it will work just fine. Few of them will have done it.

Sorry I don't have anything solid for you, I'm not fond of packages. I have about 100% success with putting queens in freshly queenless splits. That's what I like to do.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

good afternoon sol. how are your bees overwintering so far up there?

so far so good here, 17 out of 17 still kicking.

a few are light, and i hope to get out when in warms up tomorrow and move some honey from the heavy ones to the lighter ones.


----------



## whalers

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks Solomon, I'm just considering different options. For me to get nucs is a very long drive, unless I get them in Portland three hours away and what I dont like about those is you dont know if your getting Italians or Carnies. I like the Carnies but they dont winter well here. For the first time in my beekeeping career I am going to try to pull nucs out of the one hive that looks like it will make it through the winter. I'm sure I will have some questions for you before I try that.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> how are your bees overwintering so far up there?


So far, all the ones I went into winter with are still alive. That's a total of 23. I did socialize some of the honey (only one hive), and I am feeding a few (all yearlings) with granulated sugar.

I've mentioned a number of times a hive that I have that I have owned continuously (with unbroken natural lineage) since April of 2003. That hive did quite well this last year and produced 17 queens (before mating etc.). But before Christmas, it was knocked over by our trampoline as it rolled across the yard, distributing its parts across the landscape. It may have been a while before anyone noticed (I was in Oregon) and the hive seems to have used up much of its stores during the time it was exposed to the elements. It is still alive though, and being fed with sugar which it is taking.

Other than that, things have been going fine.


----------



## Riskybizz

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Peg

Typically overwintering is associated with a part of the country that actually has a winter. Your funny sometimes.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

excellent sol, thanks for the report, and good luck with the resurrected hive.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Riskybizz said:


> Peg
> 
> Typically overwintering is associated with a part of the country that actually has a winter. Your funny sometimes.


wasn't trying to be funny rb, but it's cool if cracked a grin.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



whalers said:


> So by plenty of time for the bees to adjust to the new queen you mean days? I'm thinking by the time they can free her from the cage they should of had enough time to adjust. What do you think?


If the cage is in with the package bees for 2 days before it is released, is usually enough. However if you want acceptance virtually guaranteed, 4 days. But most people shoot for 2-3 days. ( Which includes mailing time ).

Starting with packages is fine, long as it's done right. Less skill is needed for nucs, because they are a fully set up hive with their own dynamics and brood to hold them together etc, it's just a case of putting them in a new box. But with packages, they are a "loose coalition" of bees, who will have no problem drifting to the hive next door. 

So experienced beekeepers will try to install packages in such a way as to minimise drifting. For a small hobbyist that can be done by sprinkling the bees with a little water before dumping them in the hive, hives not too close to each other, and doing it late in the day. If you can, putting a frame of brood in with the package will hugely help stabilise the hive.

From a treatment free perspective, packages, rather than nucs, are the way to go. Because packages come with bees only, and no comb. Comb that comes with nucs is often of unknown history, ie what it could be harbouring in the way of viruses and past residual treatments.

Another thought, don't know how many packages you are planning on, but the most risky time in terms of queen survival is during and immediately after the install. As the queens that come with the packages are somewhat sacrificial, but your "survivor" queens will not be, a suggestion could be to start the packages with the queens they come with, that way if any are lost it's the ones you didn't really want anyway. Give the packages perhaps 3 weeks to get stabilized, and then introduce the survivor queens. If any packages did not make it because the bees drifted to other hives, those hives could be split at that time, meaning you get back to the origional number of hives you wanted to achieve.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Bobcat

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hello from Pittsburg Kansas,

Well I just started keeping Bees last summer and have read a bunch of books, reasearched the internet and downloaded podcasts. I still get confused, so anywahy here is my Question.

History of the bees: Home Yard
Purchased 5 nucs from a man 40 miles from me when i attended his bee class. He promoted chemical treatmeants, After reasearching i decided to not treat the bees and did not. They seem to be doing great.

History of the bees: 560 Yard
Did a cut out on hive 1 and hive 2 was a trap out, I ended up letting the bees requeen do to failure of the trap out queen. Hive 1 is doing great and about soccer ball size as of today with all the honey stores in the deep broad box above them. Hive 2 has was combined with a have that went queenless in the home yard and is very small but has several pounds of honey stored above the brood box. 


Question- Home Yard-I have on Deep 10 frame and a meduim super on top. 
Most of the hives seemed to weight about 25-30lbs(total heft) and had alot of healthy bees. When or should a feed these? They seemed light. One was really good and had a full meduim super and honey in the brood box. I just dont want the others to starve.

PS: I regressed these striaght to 4.95 and did not treat. The nucs came from treated large cell bees, they are now alot smaller.

Question 2-560 Yard- There are 2 Hives, the two hives one a removal and the other a trap out. Hive one had a good size circle of bees and the top deep brood box was still full of honey(two 10 frame deeps is the hive structure). Hive 2 had the same as one except there were not very many bees. Again, Do i need to feed or what are your thoughts.

Any help is appreciacted. Thanks


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Bobcat, 
My general rule regarding when to feed in the middle of winter is this: If when I open the hive and look down on the cluster (easier to do at night with a flashlight) I can see capped honey, then they probably don't need to be fed yet. There is a crucial difference between our locations in which your bees will likely need more honey to make it back around to flowers. 

You'll ultimately have to make the determination. But if they're not going to starve, there's no reason to feed them. If they are going to starve, why? If it's your fault, make amends. If it's their fault, either let them go or put them on the requeening list. The more you do this, the more these decisions will come automatically. I wish you success.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

What if it's an unnaturally harsh environments fault?


----------



## Bobcat

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Bobcat,
> My general rule regarding when to feed in the middle of winter is this: If when I open the hive and look down on the cluster (easier to do at night with a flashlight) I can see capped honey, then they probably don't need to be fed yet. There is a crucial difference between our locations in which your bees will likely need more honey to make it back around to flowers.
> 
> You'll ultimately have to make the determination. But if they're not going to starve, there's no reason to feed them. If they are going to starve, why? If it's your fault, make amends. If it's their fault, either let them go or put them on the requeening list. The more you do this, the more these decisions will come automatically. I wish you success.[/QUOTE
> 
> Ok, that said:
> 
> The bees were in the brood box below the honey super on some of hives. Will the move into the honey? If it is cold, can the move up into the honey or should I center the frames after awhile.
> 
> Also the ones that are lite and only have a couple frames of honey in the super, should I steel some frames from the strong hive with a full super?
> 
> One more: the size of the hives are about a soccer ball, I presume that is good. with a flower around April 15, what should the hive weight at his point in the winter cycle. I am only 2.5 hours North of Fayetteville.
> Thanks for the response!


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Bobcat said:


> The bees were in the brood box below the honey super on some of hives. Will the move into the honey? If it is cold, can the move up into the honey or should I center the frames after awhile.


They should move up into the honey. Occasionally they can't or wont and end up starving. I have not seen a good explanation as to why that sometimes happens. I tend to think some mixture of genetics predisposes some hives to be unable to move around when it is very cold.




Bobcat said:


> Also the ones that are lite and only have a couple frames of honey in the super, should I steel some frames from the strong hive with a full super?


You can if you feel it is necessary, though it may be a little more disruptive than feeding granulated sugar. I like sugar because they'll move up into it when they need it. They'll hardly eat it at all if they don't need it and if they don't end up needing it, you can save it for next year. Feeding granulated sugar, you'll need some sort of cavity beneath the lid. A super works. My shims provide about 7/8" which seems to be fine generally. I've never had a hive starve under my management.




Bobcat said:


> One more: the size of the hives are about a soccer ball, I presume that is good. with a flower around April 15, what should the hive weight at his point in the winter cycle.


I can't really answer that one for you because I don't operate that way. I don't check weights. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I just don't happen to do it. I just peek in the lid every couple of weeks and see if there is honey near the cluster.

Soccer ball is okay. The hives most adapted to this area tend to keep clusters somewhere between a child's soccer ball and an adult soccer ball. They are very frugal with stores. Other queens that I've imported do other things, but that's what the bees do locally.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Bobcat,I don't know your area but based on the flowering timetable you've mentioned, it is the exact reverse (6 months out) of an area I used to work in my country.

Feed stores wise, we used to winter the hives down with the equivalent of 6 full deep frames of honey. Not much of that was eaten through winter but it's mostly eaten once spring brood raising starts. We did a spring round where we checked food stores and the occasional hive would need some more food, but 6 combs worked for most.

Hives that don't have enough, and to my mind 2 frames are not enough in the flowering scenario you have mentioned, have 2 options. Cut brood raising drastically and be a very small weak hive at the start of flowering, or some strains will just raise heaps of brood anyway and then run out of honey and starve. Obviously neither is a good option.

What you should be doing this spring is observing what the bees reasonably use, and then armed with this knowledge, ensure you leave each hive with this amount in fall. This spring will be a good time for you to find this out. You will be a better and more confident beekeeper when you have discovered the feed requirements for your sites and can leave each hive with the correct amount in fall and state with confidence they have the right amount, barring unusual weather conditions in spring, which you would deal with at the time.

Sol, a question. You stated you have never lost a hive to starvation. Elsewhere you have said you don't lose hives to mites. I'm curious about the hives you lose, what is it to?


----------



## JonnyBeeGood

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hello from Connecticut! First winter, only one hive. Started with a nuc in May which went on to do great from my beginners perspective. I took 63 lbs of honey and they went into the winter with 2 deeps as full as can be. 
I did some powdered sugar tests for mite counts and they were always low so I decided not to treat with mite away quick strips as I had been instructed too. 
Quick inspection yesterday, all seems well. Bees covering all 10 frames when I opened it up. Should I pull frames to check and disrupt the hive or just leave them alone? 
I also scraped out a bunch of dead bees from the bottom board, 75 or so, and counted about 20 dead mites in the mix. (This was the first time I've check them since the beginning of Dec.)
Can I, should I dust them with powdered sugar during the winter to dislodge more mites?
Thanks


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



JonnyBeeGood said:


> Quick inspection yesterday, all seems well. Bees covering all 10 frames when I opened it up. Should I pull frames to check and disrupt the hive or just leave them alone?


Just leave them alone. You might check to see if they still have honey capped. I like to use a flashlight on a cold dark night so they don't fly out and get all disturbed.




JonnyBeeGood said:


> Can I, should I dust them with powdered sugar during the winter to dislodge more mites?


Not if you want me to answer your questions. :no:  Can you? They're your bees. Should you? No.


----------



## stevedc

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Bad Charlie


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Any other questions?


----------



## RiodeLobo

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Treatment free queen sources. It would be nice to have reports on who you guys buy from and how they did.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

do you use any particular hive configuration sol? how many boxes do you overwinter established coloniesi in, and how much honey do you leave in the fall?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The only queens I have bought in the last several years were from Zia Queenbee. Most of them were good, some very mean, some kind of mean, few gentle.

My typical hive configuration is 5 deeps with upper and lower entrances, no queen excluders. However, I am slowly switching to mediums which means 5 deeps will be replaced by 7-8 mediums eventually.

I harvest in June and leave all honey collected from then on. Usually hives lose weight over the summer. Some die. Lately I have had more summer dead outs than winter.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I just added a number of these questions and answers to my FAQ page on my website. http://parkerfarms.biz/FAQ.html

If there are any more questions, I am still eager to answer them.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon: Why do bees make holes in some of their combs? They look to be intentional, as in rather uniform in size, clean edges, no leaking honey, etc. 

Also, I ordered and received a top bar hive that has to be assembled. Is it okay to use some wood glue here and there as long as I give it plenty of time for the fumes to dissipate before bee installation?

Sondra


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

We like to think of combs as nice straight and neat. Bees have no such concern. They will build comb in some very interesting shapes. Our frames and hives attempt to cause them to build comb how we want it with varying degrees of success. As far as why they build holes, I don't know. I had the idea to drill some holes in plastic frames, but was told they will fill in the holes just as often as not. This is one thing I wish we understood better to give them the best opportunity, but we don't know for sure yet.

I see no reason why not to use wood glue. I use Tite-Bond III on all my boxes. It's much cheaper by the gallon if you use it in any volume. I wasn't aware wood glue had all that many fumes to speak of.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Titebond II and Titebond III are considered food-safe for use in making kitchen cutting boards.



> Are Titebond Glues safe to use?All of our Titebond wood glues are safe to use and produce no harmful fumes. They meet the requirements of ASTM D4236 for safe use with arts and crafts. Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue and Titebond II Premium Wood Glue have both been approved for indirect food contact. For this reason, it is the glue that we recommend for making cutting boards. We do recommend wearing gloves when working with the Titebond Polyurethane Glue because repeated use of the product with bare hands could lead to a sensitivity to those types of products.
> 
> http://www.titebond.com/frequently_asked_questions.aspx


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The main reason they make holes is just to have a pathway to the other side of the comb. Often but not always these holes are started by some damage to the comb done by the beekeeper then the bees decide to continue it as a hole.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

It did strike me as an intentional pass-through, especially since they build the combs and THEN make holes in them.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Yes. I use mating nucs made from full size deep combs, quite often they don't have a lot of bees. In these circumstances they'll often make a hole, as the cluster does not go to the edge of the comb and they want good access.

At one time one of the plastic foundation manufacturers was making the sheets with an optional snap off corner, to allow the bees to do their hole making thing, if they wished.

Hole making is less prevalent in strong hives but they still may choose to do it.


----------



## Riskybizz

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Years ago when we used Dadant Duragilt foundation (before the days of plastic formed foundation like Ritecell) it came with circular punchouts at the bottom of each sheet. As Oldtimer indicated, they are commonly called communication holes allowing the bees free access through the combs. In the wild they will also construct them on their own.


----------



## Moon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Here's a question.

This is going to be my third year keeping bees. My first year I bought five packages from a producer and of the five two died. The two that died were probably a direct result of my learning curve. I think I killed a queen by accident in one hive and the other hive just didn't build up adequate stores. Of the three remaining hives, all three are still alive going into my third season, checked them as recently as last week and all three roared back when I knocked on the side of the hives.

In my second season I purchased thirty-three more packages, made two splits, and got one swarm from one of my original three hives bringing my total number of hives to thirty-nine. Thirty-eight of the thirty-nine hives are alive as of this writing along with one strong nuc I produced last year.

Going forward with my little operation I intend to produce somewhere around two hundred nucs this season from these thirty-nine colonies, none of which have had any treatments. My question being, at what point would the treatment free community on beesource consider this a successful operation? I don't consider a hive lost if I have to add brood and allow them to raise their own queen (the case with six of my packages that had queens dead on arrival). I learned to graft and raise queens last year and was able to successfully produce around forty queens in each attempt. My careless handling of the queens killed some of them off and not fully understanding the best practices for introducing virgin cells killed many more off but these are all things to be expected while learning. This year I will no doubt be much more successful, that being said, I can't imagine my operation going down the toilet unless I suffer a 100% loss through the winter. I live in an area where state average yield is a meager 45# per hive, and yet I haven't seemed to have many problems in the past couple of seasons. So, how do I calculate success and failure?

*edit*

All of my packages came from a commercial beekeeper that migrates to California and treats all of his hives accordingly, I haven't treated; and yes, I know how some people feel about packages.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Is your operation successful? I would say for the amount of time you've been going you have been extremely successful, and are obviously doing most things right, some people just have what it takes.

Be aware, there's a relatively common them where treatment free beeks go well for several years then have a major crash. However because you are building hive numbers aggressively, you ought to be able to ride anything like that out. That's IF the crash happens, it may not.


----------



## Moon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I kind of feel like that's my unspoken strategy. Continue to multiply numbers so in the event that I do have a series of hive failures I'll have other hives in production or at least nucs and queens ready to go that can fill the gap. My strategy in loose terms is to remain ahead of the deadout curve by continually raising more bees. I'm trying to outbreed the problem in the hopes that the bees that survive will be heartier then the last until I hit an eventual leveling off point.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Moon said:


> My question being, at what point would the treatment free community on beesource consider this a successful operation?


I've quit answering this question. You get to decide if you're successful based on your own criteria. Next, your customers decide after being happy with your product. I cannot speak for the rest of the beekeeping community. This thread is not about deciding what is success, it's about people needing help and being able to find it from someone with relevant experience and a willingness to share.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The thread is titled "Ask Questions Here".


----------



## Moon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> The thread is titled "Ask Questions Here".





Solomon Parker said:


> I've quit answering this question.


Excuse me for asking Solomon.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

sounds like you're doing great to me moon, i would be very happy with those results.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Packages are regarded with suspicion by some. Moon if you are OK with it, who supplied the bees, and what are they, ie, italians, sunkist or whatever they were called?


----------



## Moon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Well in all honestly I didn't know so much what I was getting into at the beginning. I had researched bees and beekeeping enough to know that it's what I wanted to do as a hobby. Aside from reading a couple of Kim Flottum's books and reading Beekeeping for Dummies I knew packages were cheaper then nucs and my first year I was starting with a limited budget. The first couple of packages I got were Italian's, the beekeeper I got them from comes from a well established family of beek's that operate (what I would consider) a very successful migratory operation of ~6,000 hives. So I trusted the stock, and was OK with the packages. My second year I ordered packages from the same individual, 17 of which were italians and 16 of which were carniolans. I had 8 queens die of the 33 packages, he replaced a couple of the queens but I think he was suspicious that I had done something wrong to kill them because he said they had the same queens in all of their packages they brought back from California and they lost 2 out of 850. Maybe I mishandled, maybe something else happened, I'm not sure but I do remember being upset he didn't replace all 8 queens. In any case, I'm done buying packages and intend to raise my own queens and hives via nucs/splits from here on out, however, I still do intend to infuse new genetics through the purchase of reputable queens from time to time.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Riskybizz said:


> Would you mind elaborating a little bit on your definition of success.


Asked and answered.




Solomon Parker said:


> I want to give everybody the free and explicit opportunity to ask serious questions. If you want to be treatment-free, or if you are weighing your options, ask away. I want to help you. I'm not going to be answering challenges or defending my methods or viewpoint. I want to help you if you want to be helped. I want to tell you what you want to know, not what you want to hear. I had tons of questions and many of them will be the same ones you are asking now.


For those who read the whole thread, its purpose is clear.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon, have you quit blogging?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I was writing my Master's Thesis. But I have not quit altogether.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Good. I like reading beekeepers' blogs.


----------



## Moon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

In a treatment free world, if/when you have a hive die out of a nosema infestation over the winter, what do you do with the frames/equipment next year? Burn them, or treat them?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I have not had any nosema problems, so I can't speak from any experience on that issue.


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I have read that you can kill the Nosema spores with 65% acetic acid. I guess the question would be if this was a treatment, or just getting the combs ready for the next inhabitants.

Ted


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

sound like a no brainer to me.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

unless of course your goal is to expose your bees to as much disease and pests as possible in order to weed out the ones that can't survive on their own, in which case you would want as many nosema spores remaining on that comb as you can get.


----------



## Moon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

People are so pedantic in this thread. You offer knowledge, but belittle anyone in seek of answers that aren't in your immediate field of experience. Rather than offer assistance, people offer snide remarks and chastise anyone who doesn't think the same way as they do. Undoubtedly it's a no brainer to you squarepeg, if it wasn't you would probably be asking the question and hoping for guidance instead of snide remarks. I thought this thread was asking about questions Solomon, not what Solomon's first hand experience was, if I wanted that I could read a blog. What I wanted was the opinion of treatment free beeks who tout they've been doing this successfully for years, not the snide remarks of snippy people.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

i agree moon, (i had to look up pedantic).

and i do i apologize, my remark was snide.

the problem is that there is no such thing as a 'treatment free world'. what i mean by that is that sol has his approach and definition of what treatment free is, and others who tout being treatment free may have differing ideas.

if you are asking what could be done as a precautionary measure to comb obtained by from a confirmed nosema dead out, and if you are not concerned that you might be breaking some unwritten rule in the 'treatment free world',

then i would recommend using bleach diluted to 10% with water, mist the comb well, and let it dry thoroughly.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Moon, I'm happy to share my experience. If you want the conjecture and wild hare brained theories of people who have never actually done what they're talking about, you're welcome to it. It wont be coming from me.

Like my website says, I am not telling you how to do it, but I will tell you how it can be done because despite the hoards who have told me it can't be done, I'm still doing it. Predicted crashes have not come. No one grants me the term 'success.' I don't care. 

This is very simple. If you want to ask ME questions, ask and you will get honest answers. If you want to run off topic, start your own thread and you can ask for any sort of question you want. I wont complain. There are precious few knowledgeable treatment free beekeepers out there. Perhaps you should be thankful for what information you can find from those who actually did what they talk about.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

23 out of 23 ay sol?

not bad.

and i hear what you are saying to moon and others, this is the ask sol thread after all.

and i hope you will take this in the spirit in it is given...



Solomon Parker said:


> I have not had any nosema problems, so I can't speak from any experience on that issue.


you had mentioned in previous posts that you allow for natural selection in you apiary, and by treatment free you allow hives to perish if that is their natural course, i.e. no intervention. 23 out of 23 for this season is awesome, and it appears you have accomplished your objective. congratulations.

but the hives lost along the way to get there have a story to tell as well. they all died for some reason or another, or combinations of reasons. the question that was never answered, (if i understand and recall what you have shared in previous posts), is that you never initiated any kind of formal autosopy, i.e. not mite counts, nosema spore counts, ect.

perhaps some of your deadouts could have been from nosema, perhaps not. it would more accurate to say that you have never taken any action regarding nosema.

using diluted bleach to sanitize comb out of a dead out is something that the old beekeepers here have been doing for decades. i have had the opportunity to use that technique once or twice, and if that makes me not treatment free by another's defintion, well, ok.

moon, i regret the way i sounded in my previous two posts, i pledge to improve on my tone.

and sol, if you have carved this thread out to be a question/answer forum for just you and whoever asks, i can respect that. 

for me, in a perfect world (forum) the most is gained with the free flow of ideas from all who care to contribute.

with respect,

kevin


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> you never initiated any kind of formal autosopy, i.e. not mite counts, nosema spore counts, ect.


That is correct.



squarepeg said:


> it would more accurate to say that you have never taken any action regarding nosema.


It is as I have stated it.



squarepeg said:


> if you have carved this thread out to be a question/answer forum for just you and whoever asks, i can respect that.


Anyone is allowed to request posters stay on topic. Anyone can request posters read the thread before posting.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

ok.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I don't get it. The thread topic is "Ask Questions Here". 

But even if there was a particular topic, which in this case there isn't, just because I start a thread does not mean I haven't had people derail it. I've even had threads I started derailed by you Sol. To me, it doesn't matter, you just move on, if people want to ask questions here they'll do it.

If you've stopped answering a particular question, somebody else might be happy to.


----------



## whalers

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Question - "Super" rotation. I've read a lot of material here about NOT rotating supers. I'm in agreement with the concept but have a question. My lone surviving hive is made up of a deep and a medium. The bees are at the top of the deep and into the medium which still contains lots of honey. Our weather is still quite cool here in central oregon so I have not opened up the hive for a close look yet. My question is this. Assuming the bottom deep is basically empty - just drawn comb, will the bees work themselves back down into the deep if I leave things just as they are? The medium on top of the deep will be mostly honey but some empty comb, depending on how much of the honey stores they use.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

They should work their way back down. They should. They don't always do as they should though, as any experienced beekeeper will tell you. They might choose to swarm or something before completing the task.

What the gentleman spoke of regarding rotating brood boxes seemed to refer to situations where rotating the boxes would cause disruptions because there was brood in both boxes. If your bottom box is completely empty, I wouldn't be very concerned about that happening if you were to put that box somewhere else as long as you weren't disrupting the brood nest. I'm not entirely sure that's the case though. If all you have is a deep and a medium, I'd recommend leaving it alone. Let them build up a bit and see where it goes.


----------



## whalers

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks Sol. I will leave it alone and see how things come along. This is a very healthy hive and I want to do a split from it later on when the weather warms up.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Dear Solomon:
I have a never-used Lang, and I read somewhere that an empty hive can be placed in the vicinity of other hives in hopes of providing a hive option for a swarm. Do you ever place empties on your property for this reason? 

Sondra


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sondra,
I do. I don't usually use empty hives, I usually use empty five frame nucs. Not completely empty, they usually have four frames of foundation and one frame of comb. They also usually have some sort of swarm lure, either the commercially available ones or my homebrew type, a combination of lemongrass oil and a dash of alcohol that has had old dead queens soaking in it. I use the same setup for swarm lures around the countryside. I have caught a good number of local wild swarms that way. Wild swarms are usually very small here. Anything larger than two frames and I consider it to be from a kept hive.


----------



## Moon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Question for Solomon,

I don't follow you enough on the forums to know exactly how you perform your inspections so if you've answered this elsewhere I apologize for asking again. 

From your blog: New Rule
If you wave your hand over an open hive and bees fly up to sting it, requeen.

Is this with or without smoking the hive? Is this in the instance of a flow or dearth? Do you think intentionally breeding bees that lack any kind of defensive behavior towards an intruder is a good quality or a bad quality? Do you have skunks in your area?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

That is without smoking the hive, good weather. 

I don't think breeding bees without any kind of defensive behavior is a good idea and I don't know of anyone who does it.

I do have skunks in my area.

I expect to be able to take the lid off a hive and to work it gently and deliberately without being attacked and without smoke. I keep a lit smoker with me in case it is necessary. I don't work with gloves so gentle bees are a must. That post was in response to my last mean hive that I have not requeened yet. If I open the lid and pass my hand above the hive, about 8" up, my hand will be attacked. May not be stung immediately, but mean bees are a liability as well as an annoyance. I get stung enough not to have any sort of a reaction, but it still really hurts, especially when I get stung under the fingernail like happened right before I posted that.


----------



## Jamie Bucklin

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hello! I am getting my first 6 packages of bees soon! I am starting them in 8 frame med. boxes with foundationless frames from woodlynbrand. What is the preferred method of introducing the queen? Just release her? Hang the cage in one of my frames? Thanks!


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I thought this was a thread to ask about treatment free beekeeping not general beekeeping?

By asking your general questions here you will not get an overview of what other beekeepers are doing.

Getting just one persons opinion on things bees is not a very good idea


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

...but getting one person's at a time can be a bit less overwhelming. By all means, get more opinions if that's what you want.

I'd recommend not going with packages, but if you do, hang the queen in the cage for a few days. I've also direct released her during installation.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

> What is the preferred method of introducing the queen? Just release her? Hang the cage in one of my frames?

The preferred method seems to be to hang the cage. In the case of foundationless, this results in messed up comb. If I tell you to direct release her and they abscond, you'll think releasing her was why, but in my experience, they will move next door if they don't like the queen, even if she is in a cage... I direct release.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beespackages.htm#donthangqueencage


----------



## Isaac Colvin

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

When I started my hives last year I went treatment free and foundationless, mainly to save money but anyway I have a hive that overwintered in a double deep. I just did a spring inspection which was the first inspection in quite a while. My question is how would be the best way to fix a comb of honey that is built accross two outside frames? And also I was wondering if shb would winterkill, I found probably around 100 dead in the bottom of the hive but the hive seemed to be doing fine and I only saw one live beetle? I appreciate any help you can give on this.

Isaac


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Isaac, you might want to cut out that frame of honey and let the bees start over, I don't know, I can't see it. If you want to keep it, cut it out and tie it in either with string or rubber bands.

SHBs will often overwinter in the cluster with the bees. I don't know exactly what temperature kills them, but I have also seen dead ones on the bottom board.


----------



## Isaac Colvin

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Anything that you recomend doing about the hive beetles?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

If the beetles are not causing destruction, don't worry about them. All the bees really need to do to keep them from damaging the comb is prevent larvae. It's the larvae that are the problem, not the adults.

I regularly see beetles in my hives, but no larvae, and therefore no problem.


----------



## jeffnmo

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon; Just installed my first 2 packages on Sat. . They are Minn hygenics from Ca.. My question: if both hives do well is it best to stay with the same type of queen in the future or switch to another type from a local beekeeper? Also is it really best to requeen yearly? I ask that because it seems if a queen is laying well and the hive is doing well you'd be messing with what's working. Thanks in advance for the help. Jeff


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Jeff, I personally dislike requeening unless there is something wrong with the hive that needs fixed. I don't do any sort of preemptive requeening or scheduled requeening or anything like that. I requeen when hives are mean or unproductive. I absolutely do not believe requeening yearly is the best practice.

I personally don't consider it the same hive if it has been requeened other than naturally. There is no reason why the two should be considered related. 

In my view, if you want to be successful at keeping bees treatment free, either get local bees or keep them long enough so they become locally adapted. Packages and queens from California or Alabama are not going to get you where you want to go.


----------



## jeffnmo

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks Solomon that will keep my head on straight. Jeff


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Dear Solomon:
I just read that bees abscond more often from TBHs than from Langs. Have you found this to be true? I had never heard that before.

I'm installing two new packages this weekend, and it was suggested that I close the bees in the TBHs for 24 hours after the install to discourage absconding. I've never closed them in previously.

Your thoughts?

Sondra


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I have not experienced many absconding problems, and I do not yet have a TBH, so I cannot comment on that with authority.

If you install packages and don't immediately release the queen, the chances of absconding will be low. Shutting bees in is fraught with difficulties, dehydration, suffocation, and problems related to not being able to eliminate waste are among them. I'd say don't immediately release the queen, and that should be a good start.


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

In our bee club, we've heard many reports of newly hived bees absconding from TBHs with open screen bottoms. As soon as there is comb and some brood, it seems to resolve.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I'd say too much ventilation in that case. I haven't used screened bottoms in years. Bees desire to control their internal climate. They don't always succeed, but they also don't always do anything specifically, always.


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

That, and too much light.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I too get people I sell bees to, with top bar hives, telling me the bees absconded, often. So much so, that were at all possible I'll go there and do the install myself.

Very often, the problem is caused by overheating. The new bees do not have their ventilation system sorted out till after some days. Mean time, if the sun shines on the hive, it gets warm, the bees leave. Simple fix, put something such as cardboard over the lid, with an air gap underneath, to shield from the sun.

Do this, leave the queen in the cage for the bees to release slowly, and get all the bees in the hive properly, not hanging under the screen if there is one, and success will be close to 100%.

PS. Blocking bees in is totally disruptive to them and should be avoided where at all possible.


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



SRBrooks said:


> Why do bees make holes in some of their combs? They look to be intentional, as in rather uniform in size, clean edges, no leaking honey, etc.


I read a study where they were looking at making holes in comb to provide access to other combs during the winter. The cluster was more mobile and had fewer problems moving from comb to comb. I have doubts that the bees know that, but it helps. I have seen holes in comb after a comb was damaged. They smooth out the damage nicely.

Ted


----------



## taydeko

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



cg3 said:


> many reports of newly hived bees absconding from TBHs with open screen bottoms. As soon as there is comb and some brood, it seems to resolve.


I have hived packages and swarms without blocking the entrance in my TBHs without problem. I try to include some brood comb when I put them in the hive. When I first started I though they were absconding but it was hot and they were just bearding. They didn't have hardly any comb in the hive yet, so there was no place for them to hang out.

When I first started, I was using screened bottom boards and they all absconded. Now I use solid bottom boards and brood and I have had no problems at tall with my TBHs.

Ted


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



taydeko said:


> I read a study where they were looking at making holes in comb to provide access to other combs during the winter.


Somebody once told me about how they took a bunch of plastic foundations and drilled holes in them (they had probably read that study) so that the bees could get through and move around. But the bees filled all the holes in with comb.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks so much for all the advice, guys! This is the first hive I've purchased that had a screened bottom board, so it's good to learn that I need to keep it closed up, especially for the install. 

This brand-new hive also has a white, metal roof. Since I'm in Texas, my hives are always positioned to get morning sun and either dappled or full shade in the afternoons. We get temps up to 105 on some days. Is there EVER a time when I want to vent the hive by removing the bottom board?

Thanks so much for all the advice.

Sondra


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

You might get better and more informed answers on TBH questions in the TBH forum.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Nah. You RULE, Solomon. And the other members' comments have been really informative.

Sondra


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I appreciate your kind words. I wish I was more help on TBHs, but I'm not there yet.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Well, I appreciate that you're not arrogant. And the other people who have responded to my questions here have been really helpful. I was getting all wigged about my upcoming installs, but I feel I have really good info to work from now.

Thanks, everyone!

Sondra


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



SRBrooks said:


> Since I'm in Texas, my hives are always positioned to get morning sun and either dappled or full shade in the afternoons. We get temps up to 105 on some days. Is there EVER a time when I want to vent the hive by removing the bottom board?


If all you have is 3 little round holes for an entrance, then when the hive is full of bees, and it's 105, one way or another they will need more ventilation than just the 3 holes. Quite a bit more probably.


----------



## whalers

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

New Question for Solomon - A friend and I began beekeeping four years ago. We have yet to do a split and are going to try it this year. Were trying not to screw it up, so could you give me your best shot at how to do a split. I've read a lot on this site and other places and some of the information is conflicting. (Like that never happens in beekeeping ) Anyway, if you can distill it all down to a basic process I'd like to hear your approach to doing a split. Thanks


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Dear Solomon:
I asked about TBHs and absconding a few days ago. I took your advice and that of the other responders. The screened bottom board is closed off, and the queen has not yet been released.

I installed two new packages yesterday around noon.  The queens are still in their cages, and I did not remove the cork and allow the bees access to the candy, even. Should I take out the corks today, or fully release the queens today, or give them a little more time in the hives before I do either?

Sondra


----------



## Ccarter

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hello Solomon,
On your website you have a photo of syrup that is green colored and a statement that you dye it to make sure you only sell honey, never stored syrup. That makes sense to me. What do you use for dye? Food coloring such as used to add color to cake frosting?
Thanks.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I used regular food coloring. I don't think it is the same thing as cake frosting coloring, the only kind of that stuff that I have seen is a gel. Not that it won't work the same, it's just not what I used. I used the little egg shaped bottle type of food coloring.

In any case, I have not used it in a couple years. I quit feeding sugar syrup and now only feed granulated sugar for the most part. Not saying it will never happen, it just hasn't happened lately. I have abandoned stimulative feeding. And there comes a point in the fall (though maybe not in Texas) where the bees will no longer take syrup. Granulated sugar can be fed beyond that point to supplement insufficient winter stores.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sondra, I am sorry, I did not see your question until just now. I hope you did eventually allow the queen out!


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Whalers, sorry, I did not see your post until just now. I don't get emails when Alistair posts, so I don't see anything afterwards either.

My best shot for a walkaway split is to take the queen and five frames of brood, more of the open rather than not. If it is a very large hive, you can take more brood. The idea is that the queen goes to the new location or else the new location will have many fewer bees as they will tend to stay where the queen is. If you move the queen then the foragers who don't want to change locations will go to the old hive and you'll have a more balanced population. In this way, the most bees will go to both hives, and the original location will likely pull in a bunch of honey as they won't have as much brood to take care of until the new queen starts laying. Make sure to leave eggs and/or very young brood so they can make a new queen.

I have moved on to using queenright cell starter and finisher to make queens then using queen castles to as mating nucs which then graduate up to larger nucs and hives. Walkaway splits are very inefficient in raising queens because a whole hive works for a month to make queens only one of which is allowed to be kept.


----------



## Ccarter

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks. I was thinking of the liquid, not a gel.

This is a purchased nuc I just hived a couple weeks ago. I see the bees bringing back lots of pollen, but they can also empty about a gallon of syrup in 2 days. There are lots of plants blooming right now and I don't know how critical it is for me to keep feeding the syrup. I'd really prefer not to open the hive more than once a week, and I don't know how many days their stores will last if I don't refill the feeder more often.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

They should be capable of gathering nectar on their own at some point. It's what bees do. I seriously doubt the possibility of them running out this time of year.


----------



## Bobcat

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> They should be capable of gathering nectar on their own at some point. It's what bees do. I seriously doubt the possibility of them running out this time of year.


But its snowing and sleeting here in Kansas Solomon, I hope we run out of that. ha ha


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Yeah, I know, if we get our forecasted snow, it will be the latest snow on record here. I am concerned for my mating nucs. However, not concerned enough to feed them! 

I am a hard hard man. 

We've had nasty weather just about every Thursday for the last two months. They ought to be used to it by now. They've had nice weather five days a week, that ought to be good enough.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The feeding question is never quite as simple as "will they or won't they run out of feed" it's more of a question of how much brood reduction will result if you allow stores to get too low. Most of my day today was spent feeding bees. The bees look nothing short of spectacular with queens laying like crazy but stores are getting dangerously low in some locations. Unusual to say the least but with a cool front moving in it seemed the only prudent thing to do to insure that nothing gets stunted. Each season is different but when brooding is at its peak and the honey flow is on the horizon is when demands are the greatest and when you have the most to lose.


----------



## Bobcat

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sure thing, I have a couple nucs with cut swarm cells placed in them. Pretty sure it will be a loss on as they needed to take a flight soon, not a big loss of bees but a loss of the potential gain. 

I agree, the several gathering and mating days last week could have been a 
god send for the even splits. Resources are there for several days, need a break Sunday.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Jim, you're not treatment-free and you're not a hobbyist. My focus is toward those beekeepers, and my answers will be toward their benefit and not directed toward commercial beekeepers. Commercial beekeepers have their own forum. This is the treatment-free forum. There is nearly zero overlap between the two.


----------



## Bobcat

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



jim lyon said:


> The feeding question is never quite as simple as "will they or won't they run out of feed" it's more of a question of how much brood reduction will result if you allow stores to get too low. Most of my day today was spent feeding bees. The bees look nothing short of spectacular with queens laying like crazy but stores are getting dangerously low in some locations. Unusual to say the least but with a cool front moving in it seemed the only prudent thing to do to insure that nothing gets stunted. Each season is different but when brooding is at its peak and the honey flow is on the horizon is when demands are the greatest and when you have the most to lose.


Tuff bees are tuff bees. I was born a German/Cherokee Indian and pampering is not in the vocab. When all others reported 5 and 6 frames of brood at the meetings i had spotty brood and thought the queens were failing. Hind site 20/20 they new what was going on. I love local bees. Old Mother Nature.

Hope all is well Jim,

Nate


----------



## jbeshearse

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

sigh


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> ......There is nearly zero overlap between the two.


do you really think the bees care sol? 

i'm proceeding off treatments, and i'm not commercial. 

the below average temps have stumped my spring build up and my honey harvest may suffer.

the seasoned veteran makes a good point, thanks jim.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I am answering questions and trying to keep it on topic, a thread where people can ask questions of a treatment free beekeeper and get answers from experience in the Treatment-free Beekeeping forum.

If they have questions or comments or concerns or points in the context of commercial beekeeping, they are free to proceed to the appropriate forum.


----------



## Bobcat

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> do you really think the bees care sol?
> 
> i'm proceeding off treatments, and i'm not commercial.
> 
> the below average temps have stumped my spring build up and my honey harvest may suffer.
> 
> the seasoned veteran makes a good point, thanks jim.


This is sol,s thread and don't want to answer for him at all. But the bees know and that is the bees knees. Sol, your thoughts.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

sol's thread, public forum.

wacky weather and hampered build up does not discriminate between tf or not, commercial or hobbiest.

sol, i believe that you reported most of your losses over the years were from starvation during the summer?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> sol, i believe that you reported most of your losses over the years were from starvation during the summer?


I have reported that in the last couple of years, I have lost more hives during the summer. It's a bit harder to figure out what exactly got them because in the winter they're a bit more refrigerated and preserved but in the summer, not so much. Last summer, I lost three nucs and a hive. The summer before, I lost something like three hives. The other trait is that brand new hives are the ones that die in the summer, older ones are the ones that die in the winter, generally speaking.


----------



## SRBrooks

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon:
I figured that is what happened with my question, especially since everyone is so busy this time of year.

Yes, I released both queens on April 15. Looks like one was accepted just fine. I found her, plus some capped brood, when I went into the hive the day before yesterday. She's in the TBH with the (closed) screened bottom board. 

I have checked three times for the queen in the other hive. I never could find her even though she is marked. The hive numbers are dwindling, the bees seem lethargic, I see very little pollen and can't recall seeing capped stores. I saw no eggs or larvae, but I sure wish it were easier to see through my bee suit screen. I do know there was plenty of fresh, empty comb in which she could lay. I am going to put in another queen this morning and hope it's not too late. I'll leave her in the cage for a few days. 

Sondra


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sondra, I wish I could be more helpful. It does sound like maybe they rejected her. Is there any way you can add some capped brood to this hive to perk them up a little?


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Hi Solomon,

From about 30 swarms and cut-outs collected and simply boxed last year, and sent into winter without any help, I have come through with 7 survivors, which includes one outstanding queen/colony. Following advice from R.O.B. Manley, Honey Farming, London, 1946, I have removed her to a small nuc to preserve her for breeding purposes. 

(It could be that these are early days, and this hive will suffer from mites later, but so far they are just fine, and I want to develop my breeding skills and system anyway)

This action had the unfortunate effect of stopping the extensive drone production in her original BB+lift box, something I had considered essential to my aim of raising vigourous and productive mite-managers. 

So I'm been considering trying inserting large cell foundation into her nuc to try to get her drone numbers back.

Does this sound like a good plan - both overall and on the specific matter of preservation of the most valued queen and drone production? 

On the (7 brood frame) queen preservation nuc, I'm thinking of withdrawing one or two frames regularly to stop swarming behaviours developing. I'm thinking about adding a lift too. It seems to me there is a fine line to be found between cramping her to slow her laying (and thus preserving her) and provoking swarming behaviour. Then again, if she raises swarm cells I could always pinch them for new nucs.

Again, can I ask for your thoughts about this general strategy?

Many thanks in advance,

Mike Bispham, UK


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Again, can I ask for your thoughts about this general strategy?


Good to hear from the UK, I am a fan of your N. T. Wright, your Eddie Izzard, and the fact that I can be a fan of both at once.

I will be happy to offer you some thoughts, some of these things I have done, some I have not.

First, I have not been in the habit of setting aside a queen like that, though maybe I should be. This year, it has been quite inconvenient having my breeder queens off-site. I think I will incorporate that into my plan for next year. Another of my problems is not being able to summer a hive of much less than two deeps. They need those honey stores to make it through the summer, a problem I don't think you have. Also, for utilitarian purposes, I like to see what she's capable of, though that may mean a shortened life.

I have on a number of occasions used nucs to build comb. Nucs make good comb builders. I've found that they can draw out a comb and fill it with brood in a week under the right conditions. Then I can remove one of the older frames with honey and keep the brood population high, and maintain the ability to build comb, and yes, this also effectively limits swarming.

I also like the drone comb. I am in the habit of placing foundationless frames in hives I want to make drones and they will. Watch the term "large cell foundation" around here because that typically refers to standard size foundation in this crowd, a number of which use small cell foundation. I don't have much drone foundation myself, just a couple pieces of plastic, but I do use the foundationless frames for that purpose.

Also, around here, pinch usually means squish, but I believe it means steal for you.

What is the state of miticide usage in the UK?


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> What is the state of miticide usage in the UK?


Orthodox, carefully orchestrated, followed by the great majority. Worse, the larger part of the beekeeper population doesn't have the background knowledge to comprehend the mechanism by which treatments perpetuate the need to treat, or the way it suppresses feral populations (and fail to see any benefit to feral populations). As we're a densely populated island, going treatment free entails the location of relatively isolated spots and a determined effort to control the genetics of the local breeding pool.



Solomon Parker said:


> I like to see what she's capable of, though that may mean a shortened life.


Yes, I agree 'field tests' are crucial part. But once tested (and even better, tested for the propensity to supply strong offspring) reserving this precious resource makes sense I think. Doing so in a way that is simple and systematic, and also satisfies the need for a strong male side, seems like an area worth focusing on.



Solomon Parker said:


> Nucs make good comb builders. I've found that they can draw out a comb and fill it with brood in a week under the right conditions. Then I can remove one of the older frames with honey and keep the brood population high, and maintain the ability to build comb, and yes, this also effectively limits swarming.


I took a look at her in her new 7 frame nuc yesterday, and she's filled every unused cell with an egg. I made a quick decision and popped another brood box on top, thinking they can draw comb (as you say), relieve her urge to lay, and I can whip the top off as a strong split in a week or two, and repeat. I'll try to persuade her to ease up slowly! Probably as midsummer passes she'll want to do that anyway. Then we'll move on to work with grafting and mating nucs.



Solomon Parker said:


> I am in the habit of placing foundationless frames in hives I want to make drones and they will.


I'm moving to starter strip only, and yes they make a nice number of drones. Which points up a danger in those who go foundationless while treating/manipulating against varroa - lots of ugly drones. I might experiment with drone foundation later, but, thinking about it, this might give a 'false reading' on the mite issue, as the drone brood soak up the mite action. Probably just going natural is the best approach.

I'm liking this idea of special treatment for the queen of queens more and more. Thanks Solomon!

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Are there many successful treatment free hives in England?


----------



## David LaFerney

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> I have reported that in the last couple of years, I have lost more hives during the summer. It's a bit harder to figure out what exactly got them because in the winter they're a bit more refrigerated and preserved but in the summer, not so much. Last summer, I lost three nucs and a hive. The summer before, I lost something like three hives. The other trait is that brand new hives are the ones that die in the summer, older ones are the ones that die in the winter, generally speaking.


I had the same experience last summer and winter. They did not starve during either period, because I didn't harvest honey until really late, and I fed fall and winter. 

My theory is that cured honey alone during a long hot dearth is not conducive to healthy hives and brood production - it is what they have adapted to keep them going through the winter. The strong subsisted on a simulated nectar flow that was caused by successful robbing, but they were still under a long period of nutritional stress that resulted in a population of weak, short lived bees going into winter.

The survivors this year in my yard are on average the most aggressive bees I have ever had, and I suspect when the flow ends in a few days that they will be brutal robbers.

That's why the shop project of the day is robber screens.


----------



## sheepdog

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I am a third year bee keeper. I had one hive of Italians that I thought was doing very good and they died last winter(their second year). I now have three hives of carnolians(two are splits). I started them from nucs and they really took off. I split one hive and the one with the queen is doing well the queenless hive has a couple queen cells waiting to hatch. I want to go treatment free. I just got some small plastic frames from Mann Lake. I would hate to lose my bees while switching over. Should I treat for mites this year during transition or try something different like powder sugar?? I've heard that smoke from sumac pods kills mites, true? I really don't want poison in my hive if I can help it. Any suggestions for transition. I am reading this thread a lot....


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sheepdog said:


> Should I treat for mites this year during transition or try something different like powder sugar??


I supposed you could, but surveys show it doesn't work. I wouldn't if I were you. Increase is the key. Get numbers up, that way if losses do occur, you can absorb them.



sheepdog said:


> I've heard that smoke from sumac pods kills mites, true?


I wouldn't know. The one downside to not treating with anything is that I don't really know what works and what doesn't. I will say this, the middle of the year is a really hard time to start unless you can increase, which may well be possible in your area. However, it's got to be done sooner or later, and if your bees are accustomed to having that work done for them, then they're going to have a hard time. I would recommend never using any treatment of any kind whatsoever, especially ones that will have lasting effects. Dirty comb will not help you.

This is the problem I see with the argument that "one ought to start out the usual way first and then go treatment-free later." It brings all these problems in. I say go treatment-free first. And then go big.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> .
> The one downside to not treating with anything is that I don't really know what works and what doesn't.


Would that include weather treatment free actually works? Sorry I just could not resist. that comment just jumped out at me. It is true that I do not subscribe to the none treatment idea any more than I would the idea you can consolidate hundreds of animals in a small space and then ignore the risk of infectious diseases.

By the way. what difference do you see beekeeping creates in regard to diseases. infections infestations and stresses that they would otherwise not be exposed to if not being kept in extremely unnatural concentrations? Do beekeeping methods increase the likelihood or weaken the bees natural resistance to diseases?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Would that include weather treatment free actually works?


I would use the criteria that an effective treatment would be demonstrated by the event in which a greater statistically significant number of colonies survived as compared to a control. That would be evidence that it worked. Evidence that it was effective would have to be constituted of a far higher number of colonies surviving in comparison to a control. In my view, no mite treatment passes that test. The best one according to the Bee Informed Survey is one that provides only ten percentage points higher survival rate. That's the difference between losing three colonies out of ten and losing four out of ten. I don't see that as very effective.




Daniel Y said:


> what difference do you see beekeeping creates in regard to diseases. infections infestations and stresses that they would otherwise not be exposed to if not being kept in extremely unnatural concentrations?


I see the unnatural concentrations of hives causing a greater occurrence and more rapid spread of disease. However, it is migratory beekeeping which spreads disease the quickest and furthest. I believe, and my continued beekeeping experience shows this, that those problems can be overcome and have so by many generations of keeping bees in apiaries, if they existed at all.




Daniel Y said:


> Do beekeeping methods increase the likelihood or weaken the bees natural resistance to diseases?


Modern beekeeping, and I am speaking of the use of treatments here, increases the likelihood of infection as I mentioned above, but the treatment weakens the natural resistance to disease. By supporting hives that would otherwise die, the beekeeper artificially subverts natural selection to a great degree and causes reduced effectiveness or the simple loss of the natural defense mechanisms which would be held to the forefront if colonies not able to handle the disease were allowed to follow their natural course. Treatment-free beekeeping returns the natural defense mechanisms to the population simply by removing those individuals (the super-organism) who do not have them. This is a rather basic concept in the theory of natural selection.


----------



## sheepdog

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thank you Solomon Parker


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> By supporting hives that would otherwise die, the beekeeper artificially subverts natural selection to a great degree and causes reduced effectiveness or the simple loss of the natural defense mechanisms which would be held to the forefront if colonies not able to handle the disease were allowed to follow their natural course. Treatment-free beekeeping returns the natural defense mechanisms to the population simply by removing those individuals (the super-organism) who do not have them. This is a rather basic concept in the theory of natural selection.


It is also a rather basic concept in plant and animal husbandry. 

Selective parentage (perhaps better understood as routine and systematic breeding toward health and vitality) has been the essential trick and the keystone of agriculture for thousands of years. 

That is what 'treatment free' amounts to. Its simply traditional time-tested husbandry.

There can be no question that it works. 

That the 'alternative' the veterinary model of 'husbandry' might work in open populations is however not merely questionable - it is an absurd proposition. 

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Are there many successful treatment free hives in the UK?


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Are there many successful treatment free hives in the UK?


Nobody knows. There certainly hasn't been anything like the effort put in here as in the US. I don't know if there are any UK forums where non-treatment conversations are allowed to develop - there weren't last time I tried - so public communications about just what people are doing are as far as I know-non existent. 

From private conversations I do know people are quietly working at it, and often partially succeeding. Not many are deliberately breeding toward mite resistance -again as far as I know - the 'non-treatment' routines seems to be just that, with consequent high losses. There is, or at least was, a Cornish project, but the last time I spoke with them they didn't seem to have much of a clue about the relationship between treating and resistance. There is a lot of talk about breeding, and long-standing bee-breeders organisation, but they are obsessed with restoration of the native bee. If you try to talk with them about treatments and resistance they'll just say 'the native bee will obviously be best for the UK' and carry on making black-coloured bees which they'll have to treat 'until they develop resistance'.

But I'm not well up on what goes on on the forums or anywhere else - I just do my own thing - and that seems to be working so far. 

In Europe there is John Kefus of course.

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

OK well I had a look at your site and did understand and sympathise with the cross breeding problem with non resistant stock.

But from your post I take it that you anyway, are successfully treatment free?

Reason I'm asking, well there's a few issues of similarities, I think, between your country and mine. Neither have Africanised bees, that I know of, and in my country there are no successful treatment free beekeepers, not one. That's despite me and I've discovered 2 others, making a fairly determined attempt at it but in the end failing. There is one guy here still running a good number of treatment free hives but he hasn't been going long. He has the advantage I didn't of being in a fairly isolated area, he uses the bond method.

Anyhow sorry about the rant, just wondering what I could learn from the UK situation.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> ... from your post I take it that you anyway, are successfully treatment free?/QUOTE]
> 
> I don't treat or manipulate in any way that might obstruct the development of a resistant population. I split from what seem to be the healthiset, most productive, vigourous and trouble free hives. And I'm working at building numbers and dominating the airspace around my mating yard.
> 
> I started out with as many swarms and cut-outs from what I understood were long-standing feral colonies as I could get my hands on, and making increase quickly. I lost about 2/3rds last winter, but that's pretty much what i expected - and wanted - to happen. It was, by our standards a dreadful summer and a similarly awful winter, and I was hard on them.
> 
> I currently have 30 (apparently trouble-free) hives at varying stages of development - most this year's splits. This is the third year of an attempt to do this, and I think I now have the genetic material I need to make it work - but - we'll see. I'm optimistic that I'll lose less than a 1/3rd this winter - I can just see how much stronger they are this year.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldtimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reason I'm asking, well there's a few issues of similarities, I think, between your country and mine. Neither have Africanised bees, that I know of, and in my country there are no successful treatment free beekeepers, not one. That's despite me and I've discovered 2 others, making a fairly determined attempt at it but in the end failing.
> 
> 
> 
> What have you tried?
> 
> 
> 
> Oldtimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one guy here still running a good number of treatment free hives but he hasn't been going long. He has the advantage I didn't of being in a fairly isolated area, he uses the bond method.
> 
> Anyhow sorry about the rant, just wondering what I could learn from the UK situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No probs, hope that helps. Try to get hold of good bees, increase them fast, and dominate - or at least influence - the drone activity. Where are you?
> 
> Mike (UK)
Click to expand...


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> What have you tried?


I ran some small cell hives bond method, end of day, couldn't make it work.

By the way, British native bees, I know about them, that's what we used to have here, the early settlers brought them. It was a long time before a different breed arrived, Italians. The British bees were pretty much wiped out when varroa arrived, they go extinct in each area within 2 or 3 years of varroa getting there. Of course the other bees are all partially hybridised so there is still some British genetics. But nothing too pure they cannot live with varroa.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

"By supporting hives that would otherwise die, the beekeeper artificially subverts natural selection"

Beekeeping itself subverts natural selection. I am not sure I agree that differentiating one interference from another makes a difference. I have also seen it mentioned many places that treatment free is not simply putting bees in a hive and walking away. but that many other measures are taken. To me that is just handling the mites with alternative methods. That is not allowing natural selection to play it's roll any more than chemical treatments are. I have also seen the comments that say "I don't do anything for mites, I don't have them". But then neither do I according to my last inspection. But the colony that I cut out last March had them. pretty badly. three weeks later they didn't.

I do not agree that bees are weakened by treatments. The bees I treat are already infested. They where already weak. and that was true when the very first colony became infested. it had not been treated. so treatments are not the cause of susceptibility. Now keeping may be and I do have a strong suspicion that is true. So in all I keep a reserve of opinion that says treatment free may be barking up the right type of tree, but they need to find a bigger tree to do their barking at. I believe that beekeeping and imposing our goals and desires on the bee for centuries has lead to the bees we have today. We decided that africanized genes where bad. Bad for Who. us or the bees. How can selection fro what is good for the beekeeper result in good bees? So I see in all the picture is much broader than just mite management.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Daniel, you're in the wrong forum again. If you want to argue about treating, do it in Pests and Diseases. This is question and answer, not question and argue.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>I do not agree that bees are weakened by treatments. The bees I treat are already infested. They where already weak. and that was true when the very first colony became infested. it had not been treated. so treatments are not the cause of susceptibility. 

But they are contributing to susceptibility.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033188

Terramycin makes them more susceptible to AFB. Fumidil makes them more susceptible to Nosema. Anything that disrupts the natural flora and fauna in the colony makes it more susceptible to pathogens and pests.

But I don't think that is the real issue. The real issue is that propping up those weak genetics contributes to weak bees in the future. It's the genetics that are the real issue. We need to keep the ones that are inherently healthy and not keep the ones that need to be propped up.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

sol, you mentioned using queen castles for mating, three by three in a ten frame box i think.

how did they do for you and how did you set them up?


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Did the loss surveys from last winter give any data on the percentage of loss on treated VS untreated colonies?


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> Did the loss surveys from last winter give any data on the percentage of loss on treated VS untreated colonies?


Yes, for the previous year. I don't think that breakdown is available yet for this past winter.

http://beeinformed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Managment-Philosopy.pdf

Long story short: no significant difference.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

This is a curious dilemma in the non treatment philosophy.

On one hand we get told that treating bees, keeps the bees with weak genetics alive that would have otherwise died, so interferes with natural selection.

On the other hand we get told that there is no significant difference in hives survival whether they are treated, or not.

Both opinions repeated often enough, and in this thread, we have been told both of them within the previous 4 posts.

They cannot both be true.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> This is a curious dilemma in the non treatment philosophy.
> 
> On one hand we get told that treating bees, keeps the bees with weak genetics alive that would have otherwise died, so interferes with natural selection.
> 
> On the other hand we get told that there is no significant difference in hives survival whether they are treated, or not.
> 
> Both opinions repeated often enough, and in this thread, we have been told both of them within the previous 4 posts.
> 
> They cannot both be true.


There is no contradiction. They can both be true. Bees under selective propagation regimes are currently surviving at about the same rate as bees under veterinary management. 

Separately, the selective propagaters can argue (from their understanding of natural selection and selective husbandry) that their populations should improve in resistance year on year, and so for them for them losses will diminish over time. 

The veterinary school can't make that argument. 

That doesn't entirely explain why what you see as a 'dilemma' (a logical contradiction is a better description) isn't there. But it shows you the way. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> That doesn't entirely explain why what you see as a 'dilemma' (a logical contradiction is a better description) isn't there.


Correct, it doesn't, the logic in your argument is flawed. 

You are saying that both could be true, ie, there may be no significant difference in hive survival between the two groups, but yet, one group could argue that their hives will improve over time but the others not argue that

The only way one group could argue that, from a selective pressure perspective, is if there _is_ a significant difference around hive survival and therefore selective pressure.

Just so you know where I am coming from on this, my position is that there _is_ a significant difference in survival, treating hives can save them from death. Regardless of how some statistics may be selected and presented. Therefore selective pressure could be possible.

Which does not mean theory is always the reality. But, it is possible.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Correct, it doesn't, the logic in your argument is flawed.
> 
> You are saying that both could be true, ie, there may be no significant difference in hive survival between the two groups, but yet, one group could argue that their hives will improve over time but the others not argue that
> 
> The only way one group could argue that, is if there _is_ a significant difference around hive survival and therefore selective pressure.


That is the case (although your use of the term 'selective pressure' is a bit wobbly here). Lets go through it:

If/when beekeepers simply stop treating, they'll often lose around 90% of their hives in the first year. That figure will fall year on year as the new population increasingly has the behaviours required that enable bees to manage mites thremselves. Depending on how much the beekeeper helps things along by deliberately pushing the desirable genes forward (and to the extend that s/he has the skills required to do this) the survival rates will improve faster or slower. 

Depending on the number of artificially preserved (treated) hives nearby, the process may be slowed, or may never take off at all. 

The 'selective pressure' here is being applied mostly by the beekeeper - its artificial, not natural. Any hives that simply perish through being left alone are part of the process of natural selection. So both natural selection and artificial selection are in play.




Oldtimer said:


> Just so you know where I am coming from on this, my position is that there _is_ a significant difference in survival, treating hives can save them from death. Regardless of how some statistics may be selected and presented.


Sure it can. (I don't think the survey says it can't) But it will stop the bee population from developing the behaviours required to manage mites on their own - it will stop the development of resistance to mites that would otherwise occur.

So its a short-term solution, but also a state of 'addiction'. The more you treat, the more your bees will need treatments.



Oldtimer said:


> Therefore selective pressure could be possible.


Here your logic falls down. You need to distinguish between natural and artificially selection first to get things clear in your mind about what is happening. Then read up on 'selective pressure' to gain a clear understanding of how that term is used in discussions about the effects due to the fact that behaviours and other qualities are _inherited_.



Oldtimer said:


> Which does not mean theory is always the reality. But, it is possible.


Theory is sound to the extent that it can be shown to be in step with reality. The theory of natural selection for the fittest strains, and its application to husbandry, have been massively explored, and vastly tested for over 200 years. It has been shown, overwhelmingly, to be sound. 

You need to have a basic understanding of the way it works to be able to begin to apply it. 

Its application in beekeeping, in the context of varroa, has been amply demonstrated. 

I'd advise: keep studying, and talking, and form a new plan of attack to move over to non-treatment management. If you go at it half-****ed you are likely to fail again.

You could do a lot worse than take one of Marla Spivak's courses, and ask questions on the FeralBeeProject list. It isn't hard - but you do have to do the right sorts of things.
Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Sure it can. (I don't think the survey says it can't) But it will stop the bee population from developing the behaviours required to manage mites on their own - it will stop the development of resistance to mites that would otherwise occur.
> 
> So its a short-term solution, but also a state of 'addiction'. The more you treat, the more your bees will need treatments.


This argument is circuitous. It is simply repeating the argument presented in post 203, which I pointed out runs counter to the statement made in post 206. Simply repeating or rephrasing the argument, unfortunately does not change that.

I'm just highlighting the contradiction between the two oft repeated statements. Your presumption of my lack of basic understanding of the theory of natural selection, does not remove this contradiction.

However thanks for the advice, and interesting ideas. I'll try not to be so half-****ed and now realise I should try to do the right sorts of things.

However the contradiction pointed out in post 207 has not been disproved by rehashing what has already been said.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> how did they do for you and how did you set them up?


They do well when conditions are good. My main problems this year were queens not coming back from mating flights, which I wouldn't consider related to the type of nuc, but I could be wrong. They're set up with one frame of capped brood, one frame of honey, and an empty frame or foundation. Once there is a major portion of new capped brood, then I move them into a five frame nuc.


I think the disconnect in the rates of loss between treated and non-treated comes in what happens when you quit treating the treated group, they crash. Set up a scientific experiment with those two groups and cease treatment and the treated group will suffer higher losses. They're weak. I have no problem with the argument that both populations have similar loss rates under steady-state conditions, and yet one group is not able to handle disease without treatment. It is not a contradiction. One group requires more inputs, can't survive in the wild, etc., the other group is the opposite.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Treating is not the default mode. It's like fat wooly sheep that can't give birth unassisted and can't climb mountains are not the default mode, therefore they suffer predation, and if left to their own devices would largely die out. The same goes for the bees. However, if one were to keep bees or sheep in a way that allows them to maintain their selected defensive traits, then when they get out, they're not barbecued by the first passing wolf.

It's the age old tension in agriculture between having a productive animal and having a durable animal (or fruit tree or whatever). It is my position that both are possible in the bee, if not the sheep. With the sheep, we want to eat it and for it to make lots of wool. With the bee, we just want it to do what it normally does, only more, more honey, more pollination, more wax. And we'd like it to not sting so much. None of these things necessarily puts limits on its natural survival, where as a fat wooly sheep has lots of problems.

Therefore, the default mode needs to be the goal, that means bees that don't die so rapidly when they swarm, bees that largely survive if the owner has to go to Afghanistan for a couple years. Maybe they swarm without a little extra management, but that again goes to maintain the default mode.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>On the other hand we get told that there is no significant difference in hives survival whether they are treated, or not.

>They cannot both be true. 

Of course they can. If EVERYONE would stop treating you could make a dent in the genetic side, but as long as the majority of people are treating and bringing in genetics from other places from bees that are also being treated, they are watering down much of the genetic effect.

“If you’re not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-tolerant bees, then you’re part of the problem”– Randy Oliver


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

What would happen if everyone stopped treating has little to do with my original point. Nor does much else that's been said, what I was trying to get at has been missed.

But really, it doesn't matter.

Looks like I kicked the hornets nest LOL 

I'll leave now. :s


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

it's a fair question ot. the problem is using an unscientific survey that falls short of representing the universe of managed bees and drawing conclusions from it.

not the the information isn't useful as it may show trends, but to say that there isn't any significant difference in treated vs. untreated is a stretch.

the consideration as to what the differences in management have on the evolution of equilibrium between the parasites and hosts is a different question, and it seems plausible that treating may hinder that process.

the happy medium would appear to be to choose treatments that lessen their impact on that evolution, and treat only those colonies that are very unlikely to survive anyway.

if one chooses to practice the bond method, then it makes sense to euthanize the colony and kill off the parasites before they can be spread to nearby colonies via robbing.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> if one chooses to practice the bond method, then it makes sense to euthanize the colony and kill off the parasites before they can be spread to nearby colonies via robbing.


This demonstrates the frame of mind in the treating vs. non-treating (there's gotta be a better word than "debate"). This method would still have the goal of preventing the spread of a parasite when the goal of TFB is bees that deal with the parasite themselves, no matter where they come from or how many are brought home. Traits that could possibly lead to this eventuality are bees that won't rob diseased hives, or refuse to come home if they catch a parasite, or the parasite is removed by guards at the door, or parasite is killed inside the home hive, or parasite is otherwise eliminated in one way or another. None of these traits can be developed if the parasite is eliminated beforehand. That's still remaining in a medical mindset. 

I am quite unconcerned with the spread of parasites from dead or dying hives. Helping results in not helping. The goal is not to do the minimum to get hives to survive, the goal is to have the ability do nothing and get hives to survive. Surviving is their job. Management for reasonable production is my job. That's really the core of treatment-free beekeeping and the Bond Method.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

i heartily accept every point you make there sol, and this is exactly how it happens in nature, but as i have pointed out before there is nothing natural about putting bees in artificial homes and molesting them on a regular basis. it seems only fair that if we impose these compromises on them then we shouldn't wholeheartedly dismiss intervening in other ways as well.

for you and i who are sideline beekeeping and can afford to do so it's a perfectly valid approach from our point of view, but maybe not so if we are impacting nearby colonies (and perhaps native pollinators) in ways that others may not appreciate.

for me i have decided on no treatments because my bees have not only survived but continue to thrive without them, and they have a sixteen year history of doing so. but out of respect for any unwanted impact i may have beyond my own beeyard i take the precautions i mention above, although it's very infrequent that i have to do so.


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Could somebody just answer my question in simple English for my simple mind? What were the percents of loss, treated VS untreated? I do not see untreated on the survey.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> the consideration as to what the differences in management have on the evolution of equilibrium between the parasites and hosts is a different question, and it seems plausible that treating may hinder that process.


It doesn't hinder it. It throws it into reverse. You can take a population of perfectly good mite-managing bees and rapidly turn them into hopelessly treatment addicted bees that way.



squarepeg said:


> the happy medium would appear to be to choose treatments that lessen their impact on that evolution, ....


Treatments inhibit the development (or the maintenance) of co-adaptation between bees and parasites to the extent to which they are effective. If it works as a treatment, it works to encourage dependence on treatments. The more effective at stopping the problem, the more effective at breeding out natural resistance.

The only treatment that encourages the evolution of bee mite management from this perspective is one that doesn't work at all. The same goes for manipulations.



squarepeg said:


> ...and treat only those colonies that are very unlikely to survive anyway.


Treating only those colonies that are unlikely to survive is _precisely_ the opposite of what you need to do! 

To be a non-treater/population husbandryman is to be a _breeder_. Unbreakable breeding principles: a) Make increase only from the best; b) eliminate the worst from the breeding pool. In our context 'best' and 'worse' refer to the bees' ability to manage mites themselves.



squarepeg said:


> if one chooses to practice the bond method, then it makes sense to euthanize the colony and kill off the parasites before they can be spread to nearby colonies via robbing.


If you are trying to develop vigourous self-sustaining bees its no good isolating them from aspects of the environment. In fact John Kefus's 'Bond Method' purposefully throws the worst mites available into the hives! He only wants those strains that can handle them and thrive.


It seems to me that these posts demonstrate a misunderstanding about what 'non-treatment' beekeeping is. Where modern husbandry focuses on individual hives, trying to keep as many as possible alive and productive, traditional husbandry focuses on the breeding pool, the larger population, as the means to make the individuals healthy and productive. You have to stop thinking so much about the stuff you can see - the hives, the mites, and think more about the stuff you can't - the genes, the matings. 

Husbandry in its proper sense means 'taking care of the flow of genes down through the generations.' It means talk of bloodlines, inherited qualities, the pursuit of vigour and productivity through manipulation of the parentage of each generation. This is what livestock keeping has always been focused, on for this reason: it works.

'Husbandry' that focuses on the health of individuals is more akin to pet keeping. It is treating colonies like children, not like livestock. And, in an open mating animal, it is fatal to health.

This is an entirely different mindset. It involves long-term, wide thinking rather than short term narrow thinking. The individual not only can - but must - be sacrificed for the good of the larger population.

Stop thinking about the colony and start thinking about the super-organism that is the local breeding population. That's the proper object of husbandry.

Mike (UK)


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Does "No non bee related products" mean "no Treatment"?

Does it show that all methods were in the 30+% loss range? Does that tell us that it is almost worthless to treat? No major decline in losses? Or did the treated hives have a substantially higher percent of survival? 
I am old, feeble and uneducated. I can't determine what the graphs mean.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> i heartily accept every point you make there sol, and this is exactly how it happens in nature, but as i have pointed out before there is nothing natural about putting bees in artificial homes and molesting them on a regular basis. it seems only fair that if we impose these compromises on them then we shouldn't wholeheartedly dismiss intervening in other ways as well.


The part I have to push back on is the idea that it is fair to make the problem worse because we caused the problem to begin with. Firstly, there's no such thing as fair, but that's a philosophical argument for another forum. My case is that it isn't fair anyway to help bees with disease because it actually hinders them in getting along with the progression of their species. It's like "sorry we shot all your buffalo and evicted you from your land, here's some blankets." Not really.

What a skilled beekeeper does doesn't cause all that much of a problem. I personally frown upon molestation. :no: What I do doesn't cause problems (or I'd have a much higher mortality rate). What does cause major problems that I see is not changing the shape of their home or moving their combs around, it's moving the whole hive miles and miles, to a new climate, on a truck with 400 other colonies to be immersed in a pool of colonies more dense than ever could be possible in nature where disease can be spread wholesale. And the people that do that have to treat, because bees will die if they don't. Most of us don't do that, and that's why all my efforts at education are toward hobbyists.

So yes, I wholeheartedly and strenuously dismiss intervening in those other ways, because I'm not compromising them and they should be able to handle it, and *they're insects*.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> Could somebody just answer my question in simple English for my simple mind? What were the percents of loss, treated VS untreated? I do not see untreated on the survey.


What you see is "No non-bee derived products" which equates to treatment-free in the context of this forum. Mean loss for this management philosophy was 33.6%

Those who are willing to "Use anything" to treat their hives had losses of 35.7%. This group contains the vast majority of colonies.

I don't really understand why anyone would think there is a contradiction in these results. Treatment free beekeepers are a small minority of the respondents, and most of them are backyard and sideliner beekeepers. Many of them are beginners, and many of them will have very high losses, due to inexperience and bees that are not adapted. The fact that the loss rate is as low as it is, is a testament to the few successful treatment free beekeepers among them, whose remarkably good results skew the results back to a loss rate similar to the loss rate of the commercial beekeepers. These folks make up the vast majority of treaters, and their sample size is vastly larger and therefore more likely to be accurate.

If you have any understanding of statistics, and of the population being surveyed, these results are extremely encouraging. It means that if you're an above-average treatment-free beekeeper, you can look forward to losses well below the industry average.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> If/when beekeepers simply stop treating, they'll often lose around 90% of their hives in the first year.


not an option for many beekeepers, who's colonies represent all but a small percentage of managed bees.




mike bispham said:


> The only treatment that encourages the evolution of bee mite management from this perspective is one that doesn't work at all. The same goes for manipulations.


putting it in context are we not in the process of selecting and deselecting for all kinds of traits by choices and manipulations that drive the genetics toward the end that meets our needs?

why should it be different with mites? what is so anti-selection about removing the most virulent mites from the mite gene pool (the one's that collapse a colony) while allowing the less virulent ones to coexist?




Solomon Parker said:


> ......because I'm not compromising them and they should be able to handle it, and *they're insects*.


does this apply to the summer losses due to starvation that you have reported?

do you totally dismiss any impact you have by placing your hives in closer proximity than the would exist in nature and removing resources from them?



as with most things in life it isn't always black or white, but rather black and white or grey.

mike, sol, your positions have merit and i respect them. my sense is that the bees will adapt despite anything we do or don't do to them. i'm a medical professional so i guess the medical model suits me, i choose to believe that helping the process along by deselecting the most virulent mites and preventing them from spreading if the opportunity arises is helping rather than hurting the cause.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> It means that if you're an above-average treatment-free beekeeper, you can look forward to losses well below the industry average.


We should note that this survey counts winter losses, I believe October 15 through March 15. I would postulate that it's calculated this way to eliminate the variables of splits, swarms, etc. My numbers would have a natural advantage with this regime in that I typically lose more through the year than over winter. For instance, Over the last year, I lost one in the winter (1/23=4.3%), one in the spring (1/22=4.5%), and one in the summer (1/40ish=2.5%). So in the last year, my average number of colonies was about 27, total loss of three, 3/27=11.1%, or a third of what was reported, or right at a third of the average of my cohort (assuming the numbers hold for this year) calculated for just winter losses. If winter losses only are counted, I'm at about one eighth. That data seems to back up your assertion.

What it doesn't mean is that stopping treating cold turkey will result in the same losses as continuing to treat. That is an unwarranted conclusion based on the data. What it does infer is that those beekeepers who practice these methods on average see no substantial difference in losses. I will be the first to tell you that if you quit cold turkey, bees are going to die, which is why treatment-free isn't just another option with similar results, it's a whole other road. Even I, above-average treatment-free beekeeper that people claim I am, could not take a random apiary with treated bees and produce the same results as a treated control apiary in the first year. It's a steady-state proposition.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> does this apply to the summer losses due to starvation that you have reported?


It does. Summer losses are typically due to insufficient collections (not due to excessive harvesting) or failed supersedure. I don't lose production hives in the summer.




squarepeg said:


> do you totally dismiss any impact you have by placing your hives in closer proximity than the would exist in nature and removing resources from them?


Yes. That's good management. Plus I keep 8 or less in most yards. State law is 10. But even if there is an impact from density, I have not the losses to demonstrate it concretely.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> ...not an option for many beekeepers, who's colonies represent all but a small percentage of managed bees.


Sure - but you don't ave to go the do or die way! Understanding the processes at work, or just following a basic instruction set (like that provided by Marla Spivak or John Kefuss) allows you to move over to non-treatment management without loss.

You will have to make the effort to do a liitle learning.




squarepeg said:


> i'm a medical professional so i guess the medical model suits me, i choose to believe that helping the process along by deselecting the most virulent mites and preventing them from spreading if the opportunity arises is helping rather than hurting the cause.


I guess then you can be a medical professional and not understand the mechanisms of adaption. Have you ever heard of MRSA? Do you understand the nature of that problem?

The fundamental error is believing that removing the most virulent mites (which you believe is what is responsible for the worst cases) will 'help the processes along'. I've just explained how it will do exactly the opposite.

In fact one of the most important mite-management behaviours involve bees being able to detect and destroy the most 'virulent' mites. (The term is 'fecund' - meaning 'has the largest number of offspring') The bees thus effectively breed mites that have few offspring - lowering rates of mite growth.

What is responsible for the worst cases of infection is not virulent (fecund) mites - its bees that lack the ability to do anything about them. Once you understand that its a small step to seeing that preserving those bees and allowing them them to supply genes to the next generation is pure madness.

Mike (UK)


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



> why should it be different with mites? what is so anti-selection about removing the most virulent mites from the mite gene pool (the one's that collapse a colony) while allowing the less virulent ones to coexist?


The problem is that you're not able to do that. Even the most effective treatments do not kill all of the mites. So what you are doing is killing some of the most virulent mites, and leaving resistant mites alive. The next time you treat, the treatment is less effective and more of the most virulent mites survive. You're arming the most virulent mites with additional resistance, and at the same time, damaging the health of the bees. This is a treadmill that will just keep going faster until you can't keep up. As we've seen, acaricides begin to lose their effectiveness fairly rapidly; treatments that worked okay just a few years ago are no longer effective.

I'm a novice beekeeper, but I've been an organic gardener for 50 years, and I've seen this same treadmill play out in agriculture in general.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Summer losses are typically due to insufficient collections .....


and insufficient collections are due to......?

the point i am trying to make is that when a colony (split) is artificially created at a time and in a manner in which it would not have done so on it's own, and then placed arbitrarily in a spot that it would not have chosen on it's own, and then subjected to the subsequent tearing apart and redistributing of it's architecture as well as the removal of it's resources.....

it seems intuitive that all of this would tend to have some impact.

is it your position that good management somehow makes life better for the colony than it would be if it were undisturbed in nature?

if one concedes that we impact the bees by virtue of keeping them in the first place and i do concede that, then it seems arbitrary to single out intervening in any way when it comes to mites et. al.

but then i use beetle traps so i probably shouldn't be posting on this forum.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> and insufficient collections are due to......?


Bees that can't cut it.




squarepeg said:


> it seems intuitive that all of this would tend to have some impact.


I try to avoid attaching insinuations in internet conversations.




squarepeg said:


> is it your position that good management somehow makes life better for the colony than it would be if it were undisturbed in nature?


No.




squarepeg said:


> ...it seems arbitrary to single out intervening in any way when it comes to mites et. al.


Why is it arbitrary to do one thing and not another? Because the one thing ought to be done, and the other ought not. There's nothing arbitrary about making a decision based on evidence and following through with that decision. You're equating keeping bees as done for thousands of years with treating bees for mites which as been done for tens of years. That's a false equivalency. One has been done since time immemorial, the other is new and has well known negative effects. What negative effects you ask? Stop treating bees and the evidence is obvious which overall method is more useful.




squarepeg said:


> but then i use beetle traps so i probably shouldn't be posting on this forum.


You really ought to read the rules.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> I guess then you can be a medical professional and not understand the mechanisms of adaption. Have you ever heard of MRSA? Do you understand the nature of that problem?


of course mike. are you suggesting that mankind would have been better off not ever having developed antibiotics? there are always compromises and trade offs. my opinion is that the benefits have outweighed the risks so far.



rhaldridge said:


> The problem is that you're not able to do that. Even the most effective treatments do not kill all of the mites.


i agree with that ray, and i wasn't talking about using mite treatments. i was talking about preventing the spread of colony collapsing mites by preventing robbing and euthanizing the bees and mites.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> I try to avoid attaching insinuations in internet conversations.
> 
> _i'm not sure what you mean there._
> 
> Why is it arbitrary to do one thing and not another? Because the one thing ought to be done, and the other ought not.
> 
> _good point sol, i'll concede there_
> 
> You really ought to read the rules.
> 
> _reread the rules, looks like beetle traps are o.k., thanks._


(and i like the the part about "spirited discussion", that's how i feel about what we are engaged in here, thanks to all for contributing)


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> of course mike. are you suggesting that mankind would have been better off not ever having developed antibiotics? there are always compromises and trade offs. my opinion is that the benefits have outweighed the risks so far.


Well... you might be straining an analogy to equate bees with people. People are valued for their individual qualities, bees not so much. If people bred at the same rate bees do and only lived 6 weeks, antibiotics and other ways of propping up less vigorous individuals might be seen in a different light. But I think there are useful lessons to be taken from antibiotics and their use in agribusiness. Feedlot cattle and broiler house chickens are given antibiotics because the high density and conditions of confinement would kill a very large number of these animals if not for prophylactic antibiotics. Is the better solution to come up with better and better antibiotics, as disease organisms develop resistance? Or is the better course to grass feed cows and pasture chickens?





squarepeg said:


> i agree with that ray, and i wasn't talking about using mite treatments. i was talking about preventing the spread of colony collapsing mites by preventing robbing and euthanizing the bees and mites.


I misunderstood you. Do many folks actually do that? I think Kirk Webster blows out failing colonies at the end of the season, but it doesn't seem to be a common tactic.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

> are you suggesting that mankind would have been better off not ever having developed antibiotics?

No doubt the human race would be genetically hardier and the microbes would be less virulent if we had never invented antibiotics. So, yes, Mankind would be better off. But you might not be and I might not be. We have a different view of humans. We tend to value each one as an individual (hopefully). We have a different value system for human life.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> Well... you might be straining an analogy to equate bees with people.
> 
> _i don't equate them ray, it was mike's analogy._
> 
> I misunderstood you. Do many folks actually do that? I think Kirk Webster blows out failing colonies at the end of the season, but it doesn't seem to be a common tactic.
> 
> _the one and only collapse from mite infestation i have had (over 100% infestation by alcohol wash) was last fall and i think i killed most of the mites in the small handful of remaining bees with the alcohol. i shook the rest out, but in hindsight i wish i would have put them in the freezer._


it's almost time for mite counts here, i am really curious to know what infestation rate my treatment free bees are tolerating.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Michael Bush said:


> > are you suggesting that mankind would have been better off not ever having developed antibiotics?
> 
> No doubt the human race would be genetically hardier and the microbes would be less virulent if we had never invented antibiotics. So, yes, Mankind would be better off. But you might not be and I might not be. We have a different view of humans. We tend to value each one as an individual (hopefully). We have a different value system for human life.


very well stated michael.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> Do many folks actually do that? I think Kirk Webster blows out failing colonies at the end of the season, but it doesn't seem to be a common tactic.


I combine nucs at the end of nuc season (about now). Experiments show a 5 frame nuc has a very small chance of surviving the summer here. I also moosh a poorly performing queen combine weak hives in the fall, but I think that's more common. Then again, sometimes I just let them ride.

Squarepeg, the only I was referring to with insinuations on the internet is that I find it to be best practice to simply read the text for what it is and not try to read anything into it. We often get a lot of things like "are you calling me a liar" or "is that an insult" or "you think....." or the like and it's just embarrassing because it's almost always wrong, so I don't do it.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

got it sol, and please know that i wasn't trying to 'getcha'. i was just trying to understand your position on whether or not we impose additional stresses on our managed bees (as i believe we do) as compared to their feral cousins.

but as you pointed out even accepting that they are additional stresses imposed by us doesn't necessarily have to compel one to exercise management practices (help with mites ect.) because of it.

this is my first summer to put together five frame nucs for overwintering. we have had an unusally wet summer this year and there has not been the dramatic dearth that i have seen in previous summers. i am concerned that some of them may be too strong and susceptible to swarming on the fall flow.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> This demonstrates the frame of mind in the treating vs. non-treating (there's gotta be a better word than "debate").


Your wires are a little crossed, this is not a debate about treatment versus non treatment, let's drop that mindset for now. Most other posters have been unable to address it properly either, they are reacting rather than thinking about it, cos they too think this is a debate about treatment vs non treatment, so hence the defensiveness.

I'm going to have one more attempt to phrase it in a way that may be more understandable.

My point is, that you cannot have two groups that have losses, of insignificant difference between the two groups. But one group claims that they are benefitting from selective pressure, but claim that the other is not.

Makes no sense.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

It makes no sense if you can't grasp that a "group" is more than one person, and don't understand what a "mean" is.

As an example: say you have three beekeepers. Two are clueless beginners like me. they have 5 hives each, and like me have not subjected their hives to selective pressure. They just don't treat. One loses 3 of his hives, the other loses 4. The third beekeeper is a guy with 10 hives who has figured out how to succeed at treatment-free beekeeping, and he has zero losses. What is the mean winter loss of this group of three beekeepers?

You're trying to treat a group as if all members of the group have the same skill level, the same time in process, the same resources, the same environment, the same exact approach... the same results. That's not how it works.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Exactly. And that's why the way these statistics might be presented can be misleading.

This was one of the things I was wanting to bring out but it's been a long time for someone to twig to it & express it.

When talking on the forum about comparative losses, it is more honest to use the raw data. IE, total hives against total hives. Rather than means between groups etc. Not everybody understands that.

So. Is the difference still insignificant?


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

You all have intellectualized all day and still not answered my question....are there studies showing the percentage of losses treated VS non treated?


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> You all have intellectualized all day and still not answered my question....are there studies showing the percentage of losses treated VS non treated?


What's wrong with this one?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Well a man clever enough to "grasp" what a group is and "understand" what a mean is ought to be able to work that out Raldridge, it's a fundamental "understanding" of statistics LOL.

The best ones are not obtained by surveys that are voluntary, rely on what people choose to reveal, appeal to some sectors more than others, and include people with strong opinions and biases.

That's to answer your question. However, for me, I'll go with the survey, it's the best one I'm aware of.


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

What are Mean, Lower and Upper?


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Well a man clever enough to "grasp" what a group is and "understand" what a mean is ought to be able to work that out Raldridge, it's a fundamental "understanding" of statistics LOL.
> .


Apparently, the ability to parse a sentence in English is another difficult skill to master, for some people. He asked for a "study." Not a "perfect study."

In my opinion, the weaknesses in this study mean that those who are considering treatment-free beekeeping should be wildly encouraged to give it a try. As I pointed out upthread, the results are skewed by the fact that among the treatment-free group are many hobbyists and newbies, whose predictably poor results have dragged down the stats of the successful treatment free beekeepers among them. On the other hand, those who are willing to treat with any product are more likely to be commercial and sideline beekeepers whose experience should give them an edge over the substantial percentage of smalltimers in the treatment free group. And yet, their experience does not seem to give them better winter survival-- and their much greater hive numbers make their results more statistically meaningful.

odfrank, Google "confidence intervals." Long story short, they denote limits into which some very high percentage of results fall. I don't have the study in front of me, but I think it's 95% in this case. So what they're saying is 95% of the results fall between the lower and upper CIs. 

Mean is just a synonym for average.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Ok well I'll add "can't parse a sentence in English", to "half ****ed", and all my other faults and put downs too numerous to mention that have been sent my way in the last couple pages.

Kinda wondering about all these put downs though, am I really that bad? Or, are some people so unable to handle an opinion other than their own, that in the absence of sensible supporting argument, they have to resort to this type of level?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> Mean is just a synonym for average.


I know I can't talk English and all, but your statement is incorrect.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> I know I can't talk English and all, but your statement is incorrect.


Oh for heaven's sake. An arithmetic mean is exactly what most folks think of when they think of "average," a set of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers. Mathematicians might include mode and median in the umbrella, but since these terms are not what odfrank asked about, and because they have nothing to do with the subject, why bring them up?

For a guy who loves to dish it out, you don't take it very well, do you?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> Oh for heaven's sake. An arithmetic mean is exactly what most folks think of when they think of "average," a set of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers. Mathematicians might include mode and median in the umbrella, but since these terms are not what odfrank asked about, and because they have nothing to do with the subject, why bring them up?


You don't get it. I was being pedantic, because of your overly pedantic comparison of "study", and "perfect study", words which by the way I never even mentioned.

For a guy who loves to dish it out, you don't take it very well, do you? 

I will add though, that in a survey such as this with low numbers of participants in some categories, the difference between mean and average can be important, and is worthy of mention so as not to distort anything. If the authors felt there was no difference they would have just gone with average. They used the mean in some cases because it matters, and it can be a useful tool. Whoever I was talking to I think the difference between average and mean should be explained, to me, it would matter.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> I will add though, that in a survey such as this with low numbers of participants in some categories, the difference between mean and average can be important,.


A mean *is* an average. Ask any mathematician.

I don't know how any other definition of "average" has any meaning in this particular context.



> You don't get it. I was being pedantic, because of your overly pedantic comparison of "study", and "perfect study", words which by the way I never even mentioned.


Sigh. The Beeinformed study does in fact cover the subject odfrank asked about. It is not perfect, as all have acknowledged, over and over.

odfrank asked if there was a study comparing survival rates between treaters and non-treaters. I asked what was wrong with this study. Whereupon you launched into an examination of the inadequacies of the study, already mentioned in previous posts. I guess I should have said "why is this not such a study?" but then I'm sure you would have dredged up something else to complain about. That seems to be what you do. 

Well, bye again.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> You all have intellectualized all day and still not answered my question....are there studies showing the percentage of losses treated VS non treated?


"There are lies, **** lies and statistics."

You have to be a bit canny to know just what a statistic is telling you. You have to look up the study, see how the data was collected, study how it was processed. You have to critique the study to discover what weaknesses it has, and to form a view of just what it represents, and why.

To do that well you have to be able to make such studies yourself, and then be prepared to treat the issue seriously and give it quite a bit of time. Those are skills usually learned during doctoral studies. It involves what is to most people (me) some fairly tricky maths, and a lot of thinking about how different approaches to collecting and processing data will supply different conclusions, and what that means for the study. If you've never done that (I haven't though I have peeked at the process) I think its fair to say that you often _should_ be confused and bewildered by the effort to discover just what a statistic is telling you. What that means is: you've got something right. There isn't a simple answer to most question about a statistical statement.

The bald, unstudied answer is, as others have said, yes this study suggests that treated vs untreated came out about even. 

Quite what you can take from that is tougher - though to me its a heartening start. But, to be accurate, there isn't a simple answer to your question. 

You can't conclude from that 50:50 ish result that if you stop treating you will have a 50% chance of success. 

And you can't either process any deeper maths that tells you what you're chances of success are. 

You can however maximise your chances - and get them very good indeed - by studying the mechanisms involved and going about things in a well planned way. Or you can just get lucky.

Mike (UK)

PS If my (untreated data) had been included it would tend to slew the results downwards - I took about two thirds losses last winter. But that was deliberate - I was allowing the winter to sort the men from boys in a population largely composed of swarms of varying origins. There may well have been others doing the same thing.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> What are Mean, Lower and Upper?


Take 5 numbers that I have picked at random with the intend to demonstrate average and mean.

1, 75,73,72 and 2

The average is adding all 5 numbers and then dividing by 5. this gives us 44.6 as the average. 
It is easy to see that the majority of the numbers fall well above the average. The mean would be where the majority fall and in this case it is 73.3. this is the mean.

Average is the total of all individuals divided by the number of individuals. 
Mean is the number that the majority are near. It excludes the extreme highs and lows.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thank you Daniel. While it is pretty simple it is also surprising how many people don't realise there is a difference between the two.

Also, both have their uses. The example you have given is a good one, because while average may seem the right way to go, if those numbers represented some things, the average could be a distortion of the main group of them, the mean would be a better picture.

Good post also Mike, statistics, and their use, and misuse, are a fascinating topic.


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> statistics, and their use, and misuse, are a fascinating topic.


100% of our household agrees.


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

duplicate post


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Well if 100% of your household agrees, then the average and the mean for your house would be the same.

Ha Ha


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Did anybody ever answer Odfrank?


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

jmho, but i believe the answer to odfrank's question is best answered 'unknown'.

the survey lacks scientific rigor. we could probably come just as close to an answer by conducting a poll here on beesource. 

the problem would still be the lack of consistency in methods and disproportion in sample size.

whether treating or not, there will be losses, and it's best to have a contingency for replacing them.

again jmho, but the decision to treat or not at this point remains more of a philosophical one that a scientific one.

i'm not stuck on any particular philosophy, but choose not to treat primarily because my bees are thriving after many years of not being treated and i don't see any reason to interfere with that, plus i feel like it will be a selling point should i start selling nucs and queens in any meaningful way.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



D Semple said:


> Did anybody ever answer Odfrank?


I find it not worth my time to tailor my answers to the demands of other people. If you don't like the answer you get, ask another question, don't claim nobody answered the first one.


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



D Semple said:


> Did anybody ever answer Odfrank?


Not really, and I appreciate your concern. You are certainly more considerate than some people on this thread.

"I find it not worth my time to tailor my answers to the demands of other people. If you don't like the answer you get, ask another question, don't claim nobody answered the first one."

Getting ones Master degree evidentially does not teach you compassion or politeness.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I captured a swarm last week (based on the size of the swarm cluster it is a prime swarm - I'll be checking for eggs later today) and gave it two foundationless frames to draw in addition to eight older drawn combs. Is it too late in the season to expect even a swarm to do much with foundationless frames? Kelley was having their free shipping and I picked up 20 foundationless frames. I finished assembling them this morning, but figure most will get saved for next spring. i have a few nucs that will be getting their 2nd box shortly and I might see what they do with foundationless. They have been comb drawing machines in the past but as we are border line into August I generally try to give them drawn comb at this time of year. Thoughts? I know this is more of a general question than a specifically treatment free question, but the swarm hasn't been treated for anything by me.

Update from this afternoon: grumpy, no eggs, no drawing activity on foundationless frames, hive has "the roar" Though I did see what looked like workers cleaning brood cells.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> Getting ones Master degree evidentially does not teach you compassion or politeness.


If you don't want to "Discussing and formulating honeybee management methods that cooperate as much as possible with natural bee biology without resorting to the use of chemicals and drugs." then don't come in. 

This is a thread for experienced treatment-free beekeepers (me) to answer questions posed by beekeepers who are or want to be treatment-free. If that's not what you're here for, then go elsewhere.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I thought Odfrank was treatment free? Looses most of them every year, but he's treatment free.

He was simply asking a question about the survey.


----------



## Walter Lawler

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I have read this thread start to finish. A couple of times someone kicked the can and stirred up them hornets but even to me that was helpful not pleasant but helpful... I have just started out with this endeavor my goals are simple, to populate this area which seems not to have a lot of bees at all, to be treatment free, and to get a little honey for myself and family, friends and the like. I do not think I'll make a lot of money and so far it has been fairly costly. I started with 3 pkgs (yeah I know but nucs were not available) one absconded and went to the other 2 hives and never found the queen. Those 2 hives are going gangbusters so I got a carni queen locally and made a split, took brood and honey from those 2 and put in the queen, so far so good. My questions, Mr. Parker are, By starting fresh and not treating, do you think I have a better chance of keeping it that way (post 191) and how big is BIG? I can not afford to go too big financially, even building my wooden ware. There don't seem to be feral bees here as none were on my fruit trees this spring ( last year there were quite a lot), so swarm catching is pretty much out. Also (post 151) using / not using SBB. People in the club advocate it year round, in your opinion are they not necessary?

Thanks Walt


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



ddoctor said:


> By starting fresh and not treating, do you think I have a better chance of keeping it that way (post 191) and how big is BIG?


I think you have a better chance, however, that is predicated upon a great number of variables. With existing hives you have some infrastructure to work with, but you also have contaminated comb. With new hives, you can start fresh, but you won't have quite the fall back that other hives give you. So, I think so, but it's hard to say for certain. It has gone both ways many times, and unfortunately, for those with whom it failed, they often get quite hostile despite extenuating circumstances. I do not recommend foundationless for the beginner, I do recommend small cell for everybody.




ddoctor said:


> I can not afford to go too big financially, even building my wooden ware.


But aren't you a doctor?  I understand. That's the reason why I did what I did. I purchased 40 deeps (at some expense even then) and then bought 20 packages (some expense though much more now). Knowing I didn't have enough boxes for 20 hives, I didn't do any increase and instead stacked the boxes from dead hives on living ones until I had 6 hives with 3-5 boxes each and some boxes left over. I also bought some used ones a little cheaper. There are many options, and creativity is often rewarded.




ddoctor said:


> There don't seem to be feral bees here as none were on my fruit trees this spring ( last year there were quite a lot), so swarm catching is pretty much out.


You never know how many fish are in the pond until you toss a hook and a worm in. The worst swarm catching year I ever had was when I got 1 swarm from 11 traps. You really never know, and it's often worth the effort. Again, things are different in different places, so I can't make any guarantees.




ddoctor said:


> Also (post 151) using / not using SBB. People in the club advocate it year round, in your opinion are they not necessary?


Not only do I not believe they are necessary, I don't believe they are helpful, and I don't believe they should be necessary, so I don't use them and haven't for many years. I do keep a couple around for when I am harvesting honey or moving hives for ventilation and keeping robbers out.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Take 5 numbers that I have picked at random with the intend to demonstrate average and mean.
> 
> 1, 75,73,72 and 2
> 
> The average is adding all 5 numbers and then dividing by 5. this gives us 44.6 as the average.
> It is easy to see that the majority of the numbers fall well above the average. The mean would be where the majority fall and in this case it is 73.3. this is the mean.
> 
> .


This is incorrect:

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



D Semple said:


> Did anybody ever answer Odfrank?


I tried. I posted the link to the study pdf. I explained that non-treatment was described as no non-bee generated inputs, and treatment as willing to use anything (though that category is really much larger, because "prefer natural" is also "treatment if necessary.") I explained what a mean was and what the upper and lower CIs were. I nattered on about what I thought the study showed, and what it didn't. odfrank didn't respond to any of these posts, so maybe he didn't see them.

Then I got derailed by someone's personal animosity, for which I apologize, again. Maybe I'll learn my lesson this time.


----------



## Walter Lawler

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thank you. I should say, so far anyhow, no mites and no beetles. I think that is more luck than good planning on my part. I'm building a few nuc's to have so I can add to my hives and grow drawn comb. I've gone with 8 frame med's just to keep inventory alike and can swap to and from hives and even nuc's are med just for that reason, I also heard/read somewhere that smaller 8 frames get less beetle problems and possibly less disease problems because of less area for the bees to monitor. Have you any Idea if there is any merit to that? That is all supposing you have a strong populated hive. I'm not nieve enough to think I won't have losses or problems, but hope to have enough stock to overcome it. I don't think just because it's a fad right now to keep bees that if it does happen I'll just throw in the towel, I'll read your blog and all the other info spots to try to educate myself. Thanks for this thread and answering all us aspiring beekeepers questions.

Walt

Not a doctor in the true sense, a dieseldoctor, it's been my "handle" for a lot of years, but certainly not unique lol.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



ddoctor said:


> I also heard/read somewhere that smaller 8 frames get less beetle problems and possibly less disease problems because of less area for the bees to monitor. Have you any Idea if there is any merit to that?


 I can't confirm that Walt. I don't like 8-frames because for the size hive, they are too tall. In fact, I built some 14 frame hives that are even shorter. We'll see how they work. My only 8-frame died out just recently after being unable to replace a swarmed queen.




ddoctor said:


> Not a doctor in the true sense, a dieseldoctor, it's been my "handle" for a lot of years, but certainly not unique lol.


I did consider become a diesel mechanic for a while, but decided to go for commercial beekeeping. That didn't end up being what I wanted to do so I fell back on engineering. Now I'm a Civil Engineer, working on water and waste water plants.


----------



## Charlie B

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> I thought Odfrank was treatment free? Looses most of them every year, but he's treatment free. He was simply asking a question about the survey.


Odfrank has been keeping bees for over 40 years and never any treatment. He captures more colonies every year than most hobbyist beekeepers have in their apiary so I don't get the harsh treatment either.


----------



## Walter Lawler

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> I can't confirm that Walt. I don't like 8-frames because for the size hive, they are too tall. In fact, I built some 14 frame hives that are even shorter. We'll see how they work. My only 8-frame died out just recently after being unable to replace a swarmed queen.
> 
> 
> I did consider become a diesel mechanic for a while, but decided to go for commercial beekeeping. That didn't end up being what I wanted to do so I fell back on engineering. Now I'm a Civil Engineer, working on water and waste water plants.


Mechanic isn't what it used to be, just fell in to it naturally, mom wanted a CPA lol. Now if you could do a "treatment free" potable water plant you would be a ca-zillionaire. The height IS going to be an Issue. For whatever reason I like them and the bees... they don't seem to mind.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Could be done, a slow sand filter can do it, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, the problem lies in the disinfection residual, otherwise more goop grows in the lines. I say more because some already grows there anyway. Goop is actually okay, it's the pathogenic goop you want to watch out for. As Michael said, it would be good for the species if humans were treatment free purely from a natural selection standpoint, but we put value on human life. Since I am a human, I'm okay with that.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Actually there's not as much money in water treatment as you might think. We're spending the public's money. Don't spend enough and they unelect you. Spend too much and they unelect you. Water quits coming out the tap or starts coming out the toilet and they unelect you. We work for the guys trying to keep from getting unelected.


----------



## Walter Lawler

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

What a cycle... I know a little about public works, but not in the same respect you do, I worked for the county in Fl as a tech in the bus shop I actually worked for the school board and if they don't have money your contract does not get renewed. As $ goes that does not pay very well. Politics sheesh! Maybe we should pattern our society after bees (insects in general), if you don't work you get the boot to the curb and only one monarch. I would hate to be a male though.

Walt


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Don't get me started on anthropomorphism of bees. You've been warned!


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?


----------



## heaflaw

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?


This study shows that beekeepers who treat and beekeepers who do not treat had about the same amount of losses: around 34%, which is about what you had. 

Did I answer your question well enough?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

No wonder Odfrank doesn't post here much.

Strange that some members of a treatment free forum, decide only certain types of treatment free beekeepers are welcome. During the 2 years I was running treatment free hives, 95% of members here were very helpful and treated me well, but for the other rather vocal 5% I did not fit their mold, and so was met with put downs and outright hostility, still continuing. Like Odfrank.


----------



## heaflaw

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The last several pages of this thread has had some great posts by very intelligent and experienced beekeepers. I am enjoying it and learning from it. I hope the discussion continues.

However, I do have a problem with when comments come across as personal attacks or talking down to other posters. There are other treatment free beekeepers whose contributions would be welcomed and whom we could all learn from but who will not join the discussion for that reason. It is our loss.

Lawrence Heafner


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Over the last several pages? I guess you'd be referring to put downs such as half ****ed, can't talk English, that type of thing.

I don't think Odfrank is guilty of anything like that.

For me, I seem to be the butt of some of this but it's only ever from the same old 5%, I have a thick skin, don't care, and continue regardless. Others though as you say, cannot be bothered, I'm friends with several great people who now rarely / never post here.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> I'd advise: keep studying, and talking, and form a new plan of attack to move over to non-treatment management. If you go at it half-****ed you are likely to fail again.
> Mike (UK)


Thanks again for the advise. As a starting point to help me form the new plan, what specifically, was wrong or half ****ed, with my last plan of attack?

So I'll know what to change.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?


In the short term, yes, probably. In the long term no. And if you go that way you'll have to keep on treating, because if you don't 90% or so of your colonies will perish.

I reckon I nailed it. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Thanks again for the advise. As a starting point to help me form the new plan, what specifically, was wrong or half ****ed, with my last plan of attack?
> 
> So I'll know what to change.


First let me say I didn't call you half ****ed. That wouldn't make sense, and if it did it would probably be impolite. I said what I said: please read it carefully.

I don't know much about your previous plan, less about your circumstances, and without knowing more I can't add to the considerable effort I've already put in to try to guide you in the right sort of direction. 

Have you made any effort to absorb that advice, and do the learning I spoke of, or have you just decided to keep asking other people to do your work for you? It won't work. You have to do it. That 'starting point' has to be in your head, as a result of your own effort to create it.

Why don't you try to write a critique of your last effort and post it here? Make a well thought-through plan for future action and post that too. 

That way we'll be able to see what you did, what your circumstances are, and, if we think its worthwhile, we'll be in a position to make the effort to help you along a bit more.

Sorry in advance to all; that's a bit direct I know. But sheesh, as you chaps say. People will get short and likely rude too if you jerk them around. Stop procrastinating and winding people up here and make with the studying.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> I don't know much about your previous plan, less about your circumstances, and without knowing more I can't add to the considerable effort I've already put in to try to guide you in the right sort of direction.


Oh I see. From what you'd been saying I thought you must have known a bit about it.



mike bispham said:


> Have you made any effort to absorb that advice, and do the learning I spoke of, or have you just decided to keep asking other people to do your work for you? It won't work. You have to do it. That 'starting point' has to be in your head, as a result of your own effort to create it.


Isn't this being rather pompous, considering you have admitted to knowing little of my plan, the work I have done, or anything? 
However just so you know, I consider all advise given. I do give it more weight if I know the person dispensing it has been successful with it.. Re the learning you suggest I do, yes already done and am still doing, those things you suggested.



mike bispham said:


> Why don't you try to write a critique of your last effort and post it here? Make a well thought-through plan for future action and post that too.


"Why don't I *try* to write a critique?" Your whole post and previous posts, just ooze condescension and superiority. 
However, my last "effort" is all here on Beesource. It took a lot of thought, study, work, money, and a large part of my life. Future plan for treatment free? Don't have one. Other than breeding from the most resistant.



mike bispham said:


> That way we'll be able to see what you did, what your circumstances are, and, if we think its worthwhile, we'll be in a position to make the effort to help you along a bit more.
> 
> Sorry in advance to all; that's a *bit direct *I know. But sheesh, as you chaps say. People will get short and likely rude too if you jerk them around. Stop procrastinating and winding people up here and make with the studying.


Can I be direct? I asked for advise about bees. But your post is just a bunch of personal, and rather disparaging comments about me. "Stop procrastinating", blah blah.
Then I find you know nothing about me and have based all your advise on assumptions.

When I asked how I could change my plan, I was seeking advise on bees. IE, as I assumed from your tone you must know something about what I have done, you could suggest where I have gone wrong and how it could be improved. For the future, I am interested in substance, not dogma.

There is nothing in your post that is a change I could make. Writing posts of personal insults disguised as "advise", and nothing at all about bees, is rather transparent.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Oh I see. From what you'd been saying I thought you must have known a bit about it.


I offered general, not specific, information. It doesn't who or where you are, the principles apply. Learn as much as you can about them, and how to apply them to bees, and that will help you in your aims.



Oldtimer said:


> Isn't this being rather pompous, considering you have admitted to knowing little of my plan, the work I have done, or anything?


No. General knowledge needs no background information. It applies universally. 



Oldtimer said:


> However just so you know, I consider all advise given. I do give it more weight if I know the person dispensing it has been successful with it.. Re the learning you suggest I do, yes already done and am still doing, those things you suggested.


Great, keep at it. If you can find a moment summarise your understanding of the principles of breeding, and how they mimic natural selection for the fittest strains, and how to apply that understanding to beekeeping, I'll critique it for you. 

(I'm not suggesting that in order to try to trip you up, I'm suggesting it because making the effort to produce a short essay along those lines will help you gain clarity about the things that matter, and will help me and others spot any shortcomings in your understanding. And doing that will help us gain more clarity about our own understanding)



Oldtimer said:


> "Why don't I *try* to write a critique?"


Ok, bad phrasing. But still a good idea. 



Oldtimer said:


> However, my last "effort" is all here on Beesource. It took a lot of thought, study, work, money, and a large part of my life.


Do you want me to trawl all over Beesource to try to assemble it, in order to glean an understanding of what your circumstances are? That's my only alternative to your presenting it to me. 



Oldtimer said:


> Future plan for treatment free? Don't have one. Other than breeding from the most resistant.


That sounds like a good start. How will you go about it? What will be different to the last time you did it?



Oldtimer said:


> Can I be direct? I asked for advise about bees. But your post is just a bunch of personal, and rather disparaging comments about me. "Stop procrastinating", blah blah.


You are reading a lot of that in, but yes, I'm impatient with people who repeatedly seek the same advice. Re-read it and follow it. Then maybe you won't feel the need to ask again. And try apologising when its been pointed out that you've falsely accused somebody of insulting or disparaging you. Before you asked for their advice. Again.



Oldtimer said:


> Then I find you know nothing about me and have based all your advise on assumptions.


I haven't assumed anything. I've operated with universal generalisations.



Oldtimer said:


> When I asked how I could change my plan, I was seeking advise on bees. IE, as I assumed from your tone you must know something about what I have done, you could suggest where I have gone wrong and how it could be improved.


Assumptions, eh? Why don't we start over. If you supply a summary of your personal circumstances and your previous effort, I'll see if I can point to ways of doing things that might work better for you next time around. And I'll explain why I think that what I suggest might be helpful. Others may offer different ideas, and different reasoning, and we'll all learn something in the process of sorting out what we think will help you most. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Do you want me to trawl all over Beesource to try to assemble it, in order to glean an understanding of what your circumstances are?


No



mike bispham said:


> I've operated with universal generalisations.


There's the problem. I work with specifics.



mike bispham said:


> So you assumed, and you assumed wrong. I don't know anything about you.


But, you had so much to say / imply about me.



mike bispham said:


> If you supply a summary of your personal circumstances and your previous effort, I'll see if I can point to ways of doing things that might work better for you


Straight up, based on input to date, it would be a waste of my time.

But having said all that, thanks for in your last post dropping most of the know it all arrogant manner. Even if I did have to put the spotlight on it.

I made a well researched and thorough attempt at treatment free beekeeping. It was a failure. But my long term goal is still treatment free beekeeping, or if I cannot achieve that, less treatment beekeeping. Which is why I hang around this forum. I'll question things yes. And opinionated people can struggle with that.

Anyhow, all the best. We'll have to discuss bees sometime.


----------



## Rolande

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



> Originally Posted by odfrank View Post
> 
> I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?





mike bispham said:


> In the short term, yes, probably. In the long term no.


Hi Mike, can you back up that statement with proof? Are you referring to mites developing resistance to certain treatments or claiming that in the long term no kind of treatment (ex: oxalic) will reduce losses? I'm just not seeing where you're getting the information to back up your claim that treatment doesn't reduce losses in more than the short term. 

Saying that you've got to carry on treating or you'll loose X% isn't relevant either, as many are happy to continue treatment, but if you do stop treatment then you're immediately treatment free; so your losses are the initial results of going treatment free!

I'm quite open minded about the whole thing as you (Mike) know, just curious about where you're getting your long term evidence to back up this claim.


----------



## Barry

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Do you want me to trawl all over Beesource to try to assemble it, in order to glean an understanding of what your circumstances are? That's my only alternative to your presenting it to me.


Mike -

Oldtimer isn't exactly new around here and he has been quite open about what he's done and what his results have been. You don't have to look very far to find this information. Start right here in TF and do a User Name search for posts. Let's try to encourage dialog in this thread so we can all learn a thing or two from one who is actually doing the work.


----------



## Walter Lawler

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

It is my understanding there are no "real" studies done on percentages, Michael Bush's website is one but rally does not have how much losses only how to start treatment free. I don't know about your neck of the woods (although I saw on here that there are very few really trying to go treatment free), but here in my local area the mantra is feed feed feed, treat spring and fall regardless... I know nothing so I am at an advantage IE no bad habits to correct, so I hope to learn natural ways. Gentlemen put away your swords and HELP us learn, bickering solves nothing. As I see it there are no right and wrong or tried and true methods YET. This is all about not making the same mistake as the more experienced have made already. We being neophytes (myself) need information without all the drama. This thread was started By Solomon Parker for people like me and I DO appreciate it, if you are that much more experienced than he, by all means open your own thread and I will read it as well. Now I might well be shunned or banned, but I feel better, so gentlemen start your brains and not your mouths.

Regards Walt

Sorry Barry, you came in just as I did.


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?



Mr. Frank, I think the answer is that with your experience you should be able to duplicate the best results of other beekeepers who treat in your local area. 


Don


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



heaflaw said:


> This study shows that beekeepers who treat and beekeepers who do not treat had about the same amount of losses: around 34%, which is about what you had. Did I answer your question well enough?


Thank you, finally a simple answer for a simple mind. Any other studies that might contradict this one? How many of Kieth Jarrett's bees die? Or Roland, Or Jim Lyon?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

> How many of Kieth Jarrett's bees die? Or Roland, Or Jim Lyon?

You may be interested in this thread, with numbers from both Keith and Jim: 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...s&p=885886&highlight=annual+losses#post885886


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> > How many of Kieth Jarrett's bees die? Or Roland, Or Jim Lyon?
> 
> You may be interested in this thread, with numbers from both Keith and Jim:
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...s&p=885886&highlight=annual+losses#post885886


Couldnt have said it better myself.


----------



## heaflaw

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> Thank you, finally a simple answer for a simple mind. Any other studies that might contradict this one? How many of Kieth Jarrett's bees die? Or Roland, Or Jim Lyon?


By the way, I've been learning from your posts on Beesource for a long time, you definitely do not have a "simple" mind.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rolande said:


> Hi Mike, can you back up that statement with proof? Are you referring to mites developing resistance to certain treatments or claiming that in the long term no kind of treatment (ex: oxalic) will reduce losses?
> I'm just not seeing where you're getting the information to back up your claim that treatment doesn't reduce losses in more than the short term.


No, I was just following the logic of the statistic. Long term expect losses of 35 or so percent. 



Rolande said:


> Saying that you've got to carry on treating or you'll loose X% isn't relevant either, as many are happy to continue treatment, but if you do stop treatment then you're immediately treatment free; so your losses are the initial results of going treatment free!


Hmm. I think it needs untangling a bit. Maybe I didn't nail it.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Barry said:


> Mike -
> 
> Oldtimer isn't exactly new around here and he has been quite open about what he's done and what his results have been. You don't have to look very far to find this information. Start right here in TF and do a User Name search for posts. Let's try to encourage dialog in this thread so we can all learn a thing or two from one who is actually doing the work.


That's a whole lot of study Barry that I don't have time or energy to do. And from where I sit I have no idea how long it would take, or how much figuring I'd have to do. If someone wants to give me a run down I might offer more, but that's it. 

I think its both reasonable and sensible that if you have a question you supply the information that is required to address it. If it's that easy Oldtimer can do it (if he wants to) or if anyone else want to hear my view, they can do it. 

Quite apart from the etiquette, assembling the information in a way that allows a fresh pair of eyes to look at it constructively is a good exercise for the questioner. He has to put himself in my place, and in doing that he may look afresh at his problem set, and find new creative directions. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Barry

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Hi Walt. This it the big problem: you are plain wrong in holding this understanding, and more importantly, you should know that by now.


This is an example of how not to dialog with another member. Stop using the "you" word. Use "I" statements and you'll stay out of trouble.


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mike, most of us are pretty familiar with Oldtimer's beekeeping background.

What's your beekeeping history and how many hives do you have?


Don


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

EDIT - Started writing this and posted it before I saw the most recent posts, please edit / delete if no longer appropriate.



mike bispham said:


> That's a whole lot of study Barry that I don't have time or energy to do. And from where I sit I have no idea how long it would take, or how much figuring I'd have to do.....
> 
> I think its both reasonable and sensible that if you have a question you supply the information that is required to address it. If it's that easy Oldtimer can do it


Mike as previously stated I do not even want you to trawl through my stuff, please do not bother. I already know the type of thing you will tell me to do, already pretty much knew those mantras by heart years ago.

But don't claim I asked a question, and then expected you to research on me to get an answer. I would not do that.

What really happened is you talked about me first. As in, what I should be doing etc, and in rather derogatory terms. As you had taken it upon yourself to comment on me without enough knowledge, I questioned you on it, which I believe is fair enough. I wanted to see if there was substance, or just dogma.

It then turned into an argument, as you made even more claims and implications about me on a personal level, plus what I should do, why I had failed, etc, and became even more derogatory, while still knowing nothing. It was the subtle put downs, not so subtle put downs, arrogance and know it all ism, that I found most objectionable.

As you think your approach has been a good one, it would be more of the same if I wrote your critique for you, and as previously stated, me doing this for you would be a waste of my time.

My advise would be, know what you are talking about before saying it, and secondly, drop the theories about what you logically "think should" happen. Start learning what really happens. Sometimes they'll be the same, but I can guarantee you that sometimes they won't.

I bear you no ill will, and in fact admire your keenness. But once you get started on talking, it's all just dogma, and I can even pretty much tell what you will say before you even have said it. The only other thing would be realise you are not superior to everybody else, nobody is. I have considerable experience with bees but none the less, I have learned things on this forum from rank newbies and have no problem admitting to that.

One of my own many faults is I can be rather opinionated, and I know that. It can rub other opinionated people up the wrong way. But I have been a full time beekeeper and a rather successful one. I worked with bees all day, every day, for years. So at least when I offer an opinion on bees there is something to back it.

Some of my other opinions may well be worthless LOL 

Peace!


----------



## odfrank

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



heaflaw said:


> By the way, I've been learning from your posts on Beesource for a long time, you definitely do not have a "simple" mind.


I don't think you have confirmed this with my wife.


----------



## Charlie B

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I hate to admit this but to be honest, I value Ollie's advice more so than anyone else on Beesource.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Charlie B said:


> I hate to admit this but to be honest, I value Ollie's advice more so than anyone else on Beesource.


Oh man, is this kind of Mayan date of note or something? Cat's and dogs - living together!


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



D Semple said:


> Mike, most of us are pretty familiar with Oldtimer's beekeeping background.
> What's your beekeeping history and how many hives do you have? Don


Its long and complex Don, but I'll outline it so you'll have an idea of where I'm coming from. I first learned beekeeping from an ancient professional gardener and countryman, and a professional commercial beekeeper about 30 years ago. 

As I did so I took careful note of how the things they did and talked about matched the theory of natural selection for the fittest strains that I 'd learned doing foundation biology at school.

This continued a process begun when I was about 7 years old when I'd been been helping my father sort beans for next years planting. 'Keep the big, clean ones that aren't mishapen' he'd said. I'd asked why. He'd smiled, and replied: 'because we want nice well shaped beans next year...'. I'd understood. 

7 year olds can understand the core principle of husbandry. That doesn't mean they know anything about the mechanisms.

From the gardener I learned a countryman's maxim: 'Never help a wild animal.' A question for anyone who wants to play: why is that? Is it right?

I grew up in a farming community. From countless conversations in pubs, on buses, by the side of the road, about dogs, horses, ferrets, cattle, sheep, ****erels, and much more I learned about breeding. 

My interest in living things extended to reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene when I was in my early twenties, and discovering the wonder of the magic mechanisms of life. Fascinated, I read more about evolution, all the while marrying this with the understanding I had of stock keeping. I kept joining the dots. This was 40 years ago.

In the interim I've continued to learn about the processes and mechanisms of health-seeking natural selection through independent reading and study, and as part of a university degree. I can't begin to indicate the breadth and depth of this study. If I said I'd guess I've spent between 3 and 5 thousand hours on it, and without false modesty told you I'm a very hot student, that might convey something.

I don't know everything by a long long way - but I'm familair with this stuff.

About 25 years ago, when I'd been beekeeping for a few years with just a few swarms, varroa struck. I was told to treat, and my insides ran cold. I knew more than enough to understand that treating would prevent adaptation, and what that would mean for the honeybee population. I decided in short order that I'd rather lose my bees than participate in such a gross violation of Nature. And that's what happened. I was accused of cruelty, of harbouring pests, of endangering the livelihoods of others. I gave up beekeeping while I went through a divorce and house moves, though sporadically tried keeping swarms, without treating, and without success. But I carried on thinking, reading, studying, and planning. When the internet arrived I started talking with other beekeepers about the principles of stock keeping, raising resistance, non-treatment regimes. 

I started to realise that those who were having the most success often misread, in an important way, the reasons for their success (I'm thinking about Dee Lusby here) Almost nobody was talking about evolution, natural selection or breeding. As the internet speeded up, it became apparent that almost everybody talking about non-treatment lacked a good understanding of the theoretical basis of stock keeping. And so, about 6 years ago, with the help of a well regarded doctor of microbiology, I wrote up what I thought was happening. (The essay can be found at url at my signature) I've talked about it with scientists beekeepers, regulators, anyone who wants to talk - ever since. This has been a major part of my life. If I wrote it again I'd do it differently, but I've found nothing that leads me to think the basic analysis is wrong. I've never felt the need to alter it.

4 years ago I bought the piece of land I needed to start working on bees. I made arrangement to locate swarms and cut-outs, and sent 3 into winter in autumn 2011. Two came through, and built up, and I multiplied and added swarms to about 50 last last year. Many were late, many never built - we had one of the wettest summers on record - and I ruthlessly let them die in one of the coldest winters we've seen in a generation, 2012-13. 7 came through, 4 were outstanding. From them, with the help of a handful of swarms, I've raised numbers to 36 - aiming to about double that into winter. The bees are fantastic - they build like billio, fetch honey like mad - and they've been helped by a grand summer. There has been no treatment of any sort, and no manipulation against mites.

So its early days. I'm not yet in a position to say I've succeded, but I can say I'm trying, and that things are currently looking very good.

I can also say I've done my homework. I'm in contact with, and seek advice from some of the best in the non-treatment world. 

From where I sit, knowing what to do, in any circumstances looks easy. You [1] just apply the principles of stock keeping to bees. You'll find out exactly how to do this if you read the right beekeeping books (and, as importantly, avoid the many more wrong ones). But it took a lot of time to get here. And I can see many people - like some of thee - who aren't clear about the principles, who don't know which books to trust, and who struggle to see how in this topic theory really can predict and direct real outcomes. 

At the bottom its simple. Get good bees, and look after them. 

By that I mean only this - take care of the genes that make them good. Make sure that as much as humanely possible those genes and only those genes make the next generation, on a continuous basis. Focus on your breeding pool at least as much as your individuals. Bees mate openly, so you must treat them like wild animals and don't help laggards. 

These are stockman's, or husbandryman's, principles. And principles matter. These are descriptions of apects of Nature's Law, and they are inviolable. To the extent that you break them things will go wrong. Period. To the extent that you follow them things will work. Period. 

If it isn't working, you're not following them. That might be due to matters you can't control - that is so for many people. But understanding the principles allows you to see what must be changed in order to meet their requirements, and to make plans to do so. 

That might, depending on circumstances be almost impossible. Or it might be like falling off a log. But what doesn't change, anywhere, anytime, are the principles. They are comprehensively established by deep theory, supported by billions of observations (science). Written in the bible. The medievals had a neat universal dictum: 'Put only best to best'. That is so simple. Just the same as the beans. 

Put the principles into practice, in the certain knowledge: if you can do that, you will succeed, as others have done. If you can't, you will fail, as others have done.

Your success hinges entirely upon your ability to apply the principles of population husbandry.

Mike (UK)

[1] Barry, I've tried to follow your advice, but when I say 'you' like that, it just means anyone. I can't rejig the whole grammar to avoid it without a lot of work.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> That's a whole lot of study Barry that I don't have time or energy to do. And from where I sit I have no idea how long it would take, or how much figuring I'd have to do. If someone wants to give me a run down I might offer more, but that's it.
> 
> I think its both reasonable and sensible that if you have a question you supply the information that is required to address it. If it's that easy Oldtimer can do it (if he wants to) or if anyone else want to hear my view, they can do it.
> 
> Quite apart from the etiquette, assembling the information in a way that allows a fresh pair of eyes to look at it constructively is a good exercise for the questioner. He has to put himself in my place, and in doing that he may look afresh at his problem set, and find new creative directions.
> 
> Mike (UK)


If people would fill out their Profile in some detail that would help. Or you could PM him.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mike what your thread essentially is saying is that you are practising the bond method.

Quite a few here are doing the same. But it only works if some survive. If you lose 100%, nothing is gained. Which is what happened to me.

However the bond method is not the only way. There are several good breeding programs going on that use completely different methods and philosophies.

Where is it that Dee Lusby has gone wrong?


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> 1. This continued a process begun when I was about 7 years old when I'd been been helping my father sort beans for next years planting. Keep the big, clean ones that aren't mishapen he'd said. I'd asked why. He'd smiled, and replied: 'because we want nice well shaped beans next year...'. I'd understood.
> 
> 2. 7 year olds can understand the principles of husbandry. That doesn't mean they know anything about the mechanisms.
> 
> 3. From the gardener I learned a countryman's maxim: 'Never help a wild animal.' A question for anyone who wants to play: why is that? Is it right?
> 
> 4. I grew up in a farming community. From countless conversations in pubs, on buses, by the side of the road, about dogs, horses, ferrets, cattle, sheep, ****erels, and much more I learned about breeding.


First it sounds like your experiences are much like mine. I am sure you could also but I could credit far more than one book for my reading though. I will say that my range of reading as well as my observations does not lead me to the same thinking in regard to what I have read.

1. I was taught this also. My question is. If in fact this method did work. Why is it that you had to select year after year? That you would still have to select to this day. How is it that you will still find the inferior bean? I say it is something along the thinking that nature has a wide variety of traits that it preserves to maintain the natural survival of a species. But man has a very narrow selection of traits that they consider beneficial. It is a process something like trying to sort the needle from the hay stack. Not only that but in the process we cause the organism to become more and more unsuitable for survival. I was also taught this method very clearly. but I also see much evidence it accomplishes little if anything. Until just 10 years ago or so I had little understand of why.

30 years ago I spent a period of time interested in rearing Game ****s for the purpose of producing Hackle for fly tying. I never did. But I did look into it and have remained interested enough in it to realize that I would never put the effort toward it it would require. I have been able to folow the career of someone that did though. Almost from the same time I considered taking it up another did. Dr, Whiting who has sense not only accomplished what was once considered impossible, but has done so repeatedly, reliably and predictably. He single handedly has completely re written what can be done with feathers. He not only can breed he can breed what would basically amount to mutations to the point they are repeatable. In short I pay attention to a person that is doing it. I think they probably know how it is done. and in this case he does. His understanding of the mechanisms is staggering. Genetics in a nut shell is far more than just dominant and recessive and two genes. far far more.

Just one example. white in a chicken is a mutation. so why do we have so many white chickens? Not only is white a mutation it is a recessive gene. And to make it worse it is not only recessive but it is a recessive gene that does not have full effect with the first generation but requires a string of generations or "Doses" to eventually be expressed. So how is it that a recessive trait that must remain recessive from generation to generation become one of the most common color in some breeds of chickens? and remain that way? To bred a white chicken you start with two black ones. Explain that. In all I do not see that picking out the best bean works. Ti is far far more complex than that. I also do not agree that natural selection works for the purpose of husbandry. ti may work wonders for a wild population to always have individuals that will survive any conditions. but natural selection does just the opposite of what husbandry is looking for.

2. you can spend an entire lifetime driving a car and never understand one thing about fixing one. that does not mean yo are unfit to be in the drivers seat. it means you are unfit to be in the garage. Keeping bees will never result in being a breeder of bees. Understanding of the mechanisms is not intuitive or obvious. and effectiveness at breeding is highly dependent on understanding the mechanisms. I will add I do not consider that a bee breeder with that understanding exists. I do not believe a breeder exists for bees that is effective. No more than I think picking out the best beans works. it may make for some lovely memories and some wonderful conversation. but it does not make better beans. I remember all farmers saving the highest yielding areas of their crop for the next years seed. Except one and he had a slight addition to how he selected seed. he selected the best growing plants form his worst soil. I could see for myself that even this slight alteration to his selection process made a difference. Even his poor yielding areas began to improve. he did not just try to improve from his best. He improved his worst as well. He actually preferred seed from the plants where most plants could not grow. that to him seemed like the strongest fittest plants. anything can thrive in good conditions. He even told me that harvesting seed from the best was like sifting with no screen. This person always was and still continues to be the most successful farmer I have ever known.

3. I agree that as a general rule it is right. But then we are not talking about wild animals here and we are not talking about animals that are subjected to natural conditions. I also understand that not helping a wild animal usually means it will die.

4. I also grew up around such conversations. and more often than not it is a situation of the blind leading the blind. It becomes a situation of them all doing the same thing for the same reason most of which are not relevant to producing better results. They are usually limited by the industry. resources. traditional methods and support. What if it where proven that the European Honey Bee cannot possibly be kept disease free in a langstroth hive. Would the industry be willing to give up the langstroth? Tough choice and there are many such tough choices. many of which beekeepers would not change even if they did know it was part of the problem. They will not give up beekeeping simply becasue it results in disease after disease threatening the bee.

Does modern agriculture recognize that you cannot wipe out habitat for natural pollinators including providing conditions to maintain Honey Bees? no it does not. it artificially provides the pollinators when they are needed.

I recently produced virgin queens from 4 of my colonies. I had in my mind which queens I considered best to worst. Now that some of those virgins are starting to lay and reveal something about their quality. guess which queens are indication they are the best. The ones that came from my number 4 choice. So much for picking out the best. It does not seem to me to be reliable. What I want to know is what are the mechanisms of producing better quality queens and how can I recognize or even measure them.

Are you aware of lethal gene combinations? What if in fact the genetics for mite resistance are in fact also a lethal gene combination? The complete inability to make progress toward mite resistance could in fact be indicating that it is.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Are you aware of lethal gene combinations? What if in fact the genetics for mite resistance are in fact also a lethal gene combination? The complete inability to make progress toward mite resistance could in fact be indicating that it is.


BeeWeaver bees are quite mite-resistant. There are a number of other lines that show significant mite resistance, as well.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



odfrank said:


> Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?


As I mentioned, it is steady state. You can't just quit treating and find losses to be the same as when you were treating. I've never seen that happen, like treating just isn't doing anything. However, if you compare my losses to any steady state treater, I'm doing quite good for years now, and usually better.




Rolande said:


> but if you do stop treatment then you're immediately treatment free; so your losses are the initial results of going treatment free!


Hardly, see the above.




ddoctor said:


> It is my understanding there are no "real" studies done on percentages


There is no "this is how many you'll lose" if you do this." Conditions are so different that results will be different as well. That's why I publish my losses as they happen, so others can see how it is working in the long term. There's no fudging the numbers, saying I did this or that and it was good or bad. You (collective) got the hard data if you want it.




ddoctor said:


> I saw on here that there are very few really trying to go treatment free


Truest thing you've said. Pay close attention to that.




ddoctor said:


> Gentlemen put away your swords and HELP us learn


This forum is regularly populated with persons having no interest in helping you learn how to keep bees treatment-free. They're not treatment-free, and they don't think you can be either.




ddoctor said:


> This thread was started By Solomon Parker for people like me and I DO appreciate it,


Thank you. I do it for you and those like you. I do this for newbees and backyard beekeepers who want to learn. That's what my website is geared for (should I get time to work on it), and that's why I sell nucs even to newbees (you'll find people around who won't sell to newbees).




ddoctor said:


> if you are that much more experienced than he


I don't mean to toot my own horn but in treatment-free beekeeping, that list is short. The vast majority of people are simply averse to allowing a colony to die and therefore will intervene at some point to try and save it. And that's the end of treatment-free for them. As I've been saying for years, treatment-free isn't something you just try and see if it works like some new treatment strategy. It is something you do for the long term. It's weird that I have to keep saying this, but you (collective) can't treat treatment-free like a new treatment, with a list of dos and don'ts and side effects and an instantaneous loss rate.

Know who to listen to in here, most of the names with the big post numbers are not treatment free and frankly don't belong in this forum because they don't ever intend to be. They have no investment in the method, the reasons behind doing it, or the results. That's the fact of the matter. When you do something like this that goes against decades on entrenched ideology, you're going to get a lot of resistance. After being told for years that it couldn't be done, that it wouldn't work, and that a crash was always right around the corner (that one still happens regularly), I and others are _still_ doing it and most of us are interested in helping new ones do it too.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Mike what your thread essentially is saying is that you are practising the bond method.


I think of John Kefuss with 'Bond Method'. Yes, it shares a lot with the 'modified bond method'. But its really just careful selective husbandry. There's no throwing of varroa into hives to really press out all but the most resistant. 

And it doesn't start with apiary hives with long lineages of treated parents. You (me, you, anyone) maximise your chances of not losing the lot by getting hold of bees that already resistant - feral or bred resistant - to start with. With bought/treated colonies you have around a 1 in ten chance of sufficient resistance. Those are rubbish odds. Is that what you did?

You continue to maintain that resistance as you make increase by using as parents only those that have flourished through a winter close down and spring build up, and by maintaining high drone populations in your prime hives.

You keep an apiary as a mating yard for these purposes, siting it away from other beekeepers and building in your chances of good matings by keeping large hives at all points of the compass around. (I haven't got this far yet - its a development planned for next year.

Dee Lusby goes wrong (in public) by emphasising small celling. What she and her followers fail to do is give due credit to their insistence on 'taking your losses' through not treating. This removes the mite-vulnerable strains, and, I'm not alone in thinking, is probably responsible for 75% or so of the 'organic' crowd's success. If you ask her about this she'll freely admit that she always breeds in traditional manner as a matter of course. But she emphasises only the free-cell/small cell aspect.

I also use only starter strip only in brood frames to allow the bees to choose their own cell sizes. I _think_ it may make some difference, but I _know_ selective propagation does.



Oldtimer said:


> However the bond method is not the only way. There are several good breeding programs going on that use completely different methods and philosophies.


As I've said above, this is not the bond method, or the modified bond method, although it has the common element of being a resistance breeding program. If anything its probably Joe Waggle's method, with a lot of Michael Bush added, and quite a bit of R.A.B. Manley. But its just traditional population husbandry starting with sound stock. 

I'd like to hear about these other good breeding programmes, methods and philosophies.

Mike (UK)


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> The vast majority of people are simply averse to allowing a colony to die and therefore will intervene at some point to try and save it. *And that's the end of treatment-free for them.*


Sol, tomorrow I'm moving about a dozen young hives to soybeans to help them build up enough reserves for winter. 

By your reasoning how is this not a treatment?


Don


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Is it a treatment for you to eat? Are you treating your dog by giving him kibbles?

Read the forum rules.

This is absurd.


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Dee Lusby goes wrong (in public) by emphasising small celling. What she and her followers fail to do is give due credit to their insistence on 'taking your losses' through not treating. This removes the mite-vulnerable strains, and, I'm not alone in thinking, is probably responsible for 75% or so of the 'organic' crowd's success. If you ask her about this she'll freely admit that she always breeds in traditional manner as a matter of course. But she emphasises only the free-cell/small cell aspect.
> 
> Mike (UK)



Not quite right.

SC is what everybody dwells on, but Dee publically states it's 1/3 SC, 1/3 Genetics, and 1/3 no chemicals or artificial feeds. Each part being vital. 

Don


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Is it a treatment for you to eat? Are you treating your dog by giving him kibbles?
> 
> Read the forum rules.
> 
> This is absurd.


I've read the forum rules and by those definitions I'm as treatment free as anybody.

But I fail to see, other than residues, how the physical manipulations we all do are any different than chemical treatments.

Both effect who survives.

Don


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> First it sounds like your experiences are much like mine. I am sure you could also but I could credit far more than one book for my reading though.


You are saying opposiye things in one sentence Daniel. Of course I credit lots of sources. But some are outstanding.



Daniel Y said:


> I will say that my range of reading as well as my observations does not lead me to the same thinking in regard to what I have read.


Again of course. There is no shortage of garbage written in the world. 



Daniel Y said:


> 1 . I was taught this also. My question is. If in fact this method did work. Why is it that you had to select year after year? That you would still have to select to this day. How is it that you will still find the inferior bean?


Because that's how it works. If you stop selecting and allow nature to take its course it will, if it can survive return to its original form - which will be much small and probably tougher and yucky tasting. Beans didn't evolve to be eaten! They are seeds!

You get inferior beans because not every throw of the dice is a good one, and because things like viruses infect and weaken the more vulnerable and the plain unluckly.



Daniel Y said:


> I say it is something along the thinking that nature has a wide variety of traits that it preserves to maintain the natural survival of a species.


Sure. Genetic diversity preserves traits that can be used during special circumstances. The mite management behaviours are perfect examples.



Daniel Y said:


> But man has a very narrow selection of traits that they consider beneficial.


Its up to us to choose which traits to aim at. Sure it can be done badly. The vast majority of bees bred today are go-getters that fall over if you don't regard hives as mini-hospitals. 

I breed toward self-sufficiency first and foremost.. I want my strains to promote health and endurance in the local feral population. That takes in varroa resistance, something a bit vague often described as 'vigor', and it results in good productivity. I aim to not interfere in the process of adaptation to local seasonal circumstances. And so on. I try to be a considerate propagator, honouring the needs of the species.

In nature there is a fundamental aspect of natural selection that works on the fact that populations produce more offspring than are needed for replacement purposes. This is called 'over-fecundity'. nature produces too many offspring, then sets up a series of competitions that 'discover' the strongest, best suited, and allows them to produce the next generation in (much) larger numbers than the rest. so each new generation is made mostly from the best of the last.

This is 'natural' selection. Its costly. Depending on species, a great many individuals die without becoming parents. That isn't a happy state of affairs for stock keepers. So they, copying nature, do the selecting part, thus getting the healthiest available next generation without the losses that nature would arrange.

Along the way the selectors also tend to modify the species - which is how all our domestic animals and plants came to be - through thousands of years of deliberate selection in the knowledge that it works as a maximisor of yield, in the context that yield was often a matter of life or death. 



Daniel Y said:


> It is a process something like trying to sort the needle from the hay stack.


Not at all. It works (as you acknowledge in your farmer friend example), and how it works is well understood. But hey, if you don't want to do it, fine, don't. No one is forcing you to. 



Daniel Y said:


> Not only that but in the process we cause the organism to become more and more unsuitable for survival.


Only if we are clumsy or greedy. As above, I deliberate set out to promote self suffience, to aid my local feral pool in the face of the battering it gets from local treaters.



Daniel Y said:


> I was also taught this method very clearly. but I also see much evidence it accomplishes little if anything.


imho you must have been taught very badly. And you yourself give two examples of it working! What is going on?




Daniel Y said:


> 30 years ago I spent a period of time interested in rearing Game ****s for the purpose of producing Hackle for fly tying. I never did. But I did look into it and have remained interested enough in it to realize that I would never put the effort toward it it would require. I have been able to folow the career of someone that did though. Almost from the same time I considered taking it up another did. Dr, Whiting who has sense not only accomplished what was once considered impossible, but has done so repeatedly, reliably and predictably. He single handedly has completely re written what can be done with feathers. He not only can breed he can breed what would basically amount to mutations to the point they are repeatable. In short I pay attention to a person that is doing it. I think they probably know how it is done. and in this case he does. His understanding of the mechanisms is staggering. Genetics in a nut shell is far more than just dominant and recessive and two genes. far far more.


Sure. But this contradicts your assertion above that breeding acheives nothing.



Daniel Y said:


> Just one example. white in a chicken is a mutation. so why do we have so many white chickens? Not only is white a mutation it is a recessive gene. And to make it worse it is not only recessive but it is a recessive gene that does not have full effect with the first generation but requires a string of generations or "Doses" to eventually be expressed. So how is it that a recessive trait that must remain recessive from generation to generation become one of the most common color in some breeds of chickens? and remain that way?


Maybe lady chickens prefer white mates, or maybe black ****erels are intimidated by white ones - those mechanisms are how a great many features arise. Or maybe people prefer white chickens - they can be found easily at dusk to be put away, or their health can be assessed faster. Or maybe foxes are put off by white chickens. Who knows, probably several of these things. 



Daniel Y said:


> To bred a white chicken you start with two black ones. Explain that.


You explain it if you want to. I can't explain everything, but that doesn't take anything away from what I know. I've got bees to raise, and I know when I come across stuff that I don't need to know. As with your car examle, you don't have to be a mchanic to drive. I don't have to be a geneticist to propagate healthy bees.



Daniel Y said:


> In all I do not see that picking out the best bean works.


If it didn't farmers - or nowadays seed mercahnts - wouldn't do it. But instead they spend a great deal of time selecting the seed. Its obvious to most people why. It repays the investment. Again, your own examples contradict your position...?




Daniel Y said:


> Ti is far far more complex than that.


Most things are. It doesn't follow that we were wrong in thinking we know something. The trick to science (understanding nature) is spotting the patterns that underlie complexity and then looking for the mechanisms that cause them. In our case its largely very well understood, and the bits that aren't don't impact on simple breeding toward health and vigor. Its kids stuff. 



Daniel Y said:


> I also do not agree that natural selection works for the purpose of husbandry.


"natural selection works for the purpose of husbandry" is a contradiction in terms.

There is 'Natural selection' and 'human selection'. They are mutually exclusive categories. 

However in most husbandry both are factors.



Daniel Y said:


> natural selection works for the purpose of husbandry ti may work wonders for a wild population to always have individuals that will survive any conditions. but natural selection does just the opposite of what husbandry is looking for.


At the moment natural selection has worked its magic on feral bees, and bought mite resistance forward. We can use that to our advantage as beekeepers and resume the methods that have allowed us to keep bees successfully for thousands of years. We need to follow nature's rules to do that. 'Put only best to best'

Its simple, within a complex system. And it works today just as it has worked for thousands of years. 

And its a million time better in terms of preserving genetic diversity than the current orthodoxy.

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



D Semple said:


> I've read the forum rules and by those definitions I'm as treatment free as anybody.


Congratulations.




D Semple said:


> But I fail to see, other than residues, how the physical manipulations we all do are any different than chemical treatments.


I don't do any manipulations to affect disease. What manipulations do you do to affect disease?


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> I don't do any manipulations to affect disease. What manipulations do you do to affect disease?


No more than 8 - 10 hives to the yard
Forced brood breaks and requeening of hives with high mite loads
Don't let hives completely crash to be robbed out 
Splits
Getting rid of old comb 


Don


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Are you aware of lethal gene combinations?


A 'lethal gene combination' sounds like a description of an individual without a future! Carrying a combination without a future. Nature is full of 'em. Or am I missing something?



Daniel Y said:


> The complete inability to make progress toward mite resistance could in fact be indicating that it is.


What complete inability? Where are you getting that from? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



D Semple said:


> [#1]No more than 8 - 10 hives to the yard
> [#2]Forced brood breaks and [#3]requeening of hives with high mite loads
> [#4]Don't let hives completely crash to be robbed out
> [#5]Splits
> [#6]Getting rid of old comb


Sounds like a lot of work.

A couple of comments:
#1 is just good practice. That's doing less of a bad thing that everybody else does. That's beekeeping.
#2 is your treatment. Good for no residual chemicals, but still a lot of work and breeding for bees that require that kind of care. A reasonable intermediate step, but one that I have never practiced.
#3 is a good idea, but that's just general animal husbandry, beekeeping.
#4 is preventing other hives from being exposed to disease that they would normally be exposed to. Robbing is natural, it's good for the population as a whole, eliminating weak hives and exposing strong hives to disease.
#5 is #2 depending on how you do it. Absent explanation, I assume you mean walk-away splits, in which case it is #2. You wouldn't want to multiply a hive with a mite problem unless you didn't have any other option.
#6 is good practice and in fact what happens in nature upon the periodic death of a hive (including #4) and cleanup of old comb by wax moths.

My advice (since that is what this thread is about) would be to wean yourself off #2, forget about #4, and do #5 better thereby eliminating the need for #2 and enhancing the effect of #3. Keep doing #1 because it's a good idea and #6 is all about doing something artificially that would normally be done naturally so you can maintain a useful productive hive, which is....beekeeping.


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Re: #4 about my not letting hives completely crash to be robbed out and your response that it's natural and a good thing.

I agree with you, but it's a concession I make for my beekeeping neighbors who have a problem with it. 

Thanks for the help.

Don


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>Dee Lusby goes wrong (in public) by emphasising small celling. What she and her followers fail to do is give due credit to their insistence on 'taking your losses' through not treating. 

As far as Dee, as already pointed out, she has said for as long as I have known her (12 years or so) that it is 1/3 genetics, 1/3 natural food and 1/3 cell size.

I tried taking losses to get mite resistant bees. The all died from Varroa. I tried small cell (with new bees of course since none survived) and lost none to Varroa. You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm

Not that I'm against genetics. I certainly think there are many things bees face besides Varroa and we should be raising bees that can survive these things on their own and until you stop treating you can't breed for bees who thrive without treating.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#notreatmentupside


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> #2 is your treatment. Good for no residual chemicals, but still a lot of work and breeding for bees that require that kind of care. A reasonable intermediate step, but one that I have never practiced


If #2 is undertaken systematically, and not accompanied by #3, it might allow the apiary to continue despite having no internal mite defences at all. In this case its effect is indistinguishable from a chemical treatment against varroa. It will tend to weaken existing mite defences over time. And it will anyway tend to mask mite vulnerability, making evaluation of parent material hard.

Any manipulation that lowers mite levels in the short term will make matters worse in the long term - unless you are able to ameliorate the effect. I emphasise this because its possible that we do such things by accident. For example; I have a lot of young colonies (splits) and little varroa around to infect them.. I must be on guard against the assumption that they are good mite managers, just because they don't have a problem right now. That's why I wait till they've overwintered successfully on their own and built up again before I consider them as parent material. 

I'd be grateful for discussion of this sort of thing. How to be on guard against false readings in the selection process when working an apiary for rapid colony number build up. I guess the best thing is only use the tried and tested queens, using the growing young colonies only to supply brood and flying bees. More fiddly stuff unfortunately.

#3 has to be requeening with queens with an expectation of better performance in mite management terms. That ought to be well based expectation, not just a hope.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Michael Bush said:


> As far as Dee, as already pointed out, she has said for as long as I have known her (12 years or so) that it is 1/3 genetics, 1/3 natural food and 1/3 cell size.


You are (both) right - but most of the attention, as Don agrees, has fallen on small cell. And I do recall long periods on the organic beekeepers list when genetics was never mentioned at all. I corresponded with her about this a couple of times, and she said, routine selective husbandry was something she'd always done, and it came so naturally she never gave it a thought. 



Michael Bush said:


> I tried taking losses to get mite resistant bees. The all died from Varroa. I tried small cell (with new bees of course since none survived) and lost none to Varroa.


I do the same (free-celling anyhow) because you told me that a couple of years ago. I do think there is something in it, and it makes good sense anyhow. But its my understanding that others are able to succeed using normal foundation. If this is so, then yours, and Dee's, and the (only) breeders' success can be logically attibuted to genetics only. 

It may well be the case that while genetics is unavoidable, small celling helps, perhaps especially in the early stages. It may be that only some of the several behaviours that bees use to manage mites are available to some populations, and while that is the case, small cells are necessary.



Michael Bush said:


> You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.


Am I right in thinking Marla Spivak claims success without any mention of small cell - genetics only? If so, how would you explain that?



Michael Bush said:


> Not that I'm against genetics. I certainly think there are many things bees face besides Varroa and we should be raising bees that can survive these things on their own and until you stop treating you can't breed for bees who thrive without treating.


I couldn't agree more. Solomon has it right - exposure to all aspects of the environment is the healthy way forward, and I reckon plain vigour, productivity and longevity in the face of that are the best guides for selection purposes. Broad-spectrum resistance, I think I've heard it called.

Mike (UK)


----------



## LetMBee

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mr Bush



> I tried taking losses to get mite resistant bees. The all died from Varroa. I tried small cell (with new bees of course since none survived) and lost none to Varroa. You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.


Are you certain the genetic lines you got to replace all of the colonies lost to varroa wreren't better suited to varroa? I have noted consistencies in survivabilty of bees caught at specific locations around here. There seem to be great differences in swarm size, coloration, work ethic and overwintering abilities even here in this 50 mile x 50 mile zone where I place my traps. These locations consistently provide bees with similar attributes (swarm size, coloration, work ethic etc.) year after year.

I don't know what else to attribute this to other than genetics. The entire region is mono cropped soy and corn, so it isn't like some of these bees are coming from easy to live locations. What do you think? 

Thanks


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I think there is a number of reasons for some of the disagreement.

But first, ALL beekeepers would like to be treatment free. Treatment is expensive and time consuming. Pre varroa, no chemicals of any type were used in hives in my country. Then varroa arrived and treatment became the norm. The cost of it put some marginal beekeepers out of business, and for the rest, they now run an average of 30% less hives per man. Nobody wants that, of course.

There is an issue of definition. This, being a treatment free forum, allows really only one method, the bond method. Because any other method is not treatment free. So for example, the govt. funded breeding programs producing bees with higher varroa resistance are not strictly kosher on this forum cos they treat.

The conundrum for the likes of me, is that I am not really kosher on this forum. Because although I used the bond method, I lost everything. IE, it didn't work. 
That leaves me one alternative, treat where needed, but breed from the most resistant. But that is not really kosher on this forum.

When I did the bond method, I used absolute best practise, based on information from all the best known treatment free beekeepers, Solomon included. In fact I exceeded what some of them do. But it didn't work. And for most for whom it did work, they don't know why. IE, they cannot take their bees and practises to another beekeeper and tell them it will work for them. It is not reliably repeatable.

Perhaps the most repeatable thing in TF beekeeping might be queens from beeweaver. Most reviews are positive. But it struck me as odd that commercial beekeepers are not using them to make big savings, so I asked about this on the commercial forum. The reply was that some have tried them, but they got varroa just like all the other bees. So from that, it could be concluded that environment, as well as genetics, plays a part.

Even small cell itself, is not truly bond method, because it is helping the bees against varroa by imposing something on them. Natural comb is true bond method.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> There is an issue of definition. This, being a treatment free forum, allows really only one method, the bond method.


You can call it the bond method, I call it population husbandry by selective propagation. The bond method (and the soft bond method) refer to the means of transitioning from treatment addicted bees to treatment free bees by propagating from those showing the best mite skills. The former probably suits professional breeders, especially if they have no access to feral or bred resistant bees; the latter suits beekeepers whose apiaries are treatment addicted.



Oldtimer said:


> Because any other method is not treatment free. So for example, the govt. funded breeding programs producing bees with higher varroa resistance are not strictly kosher on this forum cos they treat.


They are not transitioning methods, or ongoing health-directing operations. They are separate dedicated breeding programs. Learning about them doesn't help with the work of learning how to keep bees without treatments.



Oldtimer said:


> The conundrum for the likes of me, is that I am not really kosher on this forum. Because although I used the bond method, I lost everything. IE, it didn't work. That leaves me one alternative, treat where needed, but breed from the most resistant. But that is not really kosher on this forum.


Why not start one where it is? Describe it as working with Marla Spivak's methods or the soft bond method. But if you truly want help, wherever, be prepared to explain your own circumstances fully. If people can't tell what wen't wrong before they'll be hobbled as to telling you how to fix it.



Oldtimer said:


> When I did the bond method, I used absolute best practise, based on information from all the best known treatment free beekeepers, Solomon included. In fact I exceeded what some of them do. But it didn't work.


So you say. I understand you attempted the soft bond method of transitioning? You seem to want to extrapolate from your own failure that no-one else can succeed, and the 'bond method' is therefore unreliable at best. 

But you are unwilling to offer a short summary of what you did, and your apiary circumstances, that might allow me or anyone else who hasn't followed your explanations to offer suggestions as to what might have gone wrong. We can't check your claim that you did all the right things. We can't critique your methods. You are preventing us helping you. That looks rather odd. 



Oldtimer said:


> And for most for whom it did work, they don't know why. IE, they cannot take their bees and practises to another beekeeper and tell them it will work for them. It is not reliably repeatable.


So seek out people for whom it does work, and they _do_ know why it works. Many people don't care why it works - not about the details anyway. And some struggle to follow the more complex detail of what is happening. None of that matters. But if your car is broken, seek a mechanic, not a racing driver.



Oldtimer said:


> Even small cell itself, is not truly bond method, because it is helping the bees against varroa by imposing something on them. Natural comb is true bond method.


My advice would be to abandon this 'true religion' attitude to 'the bond method' and familiarise yourself with the principles and mechanisms of nature. And let people help, by telling them what you did. 

Unless that happens I think this conversation is off topic. I value a forum where questions can be asked about how to raise and maintain treatment free bees, whether transitioning from treatment-addicted or starting over, in the knowledge that it is likely to work if done well. I'm not going to participate in conversations that undermine that understanding, and I'll complain if they persist.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mike I don't really think we are on the same page. 

With all due respect, I am not asking for your help, nor have I. Some pages back, uninvited, you commented on me and my methods, implying I was on the wrong path, and that you had something to offer. This came as a surprise as I really didn't think you knew anything about me or my bees. So in essence I asked you to explain yourself. That's all.

I have not been able to discover what it is that you think you know, that I don't know. The generalities and theories about selective breeding etc that you have offered are already known by most of the members here including myself. 

Although I am normally happy to talk with literally anyone, I am not asking you to engage in a conversation with me. So don't have a problem with that, and as to your continued insistence that I write a bunch of stuff for you, I have already explained that based on input I have seen so far, it would not be worth my time. I would be very happy for you to "help" someone else, rather than me.

Really, no need to be so deadly serious about it all either. For you, it's just a hobby and it's meant to be fun. Enjoy!


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> 4 years ago I bought the piece of land I needed to start working on bees. I made arrangement to locate swarms and cut-outs, and sent 3 into winter in autumn 2011. Two came through, and built up, and I multiplied and added swarms to about 50 last last year. Many were late, many never built - we had one of the wettest summers on record - and I ruthlessly let them die in one of the coldest winters we've seen in a generation, 2012-13. 7 came through, 4 were outstanding. From them, with the help of a handful of swarms, I've raised numbers to 36 - aiming to about double that into winter. There has been no treatment of any sort, and no manipulation against mites.


MIke you stopped beekeeping when you lost all your colonys due to varroa and took it up again in 2011.

You sourced your bees from swarms or cutouts but I guess you wouldn't know the origin of the bees whether from managed or feral colonys.

I don't understand why you think that after 2 years you have the makings of resistant bees? 

My understanding is that splitting a hive into nucs is a great way of reducing mite load in the parent hive as well as the nucs, and is in itself a treatment.

To split so many nucs off 4 hives that survived one winter I'm not surprised the hives are doing well as the mite load would be substantially reduced. 

To me a true indication of treatment free bees is to have each one of your 36+ hives you have now still alive and well after 3 winters with no splits or nucs made off it.

Until you have done that I wouldn't say you have succeeded but fingers crossed that you do.


----------



## Barry

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> And let people help, by telling them what you did.


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?250294-Small-Cell-Hive
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?285488-Off-the-wagon


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> To me a true indication of treatment free bees is to have each one of your 36+ hives you have now still alive and well after 3 winters with no splits or nucs made off it.


That sounds like a bit of the old "moving the bar." You can't do that treating, why should treatment-free be expected to do it?


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> To me a true indication of treatment free bees is to have each one of your 36+ hives you have now still alive and well after 3 winters with no splits or nucs made off it.
> 
> Until you have done that I wouldn't say you have succeeded but fingers crossed that you do.


W/ that criteria, never in the history of beekeeping have we ever been treatment free. It's funny to me that what treatment free is is still being argued/discussed. It's like arguing about whether the sky is blue or not. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

There's a simple reason for that Mark. Perhaps you can figure out what it is. Why would a group of people with no interest in advancing the concept constantly criticize and even troll a forum devoted to its discussion? Why would they try to subvert the definition of the thing? Why would they try to demonstrate that even the concept's adherents weren't actually doing the thing they claim to be doing? Do they do the same things in the Topbar forum or the Warre forum?

What treatment-free is is what it is as defined in this forum. The idea that people keep trying to conflate beekeeping with treatment-free beekeeping is absurd. There is a group of people who either can't or won't or have failed to do it in here and they won't leave or leave it alone. Why is that? 

Here are the reasons I've gathered:

1. I'm lying and should be stopped.
2. My methods are poisonous to the field of beekeeping and I should be stopped.
3. I'm setting up newbees for failure and shoudl be stopped.
4. I'm headed for disaster and going to take a bunch of adherents with me and should be stopped.
5. What I do doesn't matter and I'm rocking the boat and should be stopped.

I am confident that this post will add a number 6 and a number 7 to this list. Despite all the naysayers who have been saying nay for years, I've done this for ten years using the harshest of methods in a very difficult area to keep bees profitably, and I'm still doing it and I am more successful every year. I can't see how any of the stuff said against treatment-free beekeeping can be relevant. Somebody keeps bees on foundationless, ends up with very large cells, bees crash, naturally. A retired commercial beekeeper keeps one yard of bees treatment-free, they crash, of course. These things are not surprising. Michael and I and Dee and others have done this for a very long time and we are all available in one venue or another to tell you how to do it successfully. That's what this thread was supposed to be about. I'm still here to answer questions, an actual successful hard bond method beekeeper who sells nucs, honey, and wax.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> That sounds like a bit of the old "moving the bar." You can't do that treating, why should treatment-free be expected to do it?


Solomon you have made this assumption before I thought I'd been through it with you. What Frazz said would apply to me anyway, and I would imagine to her also or she wouldn't have said it. To be clear, if I took 37 treated hives into winter, I would expect 37 to survive. Failures are rare. Among mite treated bees.

Perhaps it is you, that thinks I, am lying?

I guy makes comments about me, I ask him to explain, and then, all this..... :lookout:

Thanks for the links Barry, the beginning and the end LOL. Maybe that will help. Not that I want, or asked for, this rather ugly attention.


----------



## Walter Lawler

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

It appears to me as a beginner, IMO there is NO defined method of treatment free. If someone would like to define it I'll listen if not I'll do what I think is right. To me it means NO chemicals, feeding new hives IS a good idea for a finite time period. Yes you may manipulate cell size and move frames. NOW if ANYONE would care to say what is NOT allowed IE: 1. No blah blah 2.can't...... 3. etc. Otherwise It's ME that is in the wrong forum. Mike you have great ideas and are very intelligent and articulate, it husbandry is a great topic and for sure is part of this, however maybe should have it's own forum thank you. Solomon, thank you for answering my questions, I am new at this stuff and there are way too may arguments to wade through. 

Went to website can read undisturbed by rhetoric. Didn't see it a t first, not that great with computers either.


----------



## Barry

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



ddoctor said:


> NOW if ANYONE would care to say what is NOT allowed


Don't need to, already done:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?253066-Unique-Forum-Rules


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

If I delete the part of my post that says that splitting a hive is a treatment just as drone trapping would also be considered a treatment and move on the part about splitting because this is where I'm confused about whats going on.

It's my understanding that by splitting an established hive once twice or howerever many times you do it you are also knocking back the mite numbers in the original hive as well as the splits this is common knowledge and part of an IPM plan that is used worldwide to reduce mite numbers in a colony. 

If those colonys are split built up split again over and over then it stands to reason that your mite numbers will be low. 

If like Mike you come through winter with 7 hives four of which are split like crazy up to 30 odd hives then I'm not surprised they are doing well with low mite numbers because thats what you would expect. It dosn't actually tell me he has any resistance/tolerance in his bees.

If however a beekeeper brought those 7 hives through winter and didn't treat or split them and they survived another 2 winters ( 2 winter because studies have shown that thats the time frame it takes for a hive to succumb to varroa if left untreated) then I would be the first to put my hand up and say you are onto it.

Treatmentfree beekeepers do a hang of alot of splitting which is not something you would have routinely done pre varroa unless you were wanting to increase hive numbers.

It's the one thing that stands out to me that treatment free beekeepers do that conventional beekeepers dont and I think it has a major impact on mite numbers rather than because theres any resistance/tolerance.

If you want to be taken seriously Mike then I wouldn't be saying anything about how you have been able to magically conjure up resistant bees after 2 years because that really seems fanciful to me and is also a bit of a slap in the face for people who have put alot of money time and effort into trying to develop their own line of resistant/tolerant bees.

Lastly I want to say that your post aimed at Oldtimer #210 is extremeley condescending as you imply he has no knowledge and that you know about what he was doing with his bees here in NZ when in actual fact you had no clue.

Oldtimer has been beekeeping for many more years than yourself and has been dealing with varroa for many more years then yourself. He is an extremely valued member of our New Zealand bee community and has always called it as it is.
One other thing with Oldtimer he will share what he is doing in his Apiaries with whoever is interested and will tell it true whether things are going well or not.

That said I will leave it alone because I dont want to perpetuate any bashing it just annoyed me to see such a personal and uninformed post.


----------



## marshmasterpat

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Darn that sure is a lot of reading from start to finish.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> If like Mike you come through winter with 7 hives four of which are split like crazy up to 30 odd hives then I'm not surprised they are doing well with low mite numbers because thats what you would expect. It dosn't actually tell me he has any resistance/tolerance in his bees.


Quite right



frazzledfozzle said:


> It's my understanding that by splitting an established hive once twice or howerever many times you do it you are also knocking back the mite numbers in the original hive as well as the splits this is common knowledge and part of an IPM plan that is used worldwide to reduce mite numbers in a colony. If those colonys are split built up split again over and over then it stands to reason that your mite numbers will be low.


We need to distinguish between different sorts of 'splits', and the different effects they might have. I try to do them in a way that has the least influence on the parent colony - though in the interest of building hive numbers I've also done them in ways that impact more.

The preferred method is: from large and thriving hives that have come through at least one winter: 

I take 1 frame of eggs-to-sealed brood and one of stores - open nectar and pollen at least, together with an empty farme containing only starter strip. I put these in a divided 6-frame nuc, and 'charge' them with flying bees from either the same colony or another by shifting the donor hive to the side and letting bees fly in for a while. Then I take them to a different site where I have (at least two and often more) thriving colonies with large drone populations, and park them in a relatively isolated position. Once mated I shift them to a 6-frame nuc and slow-feed syrup to encourage them build comb.

The effect on the parent hive is limited to the loss of no more than 10% of oncoming brood, and often as little as 5%. I can't see this having much effect on varroa populations, thus giving false readings. If anyone thinks otherwise it can I'll be grateful to hear your reasoning.

Maybe we should describe this in terms of 'low-impact' splits?

The other way is making splits from young colonies, and I agree that this is riskier in terms of supplying false readings of mite resistance as I'm taking up to 20% or so of the brood. But that's still not a lot. And I'm not making any assumptions: all my hives are what they are, and we'll know more about them when they've passed through a winter and built up again - or not. That's it. This is a process, and a learning process. 

I've also grafted, and plan to try cut-comb queen raising. Both these would be still better for avoiding false resistance readings, but I've yet to sort out the business of getting nurse bees separated (shaking will get the queen in the wrong place - I don't mark my queens and don't see them very often)

I've considered trying freeze-brood testing a la Spivak, but haven't got around to it yet. (I reckon pipe-freeze kits for field work - has anyone tried this?)



frazzledfozzle said:


> If however a beekeeper brought those 7 hives through winter and didn't treat or split them and they survived another 2 winters ( 2 winter because studies have shown that thats the time frame it takes for a hive to succumb to varroa if left untreated) then I would be the first to put my hand up and say you are onto it.


I'd like links to those studies. I don't see how you can make a binary ("is OR isn't") judgement of whether a hive has resistance when resistance is incremental. Depending on how many of the several mite-management behaviours the hive posesses, and in how many patrilines, the hive will do better or worse at managing - its not an on/off situation. The idea is to make the effort to discover the most resistant and propagate their genes in the local breeding pool. 

The idea that two winters should be a benchmark may be desirable, but you'd have to monitor the queen to make sure there's been no break through a succession or swarming. But yes, two winters without any human impact will be better than one.

In broad terms it is my present judgement that, in a middle sized apiary context, with many other bees in the area... if a swarm establishes, builds, survies a winter, and rebuilds without any sign of mites or dwv there is a very good chance things will go on that way. That's been my experience to date. I see a little dwv in some hives for a few weeks in spring, then it stops - but those hives get marked down as watch-its.

There are plenty of uncertainties in this game, lots of trying to determine where your best chances lie. I've taken my path - this year maximise numbers while trying to minimise false readings - and others will find holes in it - quite rightly. I'm grateful for the critique. Next year, more grafting so as not to slew assays. I reserve the right to change my mind!

As you say, I'll be able to speak more authorititively as the years go by - assuming continued success. But my modest success doesn't supply the basis of the arguments I put forward here - though it does show I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and that what I've described has worked for thus far. My arguments are rather founded in the uncontraversial science, supported by widespread and (very) longstanding breeding practice. They are logical exercises in extrapolating from solid premises. 

Those people who distrust logical extrapolation won't trust them. Others will hopefully appreciate the clarity and insight they can provide toward discovering the important factors in a complex topic. Horses for courses as they say hereabouts.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> One other thing with Oldtimer he will share what he is doing in his Apiaries with whoever is interested and will tell it true whether things are going well or not.


So will I and lots of other people here. That's just normal civil and earnest behaviour. 

We'll also supply summaries of what we did if people ask, on the basis that that may well help us, and will certainly be of interest to others here and future readers. I'm not making any accusations here (and while I'm tempted, I'm not going to add to his list), but as 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. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> If however a beekeeper brought those 7 hives through winter and didn't treat or split them and they survived another 2 winters...


Every winter. I don't split that way.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Excuse me - I asked a question a while back - post 262 of this thread - and no one has answered or commented on the question yet.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Andrew; I think you will get some responses if you move from this forum to one of the others.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Andrew, my apologies for not answering your question sooner. With all the hokum going around, I totally missed this post.



Andrew Dewey said:


> Is it too late in the season to expect even a swarm to do much with foundationless frames?
> 
> Update from this afternoon: grumpy, no eggs, no drawing activity on foundationless frames, hive has "the roar" Though I did see what looked like workers cleaning brood cells.


I can't speak to the conditions in Coastal Maine, but I would hypothesize that you're not going to get much out of them unless you still have (or will have) substantial flows going on. If they don't have eggs in another few days, they may well be queenless or have a non-laying or virgin queen. Barring other options, let them be. You could give them a frame of open brood to see if they feel like they want to draw some new queen cells. That should give you a good indicator of what's going on. After that, I'd suggest giving them a frame of open brood once a week for the rest of the season. A July swarm is going to need help if you want it to survive the winter.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> Treatmentfree beekeepers do a hang of alot of splitting which is not something you would have routinely done pre varroa unless you were wanting to increase hive numbers.


Not most of the ones I am aware of. I don't. Honey production hives get left alone for the most part.




frazzledfozzle said:


> If you want to be taken seriously Mike then I wouldn't be saying anything about how you have been able to magically conjure up resistant bees after 2 years because that really seems fanciful to me and is also a bit of a slap in the face for people who have put alot of money time and effort into trying to develop their own line of resistant/tolerant bees.


While I wouldn't trust bees with a 2 year pedigree, I also wouldn't trust those bees from those people who put a lot of time and money and effort into trying to develop their own line of resistant/tolerant bees, especially if they do what I've found to be most common which is varroa testing, II queens, VSH and the rest. Varroa tests (especially the in-brood type) don't tell you much of anything about the survivability of the hive. Whether the hive survives or not will tell you all you need to know, and is the only way of proving that bees are actually any sort of resistant.




frazzledfozzle said:


> Oldtimer has been beekeeping for...


Note to the forum: The quickest way to get frazzledfozzle in here is to insult Oldtimer. The quickest way to get Charlie B in here is to insult ODFrank. Just don't do it.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Note to the forum: The quickest way to get frazzledfozzle in here is to *insult* Oldtimer. The quickest way to get Charlie B in here is to *insult* ODFrank. *Just don't do it*.


 I've always believed Solomon, that if you want to change the world, you start with yourself. Asking others to refrain from insulting behaviour makes it appear as if there are more than just a very few doing it. There are not, the majority here are great folks, and understand how to share different opinions.

The disparaging remarks about 4 particular people in your last post are 1. not true, 2. not called for, 3. show you in a bad light for saying them.

My results have not matched some peoples theories. That does not mean I should have my integrity questioned by those who live far away and don't know me, or that I should be badgered, insulted, and talked down to.

If theory does not match the result, check the theory.

Also, most treatment free people do split a lot. You yourself have put a lot of energy into splitting and nuc making. And you are likely aware that techniques based around splitting or broodless periods are commonly thought to be a way to achieve chemical free beekeeping. Nobody is saying that's wrong or anything, heck I do it myself. No need to get your hackles up.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Every winter. I don't split that way.


Don't split which way Solomon? How do you make splits, and why that way?

What would you say be the worst way to make splits, from the perspective of supplying false resistance impressions? 

How would you build an apiary from a limited number of swarms and cut-outs of mixed parentage, some of which are certainly at least surviving if not thriving thriving ferals, with a commercial beekeeper with 120 hives 2 miles in one direction, good rough forage and known ferals on the opposite side?

Would you consider it wise to build as fast as possible, to give yourself many chances of good genetic combinations, and to raise drone numbers to counter the effect of commercial and local treating beekeepers? 

To seize the opportunity, while you actually have promising bees, to parlay them into a functional apiary in the knowledge that such an opportunity may not come again for some years? (And to do so without capital with which to buy packages to re-queen.) 

What is the route that maximises the likelihood of success? If you agree that making rapid increase is important, how would you go about it, while trying to maintain the ability to select for resistance effectively? 

Given a handful of promising hives and nothing else in May, there are choices to be made about how to go about things in the next few months. Anything you do will open some doors and close others. How would you go about it?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> [frazzledfozzle: Treatmentfree beekeepers do a hang of alot of splitting which is not something you would have routinely done pre varroa unless you were wanting to increase hive numbers.]
> 
> Not most of the ones I am aware of. I don't. Honey production hives get left alone for the most part.


But we are talking here about people who are trying to move from treated to untreated bees, or trying to start over with unknown bees - and often a pitifully small number of them. Not people who have plenty of sound bees.

So the context is different: we do need to make increase, and often (as when threatened by nearby treated bees) rapidly. One way or another. And we do need to be able to do that without giving ourselves false readings in terms of mite management behaviours, in order that we can select effectively.

Once you have your resistant strains, and can pick out best mothers easily, requeening existing stocks and making up spares at will, its another world. We're not there yet. We're trying to get there.



Solomon Parker said:


> While I wouldn't trust bees with a 2 year pedigree...


Maybe, but they are what you'd use if that's all you had. And if you were serious about your project you'd be sweating them to get the best from them before you had none again.



Solomon Parker said:


> I also wouldn't trust those bees from those people who put a lot of time and money and effort into trying to develop their own line of resistant/tolerant bees, especially if they do what I've found to be most common which is varroa testing, II queens, VSH and the rest. Varroa tests (especially the in-brood type) don't tell you much of anything about the survivability of the hive. Whether the hive survives or not will tell you all you need to know, and is the only way of proving that bees are actually any sort of resistant.


Maybe. But I'd seriously consider adding some into my mix - if I could get hold of them. Here in the UK you can't. I reckon you'd do the same in my circumstances.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Don't split which way Solomon? How do you make splits, and why that way?


I'm talking about the MDA Splitter way, or any way which takes a hive and splits it and/or recombines it to cause a brood break to combat mites. It may work, I don't dispute that, but what happens if you break your ankle one March and you can't do it any more? The bees are dependent on that method to keep them alive and are going to have a tough time. 

I use what Sam Comfort and I came up with, Expansion Model Beekeeping. Well, he came up with the name, I came up with the method, partly adapted from Michael Palmer and Kirk Webster, I must give credit where credit is due. 

1. During spring inspections I pick out which hives I think will produce honey that year and I mark them mentally, that's how you can expand rapidly and still make honey. I don't touch those other than to borrow a couple dozen larvae from the best ones for new queens. 
2. Those queens a reared in a queen-right cell builder hive, maintaining that hive's ability to make honey as well. Still no brood breaks.
3. The other hives that are doing poorly are dismantled, moosh the queen, take the brood to start mating nucs. There's usually only a couple of these which yield only a couple frames each, so I end up having to borrow brood from the lower moderate performing hives as well. Those I don't dismantle, just take most of the brood and usually requeen when the queens are ready. I guess you could consider that a brood break even though the brood cycle is never broken if you're being adversarial. I'll grant you that. That accounts for 10% of hives or so.
4. Mating nucs are made of 1 frame brood, 1 frame honey, one empty frame, all in a 3x3 Queen Castle. 
5. Once the new queen is well into the first round of brood or has filled up the first three frames, the nuc gets moved to a 5-frame box. Failed nucs (lost or non-laying queen) are shuffled into the successful ones to provide drawn comb in those two new slots.
6. A major proportion of the nucs are sold at this point.
7. The outstanding stars are used (the whole nuc) to replace the queen in the lower moderate performers, making a pretty substantial new hive.
8. If I want to increase numbers or have a bunch of nucs left over, I combine them 5+5 and then 10+10 as they demonstrate strength or weakness, to make new hives.
9. Harvest honey from the hives you left alone at the beginning. These hives almost always are several years old, occasionally they are one of the ones that was requeened last year, they have not had a brood break, and they've only been inspected minimally. These are the ones I keep asking for an explanation for. I have one that is now over ten years old, always naturally superseded, not split in several years. I have several others that have never been split in the several years since I made them.

The reason why I use this method is because it is what I have discovered to be the most efficient method in turning one or a couple hives into a whole bunch. One strong hive can be multiplied into ten in one spring, minus failed virgins. As many bees as you can make mating nucs, that's as many nucs as you can make from a hive. The first year I tried it, I used 7 to make 30, while not killing off any of the 7 (2 were later requeened). So I'm super efficient in making the nucs that I want while using the unburdened other hives to make honey. Just ignore mites.




mike bispham said:


> What would you say be the worst way to make splits, from the perspective of supplying false resistance impressions?


The splitter methods may work, but they're largely replacing one method of treatment with another in my view. Some people view them as at least a bridge method, but rather, I would focus on increasing as much as possible and rolling the dice with the results, more hives rather than investing in fewer larger hives. Once that process is over, then one can go back to a smaller number of larger hives with a small queen rearing operation to continually upgrade the stock.




mike bispham said:


> How would you build an apiary from a limited number of swarms and cut-outs of mixed parentage, some of which are certainly at least surviving if not thriving thriving ferals, with a commercial beekeeper with 120 hives 2 miles in one direction, good rough forage and known ferals on the opposite side?


I'd use the above method except pick some of your good hives and load them with drone comb and spread them around your area. If you can't do that, then I'd compensate by keeping a slightly larger number of hives so you can absorb a slightly higher number of losses if they occur (not convinced they will).




mike bispham said:


> Would you consider it wise to build as fast as possible, to give yourself many chances of good genetic combinations, and to raise drone numbers to counter the effect of commercial and local treating beekeepers?


Yes.




mike bispham said:


> To seize the opportunity, while you actually have promising bees, to parlay them into a functional apiary in the knowledge that such an opportunity may not come again for some years? (And to do so without capital with which to buy packages to re-queen.)


Capitalizing on opportunities is just good practice. But the base methods will serve you year after year.




mike bispham said:


> What is the route that maximises the likelihood of success? If you agree that making rapid increase is important, how would you go about it, while trying to maintain the ability to select for resistance effectively?


I don't worry about selecting for resistance, the bees can do that better than I possibly could. We can only select for certain traits, but the bees use whatever they have and so the only way to select for the best mix of traits is to let them do it on their own.




mike bispham said:


> I reckon you'd do the same in my circumstances.


I reckon I would, I just don't where I am now. First I tried bees treated with FGMO, but they're all dead now. Then I tried getting resistant bees, and they were resistant, but they were mean. I still have a few of those, but they're not where I'm getting my genetics. You'll find a bunch of people who sacrificed gentleness for resistance. I thought it might be necessary at one point as well, but it sure isn't fun. I guess what I'm saying is, the process isn't over just because you get a hold of some resistant queens. Resistant isn't necessarily treatment-free. For instance, it turns out those FGMO bees (not to hard to figure out the source here in the states) needed to be split all the time.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> A major proportion of the nucs are sold at this point.


How many did you sell this year?


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

> But its my understanding that others are able to succeed using normal foundation. If this is so, then yours, and Dee's, and the (only) breeders' success can be logically attibuted to genetics only.

That depends on your definition of "success". I still have not met anyone using large cell foundation who is not losing a colonies to Varroa in significant numbers which they are trying to make up with splits. I see a significant difference in success that cannot be logically attributed to genetics only. I got to the point of not losing them from Varroa with standard commercial queens on small cell. My only issue then was winter losses from southern stock, which is, in my opinion, entirely genetics.

>>You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.
>Am I right in thinking Marla Spivak claims success without any mention of small cell - genetics only?

I have never heard Marla make that claim in writing or in person. I have heard Marla Spivak speak many times. I have NEVER heard her claim to have resolved the Varroa problem with genetics. She will talk about hygienic behavior and how that helps. She will talk about the idea of not treating and then tell you how to treat and how it's still necessary.

>Are you certain the genetic lines you got to replace all of the colonies lost to varroa wreren't better suited to varroa?

The lines I got were regular commercial stock from several sources. They did fine against Varroa:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm

I went to local survivor stock, not for Varroa, but for wintering.

>I have noted consistencies in survivabilty of bees caught at specific locations around here. There seem to be great differences in swarm size, coloration, work ethic and overwintering abilities 

Yes. So have I.

>even here in this 50 mile x 50 mile zone where I place my traps. These locations consistently provide bees with similar attributes (swarm size, coloration, work ethic etc.) year after year.

So have I.

>I don't know what else to attribute this to other than genetics. The entire region is mono cropped soy and corn, so it isn't like some of these bees are coming from easy to live locations. What do you think?

I think wintering is almost entirely genetics. I certainly believe that genetics is important to bee survival. It's just that I never had any survive Varroa until I change the cell size. So until then I had no survivors to breed from. When Tom Seeley took the survivor feral bees from Arnot forest and put them on large cell in his apiary they all died. He assumed because of the virility of the mites in the apiary as opposed to the ones in the forest, which is a reasonable theory. But, based on my experience I think it's because of the cell size.


----------



## LetMBee

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mr Bush

I have not measured my cell sizes, but I have been experiencing fewer losses since I: 
1 quit using foundation in brood chambers, 
2 quit feeding, 
3 quit treating, and 
4 sourcing all my bees from swarm traps. 

With all of those changes it is hard to use the scientific method to determine what the true cause is, but I am going to continue doing what I am doing. I don't care which factor is leading to better overwintering.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> [MB: "How would you build an apiary from a limited number of swarms and cut-outs of mixed parentage, some of which are certainly at least surviving if not thriving thriving ferals, with a commercial beekeeper with 120 hives 2 miles in one direction, good rough forage and known ferals on the opposite side?"]
> 
> I'd use the above method except pick some of your good hives and load them with drone comb and spread them around your area. If you can't do that, then I'd compensate by keeping a slightly larger number of hives so you can absorb a slightly higher number of losses if they occur (not convinced they will).
> 
> [MB: "What is the route that maximises the likelihood of success? If you agree that making rapid increase is important, how would you go about it, while trying to maintain the ability to select for resistance effectively?"]
> 
> I don't worry about selecting for resistance, the bees can do that better than I possibly could. We can only select for certain traits, but the bees use whatever they have and so the only way to select for the best mix of traits is to let them do it on their own.


I think we are slightly talking at cross purposes in places, but I'm relieved to be reassured that you take pretty much the same route I have, though with more organised propagation (which I'd intended to do, but it didn't quite come off this year.)

My main difficulty this year was having enough bees to make more, and the fact that drawing down my best hives reduced drone populations.

As you seem to agree, I think that young or not, these are good bees. Wall to wall brood says a lot to me. I don't think my kind of splitting has artificially reduced varroa, and from what I can gather I think you agree that. 

All in all I'm reassured to hear you say I'm doing things roughly right. Thanks for taking the trouble to write it out at length for me.

I think these are issues relevant to anyone trying to build up an untreated apiary. When transitioning some things might be different, but the principles are the same.

BTW your method of making increase is pretty close to that recommended by R.A.B. Manley in Honey Farming, written in the 1930's or 40's. Making increase and requeening from best stock was just normal practise - back when people understood beekeeping was no different to any other form of husbandry. Propagate carefully, systematically and selectively or health suffers. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Michael Bush said:


> I still have not met anyone using large cell foundation who is not losing a colonies to Varroa in significant numbers which they are trying to make up with splits. [...] You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.


I'm not sure that represents my views properly. As I've said I use starter strip only so that bees can choose their own sizes - and I do that in large part because of your testimony. 

So I don't 'believe it's all genetics', but I do believe that neglecting genetics will cause failure. 



Michael Bush said:


> >Am I right in thinking Marla Spivak claims success without any mention of small cell - genetics only?
> 
> I have never heard Marla make that claim in writing or in person. I have heard Marla Spivak speak many times. I have NEVER heard her claim to have resolved the Varroa problem with genetics. She will talk about hygienic behavior and how that helps. She will talk about the idea of not treating and then tell you how to treat and how it's still necessary.


Interesting. That isn't how her published work presents things. 

Thanks for your comments as ever,

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> My understanding is that splitting a hive into nucs is a great way of reducing mite load in the parent hive as well as the nucs, and is in itself a treatment.
> 
> To split so many nucs off 4 hives that survived one winter I'm not surprised the hives are doing well as the mite load would be substantially reduced.


frazzledfozzle, have the recent exchanges altered your thinking at all on the issue of the effects of (different sorts of) splitting?

Mike?


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>That isn't how her published work presents things. 

Dr. Spivak has certainly made clear she thinks genetics will be the answer, and specifically that hygienic behavior will be the answer. However I have never heard her claim to have found that answer (Varroa tolerant bees that don't require treatment) nor that anyone else has. Can you point out where she says that?


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> My main difficulty this year was having enough bees to make more, and the fact that drawing down my best hives reduced drone populations.


I've always heard that queens rarely mate with drones from the same yard.


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I know some of you successful TF guys think it's a waste of time to do mite counts, but aren't you at least interested in the mechanism by which your bees are tolerating mites. I, for one, am curious as to whether your bees are keeping numbers down or tolerating high numbers. It's really not that big a deal to do. How about it?


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



cg3 said:


> I know some of you successful TF guys think it's a waste of time to do mite counts, but aren't you at least interested in the mechanism by which your bees are tolerating mites. I, for one, am curious as to whether your bees are keeping numbers down or tolerating high numbers. It's really not that big a deal to do. How about it?


planning to do just that cg3, in the upcoming weeks after i finish the honey harvest. i too am curious and want to see if the infestation rate is a predictor for overwintering loss. if so, i might consider brood breaking and requeening those with high counts in late summer.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sol, your post in #348 is pretty much the way I'm going as well. I'm glad to see I'm coming to similar conclusions, and hope it proves successful in the coming year. We shall see.

Thanks for taking the time to lay it all out once again.

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Michael Bush said:


> >That isn't how her published work presents things.
> 
> Dr. Spivak has certainly made clear she thinks genetics will be the answer, and specifically that hygienic behavior will be the answer. However I have never heard her claim to have found that answer (Varroa tolerant bees that don't require treatment) nor that anyone else has. Can you point out where she says that?


I can offer a bit of a selection. Reading them more closely it does seem to me that I may have read them in the first place with a little too much optimism:

http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center...ntrolling-Honey-Bee-Diseases-and-Varroa-Mites
This document isn't dated, but includes references up to 2003

"Our goal is to breed honey bees, Apis mellifera, resistant to diseases and parasitic mites to reduce the amount of antibiotics and pesticides used in bee colonies and to ensure that our breeding methods and stock are accessible to beekeepers everywhere."

"We have been breeding honey bees for resistance to diseases and Varroa destructor since 1994"

"We have bred hygienic behavior into an Italian line of honey bees. However, the behavior is present in all races and lines of honey bees in the US (and the world!), and can be easily selected for, using the methods described below. Our "MN Hygienic Line" of bees is available commercially in the US and has become widely accepted by beekeepers."

"However, our hope is that beekeepers select for hygienic behavior from among their favorite line of honey bee, whether it be Carniolan, Italian, Caucasian or other species. In this way, there will be a number of resistant lines avail-able within the U.S. to maintain genetic diversity -- the perfect way to promote the vitality of our pollinators."

"The effects of American foulbrood, chalkbrood and Varroa mites can be alleviated if queen producers select for hygienic behavior from their own lines of bees."

[MB That word 'alleviated' is rather vague. I agree it doesn't mean 'fixed' but it could mean 'reduced to little more than a light nuisance. 

"Since 2001, we have been incorporating another trait into the MN Hygienic line called "Suppression of Mite Reproduction" or SMR. We also have been investigating the mechanism for the SMR trait to determine how bees can reduce mite reproductive success. Our results demonstrated that bees bred for SMR are both hygienic and have some yet unknown property associated with their brood that reduces the number of viable offspring the mites pro-duce. Combining the SMR trait into the hygienic line, therefore, helped increase the degree of hygienic behavior in our line, and added another factor that helps suppress mite reproduction. Field trials in commercial apiaries have demonstrated that the Hygienic/SMR cross significantly reduces mite loads in colonies relative to the pure Hygienic line and unselected lines of bees."

There is a more up to date approach at Bee Lab

http://beelab.umn.edu/Research/index.htm

"Our research includes:

Breeding Better Bees: The "Minnesota Hygenic Bees" have been bred in Minnesota. Hygienic bees detect and remove damaging diseases and parasites from the hive, helping bees defend themselves naturally."

Updates:
http://beelab.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@bees/documents/asset/cfans_asset_431892.pdf
Honey Bee Diseases and Pests Manual Updates for 2013 Marla Spivak and Gary Reuter 

(This won't copy)

It seems to me that here there is something of a change of tune. The optimistic note of earlier publications is replaced by instructions to monitor and treat without fail. Yet the words seem to me to be addressed to those beekeepers who have been treating regularly. Dr. Spivak writes that 90% of colonies will die in their 2nd winter - a figure that she must know isn't true of many non-treatment beekeepers - like yourself.

Thanks again for pointing out the likely limitations in this approach.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



cg3 said:


> I've always heard that queens rarely mate with drones from the same yard.


Can you substantiate that with scientific studies, or is it guesswork?

Both Manley and Ruttner advocate stationing large hives containing desirable genetics around the mating yard. I think its simply a case of the more effort you put in to have your own drones impregnate your queens, the more likely it is to be so.

I can't imagine the bees use a rulebook that disqualifies drone on the same property. All else being equal I'd have thought that being nearby increased the chances without limit. I'd be interested in any proper studies that show things are otherwise.

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Can you substantiate that with scientific studies, or is it guesswork?
> 
> Mike


I can't quote chapter and verse or site a study, but I have heard people like Larry Conner say that queens fly farther away from their home than drones do to find mates. Maybe it could be found in one of his books about queen rearing.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sqkcrk said:


> I can't quote chapter and verse or site a study, but I have heard people like Larry Conner say that queens fly farther away from their home than drones do to find mates. Maybe it could be found in one of his books about queen rearing.


There is a very useful short thread on this:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ing-flight-radius-of-drones-and-virgin-queens

It seems likely the more settled the weather the more adventurous queens are. But it looks likely there are big gaps in knowledge.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>a figure that she must know isn't true of many non-treatment beekeepers - like yourself.

She never indicates that, and I would assume she does not believe it or she would be looking into the "why".


----------



## sheepdog

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I don't have any bee keepers or honey bees that I know of within 20 miles. My queens are going to have some trouble finding a stranger.


----------



## LetMBee

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sheepdog: you can't be certain of a total lack of bees. I was unsure that there were bees here living in the trees until I started putting up traps and having them filled with swarms of bees. Then I started walking the patchy woods during hot humid evenings listening for buzzing and watching for bees. Crazy thing happened, I found out that there are feral bees living here right amongst the monocrop soy and corn. Living in the woods that are right next to the very fields where neonic coated seeds are planted every year. 

I Think you have bees around there. If you know of a location where bees have been in the last thirty years and there are woods in the vicinity I would put some traps in those places. If you just want to test those spots take some honey there the next time you have an hour or two to spare. Put a small amount of the honey out and see if any bees come to investigate. You might just get a surprise. Good luck.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I have an area in mind that I suspect has very few if any bees. I have wanted to test it though. so I thought I woudl make up feeding posts which would be jars of sugar water attached to posts to see if any bees in the area are attracted to it. If that fails I know I have an area with 0 bees in it. but it would require feeding the bees 100% of the time to keep them there. but it would be a mating pure area for controlling breeding. It looks like this. Keep in mind you are looking well over 20 miles to that mountain.








The above is North of where I am at. this is what is south of us.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Michael Bush said:


> >a figure that she must know isn't true of many non-treatment beekeepers - like yourself.
> 
> She never indicates that, and I would assume she does not believe it or she would be looking into the "why".


Michael, this is something I have great difficulty in understanding. There seems to be remarkably little scientific rigor among bee "scientists."

A scientist working in particle physics who found a single particle acting in a way that contradicted his theory regarding that type of particle would immediately understand that his theory was incorrect or at the least, incomplete. But we have apparently reputable people in the field of bee husbandry who stand up and state that bees cannot be kept successfully without treatment.

I just read an irritating article in a bee magazine that attempted to debunk the idea of "natural" beekeeping. It began by saying that keeping bees in a box is unnatural. What? If you put a box of the right size out in a field and a swarm comes along and moves in, how is that different in any significant way from bees in a hollow tree? The only difference is that we provide movable frames for the combs. I can't see how that makes a whole lot of difference to the bees. The piece goes on to say in big scare letters, "If someone tells you not to feed, walk away!" Then the author relates that the colonies at the research station ran out of stores in February, and that they had to feed 800 to 1000 pounds of sugar a week to keep the colonies alive. There seemed to be no awareness there that perhaps they had taken too much honey in the previous season.

Even here on BeeSource you see all sorts of folks proclaiming that not treating is some sort of animal abuse that will inevitably end in death and despair. Most of these folks can be forgiven for believing something not borne out by reality, because they are not scientists. But I can't understand how scientists can simply ignore the existence of beekeepers like you and a number of others who have figured out how to keep bees successfully without treatment.

How is that "scientific?

Do they think you're lying? Do they think you're just lucky?

Luck is not a terribly useful concept in science.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

It's pretty understandable they ignore smaller treatment free beekeepers, because their work generally is not documented with rigorous scientific method. In addition the accepted wisdom is they will take quite a bit of losses. From a scientists point of view they would consider it normal that a small beekeeper could have a year with minimal losses, or even several years. To them, that does not mean the country's problems are solved.

It would be harder though to ignore a larger TF beekeeper such as say, Beeweaver.

They must surely know these people exist, I think where they are coming from is that the results are not being replicated across the country.

Before I get the hate mail, remember I didn't say they are right, I said it's understandable!


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Ray, I think Bee Scientists can't bring themselves to allow bees to die in order to find ones that can survive w/out treatments. Bee Scientists work for the Commercial Beekeeping Complex tm (the CBC), not necassarily the whole Beekeeping Community. Follow the funding.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

> But I can't understand how scientists can simply ignore the existence of beekeepers like you and a number of others who have figured out how to keep bees successfully without treatment.

I can't understand it either. It seems to me a good starting point would be for one of them to study the successful treatment free beekeepers and their bees and figure out what is happening. 

>Do they think you're lying? Do they think you're just lucky?

I've always wondered the same. If it's only one or two you can either assume they were lucky (climate, location, not other colonies around?) or you can assume they are lying. But as more and more people are succeeding, how to you maintain that view?


----------



## Andrew Dewey

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I have not the the article rhaldridge speaks of but I wanted to make some comments about the BeeWeaver bees as I have some. Consistency. It isn't there yet. I have some BeeWeaver queens that head monster colonies and others that limp along. The queens purchased from them are too expensive for me to pinch a so so queen and order another one. Besides I have no way of telling that I'll be getting a really good one. I imagine commercial beekeepers who have ordered from BeeWeaver in the past draw similar conclusions. I like the path they are on but not all the bees they ship are ready for prime time. On the positive side, they like every commercial operator I know, are working to improve.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Andrew Dewey said:


> I have not the the article rhaldridge speaks of but I wanted to make some comments about the BeeWeaver bees as I have some. Consistency. It isn't there yet. I have some BeeWeaver queens that head monster colonies and others that limp along. .


Andrew, have you made increase from your good BeeWeaver queens? If so, how do the daughters do in your climate?


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sqkcrk said:


> Ray, I think Bee Scientists can't bring themselves to allow bees to die in order to find ones that can survive w/out treatments. Bee Scientists work for the Commercial Beekeeping Complex tm (the CBC), not necassarily the whole Beekeeping Community. Follow the funding.


Mark, I must be getting too cynical in my old age. You're right, of course. In my more untrusting moments I wonder if the funding that comes from folks who want to sell treatment is only being used to demonstrate the necessity of more treatment. I guess that makes financial sense, in the short term.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I didn't mean that anything was underhanded. Just that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There wasn't even a name for what is now called CCD until a well known and well connected beekeeper went looking for Federal Government help, along w/ friends and relatives.

I imaginbe the same is true w/ Research in general not just bee research.


----------



## Walter Lawler

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mr. Parker, I went to your website and did find the information. I read all the places you have available and some of your blog, man you sure can write a lot, hope you are better at typing than I am. I have a couple more questions, and one of em is a doozy, I mean crazy stupid, so don't laugh, aw hell go ahead.... 1st, would wooden frames with 4.9 cell size with plastic foundation work as well as PF100? I'm going to start building my own woodenware, as I fancy myself (sic) a woodworker and have tablesaw and most tools needed, how much emphasis do you put on 11/4 centers spacing and small cell at the same time? Now for chuckle time, you said at your site something about logs, or in general round living quarters in nature, WHAT IF... I build an oblong or round wooden (like a cask) hive bodies, with removable frames to match (to be legal also), and make it 3-4 high. In your opinion would it make any difference at all, outside the cool factor. BTW in your pics I saw walmart sugar bags, it is beet sugar, GMO's so I'm told, if it don't say pure cane it's beet. Just sayin' 

Walt

Barry, thanks!
I'm not inviting a discussion on GMO's or cane vs beet.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>would wooden frames with 4.9 cell size with plastic foundation work as well as PF100? 

If they made 4.9mm plastic or if you cut it out of the PF100 series frames. There is a thread on here of people who are doing that. I'm far too lazy for that...


----------



## sheepdog

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



LetMBee said:


> Sheepdog: you can't be certain of a total lack of bees. I was unsure that there were bees here living in the trees until I started putting up traps and having them filled with swarms of bees. Then I started walking the patchy woods during hot humid evenings listening for buzzing and watching for bees. Crazy thing happened, I found out that there are feral bees living here right amongst the monocrop soy and corn. Living in the woods that are right next to the very fields where neonic coated seeds are planted every year.
> 
> I Think you have bees around there. If you know of a location where bees have been in the last thirty years and there are woods in the vicinity I would put some traps in those places. If you just want to test those spots take some honey there the next time you have an hour or two to spare.  Put a small amount of the honey out and see if any bees come to investigate. You might just get a surprise. Good luck.


Maybe. I'm a gardener and have long been concerned about the lack of bees. I am also a walker and I walked around my neighborhood (within a couple miles of my house) looking for honey bees. I did this for three years and found no bees. I'm assuming(maybe wrongly) all the bees I see around now are mine. I did have a couple hives swarm so you could be right and they made it out in the wild. It would be really cool if there are wild bees around me. I would like to catch some feral bees for starting more treatment free hives from survivor local bees.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> frazzledfozzle, have the recent exchanges altered your thinking at all on the issue of the effects of (different sorts of) splitting?
> 
> Mike?


Hi Mike no it hasn't changed my mind at all. I believe that your practice of splitting so heavily is what will keep your mite numbers down as this has been recommended to beekeepers as a way of keeping mite numbers in control and has nothing to do with genetics or tolerance.

I also believe that Solomans practice of taking all the brood from his medium strength hives to strengthen up nucs will also remove 90 % of the mites from that hive which will obviously increase the longevity of the donar hive.

The only hives/bees I see in this thread that can be truely described as treatment free/mite tolerant are Solomans hives that are honey producers and aren't split so basically stay the same year after year with only the queen changing.

Without sounding harsh I dont think you can claim any tolerance or resitance in your stock at this stage.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> Without sounding harsh I dont think you can claim any tolerance or resitance in your stock at this stage.


Well, as a thought experiment, consider commercial beekeepers who treat, do a lot of splitting to make up for heavy losses, and still have heavy losses. If splitting is a panacea, why don't they get better survival? What is the major difference between them and treatment free beekeepers?

I really can't see brood breaks as a form of treatment, because all you're doing with a brood break is simulating swarming, an entirely natural bee-driven survival mechanism.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> Well, as a thought experiment, consider commercial beekeepers who treat, do a lot of splitting to make up for heavy losses, and still have heavy losses. If splitting is a panacea, why don't they get better survival? What is the major difference between them and treatment free beekeepers?
> 
> I really can't see brood breaks as a form of treatment, because all you're doing with a brood break is simulating swarming, an entirely natural bee-driven survival mechanism.


They probably do get better survival thats why they make up the nucs.
I'll bet the nucs thye make up survive their first year with or without treatments.

It's not all about a brood break .

When you split a hive up into nucs you are taking the mites in the brood and divvying it up throughout however many nucs you are making up so you no longer have a hive full of mites you have 10 nucs with one frame of mites. Add a brood break to that if you are using queen cells and you have even less mites. 
The new queen starts laying like a machine and the bee numbers increase dramatically much faster than the varroa can increase so mite problems are reduced.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> Hi Mike no it hasn't changed my mind at all. I believe that your practice of splitting so heavily is what will keep your mite numbers down as this has been recommended to beekeepers as a way of keeping mite numbers in control and has nothing to do with genetics or tolerance.


If you're not willing to engage with the different effects of different sorts of splitting, it isn't worth trying to continue the conversation. Its like taking the position that all cars are identical in performance because they all have 4 wheels and a body shell. They all have a top speed of 82mph because that's the top speed of a Fiat Uno. Fallacious reasoning.

However: you could be right about (some or all of) my bees having little (at least limited) mite resistance, and I'm not making any claim to the contrary. What I have done is outlined my approach to building mite resistance. As I've already said, we'll see.

A conversation aiming to locate the best ways to make rapid increase without undermining the ability to select for mite resistance would be a very useful thing. It seems constructive conversation isn't the aim. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> ... we have apparently reputable people in the field of bee husbandry who stand up and state that bees cannot be kept successfully without treatment.
> 
> If you put a box of the right size out in a field and a swarm comes along and moves in, how is that different in any significant way from bees in a hollow tree? The only difference is that we provide movable frames for the combs. I can't see how that makes a whole lot of difference to the bees.
> 
> Do they think you're lying? Do they think you're just lucky?


1. I have not seen anyone claim they cannot be kept. What I have seen is claims they cannot be kept well or that it is not the best or a reliable method of doing it. I have also seen the success of those few that do keep bees treatment free questioned as to the Why their bees do well. Not everyone accepts the claim it has anything to do with the treatment free methods.

2. I could put a pack of wolves in a kennel also. Would you see that difference? Then pack them in a couple hundred per acre. Would you still have a problem seeing a difference? I could then influence them in many ways to reproduce at a rate 4 times what they are even designed to do. they could tolerate doing so because I removed every other stress of existence form them. Still no difference? I could then selectively breed them for traits that are marketable with no regard to the well being of the wolf. it's natural purpose or it's ability to survive. But then could I simply turn them loose when I was done expecting them to live?

I don't question your claim that you see no difference. what I am in question about is are you really looking?

Given that migratory beekeeping the gathering of over a million hives in a relatively tiny space is forefront in the issue of bee diseases. I think the unnatural over population issue is a glaring one. Such comments as yours are the types of things that lead me to simply think this entire treatment free thing is promoted by the intentionally blind, ignorant tree hugging lunatics.

Yeah stuff them in a box. mother nature does that all the time. Really? No difference at all? I wonder how many wild beehives get torn to shreds on a regular basis.

P.S. Definition of Lunatic.
: wildly foolish <a lunatic idea>


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Definition of Lunatic.
> : wildly foolish <a lunatic idea>


And then there is this _pearl of wisdom_ from Daniel in an earlier discussion about varroa:


Daniel Y said:


> Not to mention that I completely disagree with the idea evolution even exists. *The theories put for by Darwin in the Origins of Species where disproven before his own death.* he admitted his theory was disproven himself. He stated that at eh time he wrote the book the fossil record was not adequate as evidence. but before his death he admitted that the fossil record had become adequate enough to prove his theory was wrong. for evolution to be correct you would have to be able to find fossils that could not be distinguished from one species to the other. and that clearly is not so. That they teach it does not make it truth. It just makes it taught.


:ws:


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Quote "He stated that at eh time he wrote the book the fossil record was not adequate as evidence". Unquote.

That much is true, Darwin did in fact say that.

BUT - not wanting to get into an argument about evolution, as I'm sure most of the participants of either persuasion would have a closed mind on the subject.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Graham, Do you realize that the theory of evolution that is taught today is not the theory Darwin wrote? That it is actually the product of a long history of disproven theories and revisions?

But lets say you are correct. and that mites developing a resistance to treatment is in fact a product of evolution. This means that a species will respond and evolve when influenced by selection. Why then do you believe that mites will not evolve when influenced by the selection via resistant bees? How is it that you believe in evolution when it supports your beliefs but reject it when it does not? either mites evolve when influenced by selection or they do not. You cannot have it both ways. Treatment free bees will only result in alterated faster reproducing. faster running smaller mites that bees cannot groom themselves of and that require a shorter incubation period that the current mites do. In fact any influence you introduce in order to select for resistant bees will at the same time be working on the mite. both will evolve to survive it. If bees can be altered to small cell. so can, and will, the mites. To claim otherwise you argue for and against your own beliefs at the same time. You claim it works on the bees but not on the mites. that cannot possibly be true.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> Treatment free bees will only result in alterated faster reproducing. faster running smaller mites that bees cannot groom themselves of and that require a shorter incubation period that the current mites do. In fact any influence you introduce in order to select for resistant bees will at the same time be working on the mite. both will evolve to survive it. If bees can be altered to small cell. so can, and will, the mites.


You are quite right (about that thing) Daniel. Its been likened to an 'arms race'. Both predator and predated have to continually evolve in order to stay alive. 

They say (I don't know if its true) that sharks have to keep swimming or they sink. Likewise species have to keep evolving, as their predators are continually improving their energy-extraction strategies. 

And new predators are always around the corner. 

If you stop the predated species evolving, its predators flourish, until there is nothing to predate on. 

The predated species can often throw off the predator altogether, or reduce it to a minor irritant.

These are general principles - true for all living things. Apply to bees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Daniel Y said:


> You claim it works on the bees but not on the mites. that cannot possibly be true.


:s  :lpf: I made *no *claims at all. _You _decided to inject the word _*lunatic *_into this discussion. I merely provided some of your past rav ....err, thoughts ... to help the reader evaluate your thinking.

Your past posts provide a rich library of material. opcorn:


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Good to see you actually agree with someone Mike. However what you have said below can you give any examples. Which means, not more theories, it means examples ie facts As you say this happens often you won't be hard pressed to find a good number of examples, enough to be described as "often".
Not bees of course, you cannot prove a premise about bees by repeating the premise about bees.


mike bispham said:


> If you stop the predated species evolving, its predators flourish, until there is nothing to predate on.
> 
> The predated species can often throw off the predator altogether, or reduce it to a minor irritant.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> [...] can you give any examples. Which means, not more theories, it means examples ie facts As you say this happens often you won't be hard pressed to find a good number of examples, enough to be described as "often".
> Not bees of course, you cannot prove a premise about bees by repeating the premise about bees.


I think my first statement is self-evident, so obviously true in the context of the 'arms race' aspect of evolution that I doubt I could find an example of anyone actually saying it. 

As to the second, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race and scroll down to 'Examples'.

If you dislike Wiki try http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIF1Armsrace.shtml

Or just google 'evolutionary arms race' yourself.

Mike (UK)


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Your past posts provide a rich library of material. opcorn:


Uh-oh. A dedicated archivist is a dangerous thing. I expect to fall afoul of your keen eye myself.

Well, I agree with Daniel that migratory beekeeping is pretty hard on bees, which may account for the heavy losses encountered by migratory beekeepers in spite of treating for everything possible.

I would question the value of Daniel's analogies. A pack of wolves in a kennel is pretty different from a beehive in an apiary, unless you always leave the kennel gate open so the wolves can roam around the countryside in their accustomed manner. Bees are essentially wild animals for which we provide a den.

If he truly believes that no one has ever said that bees cannot successfully be kept treatment free, then I can only suppose that he only posts on Beesource; he does not actually* read* the forum. There may be some evidence for that.

As to the idea that selecting for resistant bees will inevitably select for resistant parasites, I don't think Daniel understands the evolutionary goal for a successful parasite. A successful parasite doesn't want to kill its host. Before people began keeping bees, the bugs had millions of years to come to an accommodation with the many parasites they must have encountered during that time, and managed to do so successfully. If natural selection had the result of evolving more virulent parasites as it evolved resistance to those parasites, obviously bees would not have managed to be a successful species for such a long time.

Daniel may be too young to remember the scourge of tracheal mites (that was going to wipe out the bees,) but it's an instructive instance of bees evolving into an accommodation with a parasite.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> Daniel may be too young to remember the scourge of tracheal mites (that was going to wipe out the bees,) but it's an instructive instance of bees evolving into an accommodation with a parasite.


Tracheal mites came and went mysteriously. I doubt that bees actually evolved in response to them. Varroa mites came along and took tracheal mites place.


----------



## julysun

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I think TF keepers are selecting strong bees or weak mites. They probably don't know which they get when they have a successful hive. In these cases evolution cuts both ways, and a smart beek keeps the winning insect (if it is the bee).


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Even if not smart, that's what happens Julysun, your summary is correct.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sqkcrk said:


> Tracheal mites came and went mysteriously. I doubt that bees actually evolved in response to them. Varroa mites came along and took tracheal mites place.


Aren't varroa mites too big to fit into the bee trachea?

Seems like a different problem. 

Tracheal mites were just as disastrous as varroa when they first appeared in the UK.

http://www.clemson.edu/extension/beekeepers/factsheets/honey_bee_tracheal_mite.html

I think it's at least possible that bees have evolved defenses to tracheal mites. We've already got RoundUp resistant pigweed, and bees have a higher reproductive rate than pigweed.

This is pretty interesting stuff, because if you read up on Isle of Wight Disease, you find many parallels between this epidemic, which wiped out most of the bees in the UK in the 1920s, and CCD. The "disease" was explained in many ways at first... nosema, and then tracheal mites... but I think eventually most experts considered it a syndrome that had several causes, much like CCD.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I thought you were refering to Tracheal mites in the US in 1984 and then after the appearance of Varroa, tracheal mites seemed to disappear. What happened to them? Where did they go? Where did they come from? 

It seems to me that Varroa and Tracheal don't exist in a colony at the same time or no one looks for them at the same time. So, did bees instantly evolve/morph into something new which now deals w/ Tracheal mites?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



ddoctor said:


> 1st, would wooden frames with 4.9 cell size with plastic foundation work as well as PF100?


I don't see why not, but you'd have to find the foundation. I don't know of any off hand. Barry has posted about cutting the foundation out of a PF-120, but then it's just a PF-120 with a wood frame. Whatever floats your boat. I'm finding it takes two years to get a full hive of drawn PF-120s, starting from scratch. But I keep big hives.




ddoctor said:


> how much emphasis do you put on 11/4 centers spacing and small cell at the same time?


Not much. I like the idea and it works, but I don't preach magic bullets.




ddoctor said:


> you said at your site something about logs, or in general round living quarters in nature, WHAT IF... I build an oblong or round wooden (like a cask) hive bodies, with removable frames to match (to be legal also), and make it 3-4 high. In your opinion would it make any difference at all, outside the cool factor.


I do not believe it would make much difference. What' you're describing has been done in a Warre sort of philosophy, though I don't know about round ones, I have seen hexagonal or octagonal ones. Warre isn't my style, not utilitarian enough.


BTW in your pics I saw walmart sugar bags, it is beet sugar, GMO's so I'm told, if it don't say pure cane it's beet.[/QUOTE]Well, it's sugar. My beekeeping philosophy doesn't rely on regular and universal feeding. The chances of any sugar getting into production honey is just about zero. Unlike syrup, I'm not convinced granulated sugar is stored at all. They seem to eat it only as needed.




frazzledfozzle said:


> I also believe that Solomans practice of taking all the brood from his medium strength hives to strengthen up nucs will also remove 90 % of the mites from that hive which will obviously increase the longevity of the donar hive.


That's not Solomon's practice. The only hives from which all brood is taken are weak ones which are dissolved completely. That means 100% of the mites and 100% of the bees, including the queen who gets mooshed and stuck in my pocket. I do borrow some brood from mid-tier hives as needed, but never all of it, and not most of them.




frazzledfozzle said:


> The only hives/bees I see in this thread that can be truely described as treatment free/mite tolerant are Solomans hives that are honey producers and aren't split so basically stay the same year after year with only the queen changing.


The queen isn't changed artificially in these hives unless they are mean. Perhaps 5-7 hives a requeened in any given year, maybe one or two production hives, after extraction, due to meanness.




julysun said:


> I think TF keepers are selecting strong bees or weak mites.


If I were succeeding in breeding weak mites, then every other year or so, some of those nasty mites would get in from the neighbors and I'd have a slew of crashes. But that doesn't happen, though it's been predicted in this forum for years. So I can naught but assume that strong bees are the result, or at least a combination of the two.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

so did the bee and the tracheal mite arrive at host/parasite equilibrium or did the tracheal mite become extinct?

was the treatment for tracheal mites as widespread and aggressive back then as the treatment of varroa is today?


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> So I can naught but assume that strong bees are the result, or at least a combination of the two.



my money is on the combination two.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> so did the bee and the tracheal mite arrive at host/parasite equilibrium or did the tracheal mite become extinct?


The tracheal mite is not extinct. I would theorize that varroa pushed the early colonies so far that the same thing happened with TMs as is now happening with VMs. The bees got over them, and they don't end up being much of a problem anymore.




squarepeg said:


> was the treatment for tracheal mites as widespread and aggressive back then as the treatment of varroa is today?


The impression I get from the literature I had from back then is that they were throwing everything they had at everything the bees had. Books and magazines from that era listed a litany of treatments and things that had to be done to keep the bees alive. At the same time Dee Lusby had already been keeping bees on small cell for a while, with conclusive evidence that her bees were not africanized at the time.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> so did the bee and the tracheal mite arrive at host/parasite equilibrium or did the tracheal mite become extinct?
> 
> was the treatment for tracheal mites as widespread and aggressive back then as the treatment of varroa is today?


I never treated for tracheal and dont feel that they impacted our operation too much. It was a difficult diagnosis with no clearly effective treatment originally, though eventually many started using aromatics like menthol. I tried the same no treatment strategy with varroa and quickly found out that this was a whole different "breed of cat". We had entire apiaries completely wiped out. I assume tracheal mites still exist in our operation and around the country but then thats just an assumption.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> The tracheal mite is not extinct. I would theorize that varroa pushed the early colonies so far that the same thing happened with TMs as is now happening with VMs. The bees got over them, and they don't end up being much of a problem anymore.
> 
> Books and magazines from that era listed a litany of treatments and things that had to be done to keep the bees alive.


In a matter of two years?

Menthol crystals, which didn't work, and a pesticide strip amitraz as its active ingredient were used as well as grease pattys.

Something happened to Tracheal mites. I haven't heard a plausible explanation.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

so if i am understanding correctly jim, for the average beekeeper there was no easy way to make the diagnosis and not much in the way of treatments, unlike varroa.

sounds like a very different scenario, and one that nature seems to have taken care of.

perhaps with tm it was more like getting resistance to just one virus, as opposed to the frank parasitism along with having multiple pathogens being vectored by varroa.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> so if i am understanding correctly jim, for the average beekeeper there was no easy way to make the diagnosis and not much in the way of treatments, unlike varroa.
> 
> sounds like a very different scenario, and one that nature seems to have taken care of.
> 
> perhaps with tm it was more like getting resistance to just one virus, as opposed to the frank parasitism along with having multiple pathogens being vectored by varroa.


Well I could never make the diagnosis though many beekeepers claimed it was easy to spot a "k" wing appearance that was supposed to be an indication. A blender sampling done in just the right manner was supposed to give a good indication as well but I think the only sure way to tell if a bee was infected was dissection which was pretty time consuming.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Diagnosis of tracheal mites requires disection of the prothorasic tracheal of the individual bees which is done in a Lab by taking off the head of ther bee and cutting a disc of the front of the thorax w/ a razor. The disc is placed in a solution of KOH (potasium hydroxide) over night which clears the muscle mass leaving the trachea (tracheii?). The trachea are then examined under a microscope to determine presence or absence of mites.

I have heard that some folks have done field diagnosis for presence w/ a hand lens. I have no experience doing that so I don't know how well it works.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



jim lyon said:


> Well I could never make the diagnosis though many beekeepers claimed it was easy to spot a "k" wing appearance that was supposed to be an indication. A blender sampling done in just the right manner was supposed to give a good indication as well but I think the only sure way to tell if a bee was infected was dissection which was pretty time consuming.


The blender analysis required someone to determine presence of TM DNA.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

When I was a kid a book I read described how to diagnose it, they had a little device with two pins sticking up, and the bee was impaled on these through the back of the lower thorax, ie, the bee was in an upside down position.

The two front legs with that section of the thorax were cut off, and according to the photos provided, this exposed some of the main tracheal tubes. The infested ones showed clearly very dark, going by the pics a good magnifying glass would be all that would be needed, or someone with very keen eyesight may be able to see it unaided. Non infested bees the tracheae were almost invisible being the same pearly white colour as the rest of the surrounding material. 

Being a schoolboy bee geek at the time I built one of the devises, but the mites did not make it to my country so I never got to try it. I did impale and dissect a few bees on it though LOL

Mike Bispham don't ask me for proof or references I don't have any.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

so did it follow that if a diagnosis wasn't readily available that there was also no good way to know what if any effect the treatments were having?


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Pretty much.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

thanks mark. so how devastating was tm to the managed bee population? what were the losses like and for how many years?


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

My recollection was that TM showed up in 1984 or 5 and was pretty much gone, or overshadowed by Varroa, by 1987. Losses were somewhat similar to Varroa mites have been.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Im kind of fuzzy on that. I remember our losses running a bit high for a few years after our first positive diagnosis, dosent seem like they were at unmanageable levels though. APHIS got pretty panicky when it was first diagnosed and started depopulating hives that tested positive thinking that they could control it. A neighboring beekeeper had just moved his bees back to South Dakota from an area where they had been found so they came out here started testing then decided they all had to be killed. It was all pretty crazy. Within a couple years pretty much everyone had tested positive.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Yes it got to the US in 84, from South America (I think). But it had been around in England for a lot longer and was one of the things the Buckfast bee was designed to defeat. American bees threw it off pretty quick but the English bees struggled with it for many years, and possibly still have it in small doses.


----------



## zhiv9

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> American bees threw it off pretty quick but the English bees struggled with it for many years, and possibly still have it in small doses.


From Brother Adam's descriptions, it wiped out all of the the native English bees and the only bees left were of Italian descent. The Abbey then spent the next couple of years helping to make up the enormous losses across the country. This is what likely would have happened with varroa if there weren't treatments. Basically a country wide "Bond Test". Similar tobehat happened with Russian honey bees in the Primorsky region. Perhaps the reason Tracheal mites weren't quite as a big of a deal here is that most of the North American stock has some Italian heritage?


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

My impression is that by the time tracheal mites arrived in America, there was already some resistance in American stocks. I recall reading somewhere that in Florida, researchers had a hard time finding infected colonies to use in studies of the problem.

It's interesting t speculate on what might have happened to varroa mites had aggressive treatments not been available, as was the case with tracheal mites in the UK in the 20s.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

you often hear that the pollination by honeybees is responsible for a big portion of the world's food supply. is that true? are there any reliable estimates of what would happen to the food supply if managed bees suffered a 90% loss in a given year?


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Years ago Steve Taber speculated in an ABJ Article that if all US Beekeepers were willing to go w/out treating Varroa that in 30 years we would have Varroa tolerant bees. He also said that we also wouldn't have any Commercial Beekeepers.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> you often hear that the pollination by honeybees is responsible for a big portion of the world's food supply. is that true? are there any reliable estimates of what would happen to the food supply if managed bees suffered a 90% loss in a given year?


Websearch "The Value of Honeybees as Pollinators of US Crops in 2000" by Roger Morse and Nic Calderone. I believe it was published in Bee Culture Magazine and American Bee Journal.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> My impression is that by the time tracheal mites arrived in America, there was already some resistance in American stocks. I recall reading somewhere that in Florida, researchers had a hard time finding infected colonies to use in studies of the problem.
> 
> It's interesting t speculate on what might have happened to varroa mites had aggressive treatments not been available, as was the case with tracheal mites in the UK in the 20s.


I suppose at some point they had trouble finding tm infected hives but the first few years there was lots of testing and lots of positives. I think speculation that the devastation in the UK somehow lessened the impact in the US is probably pretty relevant though it may have primarily been related more to a resistance by Italian bees in general. So what actually is the current state of the original English bee?


----------



## zhiv9

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



jim lyon said:


> So what actually is the current state of the original English bee?


According to Brother Adam it was completely wiped out by tm. Other black bees were imported from mainland Europe in the years after, including various strains tested in the breeding programs at the abbey.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Brother Adam was a tireless worker. It's fascinating to read about his trips to collect bees from all sorts of obscure places around the world. I really enjoyed reading Beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey. Highly recommended, for a glimpse into what true dedication looks like.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sqkcrk said:


> In a matter of two years?


They were still being treated for in the mid nineties on the west coast.




sqkcrk said:


> Years ago Steve Taber speculated in an ABJ Article that if all US Beekeepers were willing to go w/out treating Varroa that in 30 years we would have Varroa tolerant bees. He also said that we also wouldn't have any Commercial Beekeepers.


I'd say three years and maybe temporarily.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



squarepeg said:


> you often hear that the pollination by honeybees is responsible for a big portion of the world's food supply. is that true? are there any reliable estimates of what would happen to the food supply if managed bees suffered a 90% loss in a given year?


I looked into this a year or two ago. A figure of 65% of so of Europe's agricultural plantlife was being bandied about, and the number was rooted in a study someone had done.

It turned out that the 65 (or so) percent was the proportion of plants in European agriclture pollinated by bees, regardless of how whether they were foodstuffs or not (herbs used in the perfume industry for example were included.) There was no attempt to find a figure representing a relation of bees with staple food crops (which would give meaning to 'we will go hungry without bees' claims). Since almost all our staple foods don't need bees, you'd get a very different figure. Looking at the list it was clear that when it came to foodstuffs, it was largely food luxuries that were affected by pollination rates. 

The idea that without bees we would suffer a major loss of foodcrops isn't in my view sustainable. Its a handy myth, shoved forward at every opportunity by those who's agendas it suits - and believed by those who don't make the effort to look into the realities.

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

You are entitled to your own opinion. Did you look at the Morse and Calderone Paper? Have you seen it?


----------



## zhiv9

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Looking at the list it was clear that when it came to foodstuffs, it was largely food luxuries that were affected by pollination rates.


I guess it depends on what you call a luxury. I can see what you are saying from a world caloric intake perspective - particularly if you include what is fed to livestock. I would guess that the combined volume of all pollinated crops would still be a significant loss of food volume.


----------



## rhaldridge

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



sqkcrk said:


> You are entitled to your own opinion. Did you look at the Morse and Calderone Paper? Have you seen it?


For anyone who hasn't seen the Calderone paper:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0037235


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



zhiv9 said:


> I guess it depends on what you call a luxury. I can see what you are saying from a world caloric intake perspective - particularly if you include what is fed to livestock. I would guess that the combined volume of all pollinated crops would still be a significant loss of food volume.


What we all live or die by is energy. So yes, calorific (or equivalent) value is what is needed to capture a raw picture of how much we need bees in order to not go hungry. 

Most of those calories come directly or indirectly from the staples - grains, oilseeds, and from animal products (which BYW require between 6 and 10 times as many calories feedstock to yeild - if we want to avoid world hunger, eat less animal produce!)

I've only skimmed the paper, but it doesn't appear to provide any figures for non-pollinated crops that could be proportioned against those needing (or 'benefitting from') insect pollination. In other words it can't tell us what proportion of US food benefits from, or is dependent on, insect pollinators. Nor does it attach calrific value. In other words, it can't offer any useful information to questions about how dependent we are on insect pollinators.

Look at a typical day's eating, and ask yourself how many of the calories you've consumed needed insect pollinators? Probably fruit juice is the biggest item. There was no such thing when I was a kid! It wouldn't kill me to live without it now.

Try to put a value on that 'significant', and ask why you value it that way.

Don't get me wrong, I love bees, and I love wildlife. I just don't like BS. I especially don't like big fat fibs designed for, and propagated by, special monied interests. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## zhiv9

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Most of those calories come directly or indirectly from the staples - grains, oilseeds, and from animal products (which BYW require between 6 and 10 times as many calories feedstock to yeild - if we want to avoid world hunger, eat less animal produce!)


Studies have also shown that pollination can improved the yields of some staple crops such as soybeans or canola. Though neither one require it. 



mike bispham said:


> Look at a typical day's eating, and ask yourself how many of the calories you've consumed needed insect pollinators? Probably fruit juice is the biggest item. There was no such thing when I was a kid! It wouldn't kill me to live without it now.


I guess it depends on how/what you eat. So far today (1:45pm, here) I have eaten items containing blueberries, almonds, plums, apples and zucchini. I would say that they made up about 30% of my caloric intake. This varies by season

Maybe they should be saying bees pollinate 65% of what we actually enjoy eating as opposed to the volume of what we eat.



It also depends on what you eat.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



rhaldridge said:


> For anyone who hasn't seen the Calderone paper:
> 
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0037235


Thanks. You should teach me how to do that someday.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



zhiv9 said:


> I guess it depends on how/what you eat. So far today (1:45pm, here) I have eaten items containing blueberries, almonds, plums, apples and zucchini. I would say that they made up about 30% of my caloric intake. [...]It also depends on what you eat.


Yep. That's a lovely diet. As you say, much is seasonal - if you made an annual audit, and perhaps restricted yourself in 'food miles' terms you'd probably rely on staples more. Though you also probably resist that - you appreciate your desert items.

It also the sort of diet I'd describe as 'luxury' on the basis that those who have to be careful with costs tend not to enjoy these sorts of things (unless they are able to grow them themselves.) Its cheaper to meet your first essential dietary need (energy) through the staple foodstuffs - which tend to not need bees. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Compared to much of the World just about everything we enjoy in the so called "Western World" or the "Developed Nations" is luxury.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The secondary part of the discussion about what foods require pollination are crops which require pollination only to raise seed. Because of this many of the calculations about the value of pollination include all dairy products because alfalfa is a primary feed yet only requires bees to raise the seed and not the actual forage. Onions and many other seeds as well I am sure are included.


----------



## Cub

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon,

On your website, you mention not feeding HFCS, and only feeding sugar syrup when you have to. I have 8 hives now, all from cutouts, and all of them seem light. 3 of them barely have any stores of nectar or honey, but all of them seem to have lots of pollen. 

Is the goldenrod flow enough to carry everyone through, or should I feed 2:1 until they stop taking it? What are the chances of a hive in a single medium making it?

Thanks,
J


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Cub said:


> Is the goldenrod flow enough to carry everyone through, or should I feed 2:1 until they stop taking it?


I cannot speak to your conditions, but it isn't enough here. I feed granulated sugar nowadays, no syrup for a while. With syrup, you're making them do a lot of work and introducing the problems that syrup has. With granulated sugar, they don't need to process it and they won't use it if they don't need it.




Cub said:


> What are the chances of a hive in a single medium making it?


With granulated sugar in a super on top, I'd give them some chance. Not much otherwise.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

With "barely any stores of nectar or honey", plus granulated sugar on top, their chances are not good.

Sugar syrup (preferable with a little vinegar added) fed now means they can with ease store it in the comb and it will be available in the natural way to them through winter. This done right, plus any fall honey they collect, will improve their chances considerably.

There are only 3 things you need for your hive to survive winter. The bees need to be properly housed, have enough food, and be healthy. Get those 3 right and, barring accidents, they will survive. In fact it's not asking much, just the same liveable conditions that any living thing needs to survive.

Works for me, my winter survival is close to 100%.

Use white sugar not brown, brown sugar has not had impurities removed that are not good for bees. do not concern yourself with rumours that white sugar is "poison". It is not poison.

If you do feed syrup, the main risk is it can cause robbing so ask here before doing it to get advise on the correct procedure.

One medium can be rather small to survive winter, to be "properly housed", 2 boxes would be better. The only way you will get them into two boxes in time and have them draw all the comb will be by the stimulation from feeding sugar syrup. Feeding granulated sugar will not achieve this.

If you do go this way, time is running short, start now.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Cub said:


> Is the goldenrod flow enough to carry everyone through, or should I feed 2:1 until they stop taking it? What are the chances of a hive in a single medium making it?
> 
> Thanks,
> J


I'm not Solomon and I am not Treatment Free, but since you are asking a Feeding question let me take a stab at it.

Feed your colonies until they are as heavy as you can get them. And then, say sometime in November, place a 2" rim on each hive, lay a sheet of newspaper in the rim and pour a 5 lb bag of sugar on the paper. Spread it out evenly and put the covers back on. If you prefer fondant, that will work too. 

Five lbs of sugar will give you about a months worth of feed depending on the colony of bees. It could get your bees thru most of the Winter. So, sometime in February you might want to take a peak and see who is still alive and whether more sugar would be a good idea.

Best wishes.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks mark, I have been trying to estimate how much sugar I will need for my hives this winter. I had guesstimated it to be around 22.5 lbs of sugar per hive. Your 5 lbs per month works out to be 25 lbs of sugar to cover from November 1st to March 31st.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Sugar is as a reserve, an extender, They should have stores in their comb to last until they need the sugar.


----------



## Cub

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Solomon, Mark, and Oldtimer, 

I put out a gallon of 2:1 syrup yesterday evening, and it was half gone this morning. The plan is to do this until they either stop taking it, or until it is too cold for them to take it. The feeders I am using are chicken waterers, out in the open. All my hives have top entrances, so feeding in the hive is not practical, although a frame feeder interests me. 

Does the 2" rim filled with sugar still applicable with top entrances? All my equiment is homemade, and there is 3'+ of snow where we are on a fairly regular basis, so the bottom opening didn't make sense.

Thanks,
J


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

John,

I have had hives with frame feeders with top entrances robbed out and destroyed, but that's probably expected. I have had no robbing problems with sugar and I have used it on hives with my 3/4" shim entrance as the spacer. These hives have full and open access to anybody who wants to walk in the hive and steal the sugar, but nobody does.

Plain sugar just doesn't have the draw for robbing. You can lay it out on the ground and bees will largely ignore it unless it gets soaked, and even then, they'll only go after the goo. They don't seem interested in sugar unless there is no other option in the hive.

I'd recommend forgetting the syrup all together and go with the sugar if it's needed. I've had great success with it and consider it the best option for feeding.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

cub, if it were me i would let them store some syrup in the comb, but be careful not to let them store so much that the broodnest becomes 'honeybound'.

you still should have some fall forage, and i would consider allowing them to store as much of that as possible and then supplement with syrup if needed to bring up to winter weight.

generally speaking, about 2/3 of the hive cavity should contain stores by the time the first frost hits.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

What squarepeg said, however the practicality of achieving that with a top entrance is limited, you cannot safely feed sugar syrup into a hive if it has a top entrance.

If the open feeding system you are using has been working, ie, the hive is filling with syrup, good. But if you do not see that syrup you are feeding end up in the desired hive, it is going somewhere else. 

Just sending a hive into winter with granulated sugar only and little normal stores in the combs is a high risk strategy. You have some opposing advice here ( not unusual  ), so go with whichever you want. But if it was my hive, I would not consider it winter ready till it's been stimulated to build more comb and be in two boxes. Only real way to achieve that in this case without adding bees, is to first change to a bottom entrance and give the bees a few days to adapt to that. Then put a frame feeder or top feeder in and feed them syrup at a rate that forces them to build new comb. At the same time feed an occasional extra comb into mid broodnest to encourage them to produce more bees.

If you want them to winter with a top entrance, you can change back to one after syrup feeding is over.

So to me, the goal would be the hive in two boxes of drawn comb with more bees than currently, and plenty of syrup plus whatever they gather, stored in their combs. Once that has been achieved you can consider supplementary granulated sugar feed through winter although I never do that.

Secondly I would do a mite count or two, a healthy hive is a pre requisite to winter survival.

Sorry about all the conflicting advice, it happens. Just pick whichever way you want to go. But learn though, if something does not work don't just shrug your shoulders and move on. Figure out why it didn't work and what you have to change next time to make it work, that way you can get some benefit even from a loss.


----------



## RiodeLobo

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I am far from an expert, but if you are looking for a consensus I agree with Mr. Berninghausen, squarepeg and Oldtimer. I would feed as much syrup as they would take and than use the dry sugar as a insurance policy. I like feeding candy instead of dry sugar, because I find it easier to place in the hive (faster in cold weather) and I think they can access it better in a cluster (but for sure it is more work).


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I like the candy, too, but it has just about lost me my kitchen privileges


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Secondly I would do a mite count or two, a healthy hive is a pre requisite to winter survival.


So... a high mite count would indicate an unhealthy hive, and you'd... do what?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

For a full answer, ask me in a different section.


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

The search function can save a lot of repetition.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I guess that's why we keep getting demands to do mite counts. It's based on a presupposed idea that we're going to do something about it. We're not. Mite counts really have no bearing on how I keep bees or from which queen I breed. No decent performing treatment-free hive has a mite problem. Yours might, those of you who treat currently, have a good booming year and then crash. I have no doubt that happens, but it doesn't happen in a long term treatment-free program. I haven't gotten honey off a hive and then had it die in years, since 2008 I believe, and that was a climate problem, big clusters that couldn't move in the cold.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Actually it wasn't any of that.


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> It's based on a presupposed idea that we're going to do something about it. We're not.


No, no. I want you to do it for my own information.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> For a full answer, ask me in a different section.


We are here in the no-treatment section. And you are suggesting doing something about mites, following a count. Asking what you, who recommends a mite count, suggest I should do if I find high levels of mites, seems like a very natural question to ask. Here. What should a no-treatment beekeeper do?

I'm not asking for a 'full' answer. Any answer at all will be gratefully recieved.

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

from previous posts, oldtimer applied the hard bond test and allowed his colonies to collapse, and all of them (100%) are gone.

if the goal is to deselect for lack of resistance, and in a treatment free regime, my approach will be to dequeen, brood break, sugar dust, and requeen. since it will be late in the season and after queen rearing is done, the requeening will take the form of combining a nuc with the 'failed' colony.

the argument is sometimes made that allowing a colony to rebound from the brink of collapse has the potential to advance the acquisition of resistance. the counter-argument is the chances are slim that the colony will rebound, that it will collapse in the fall or winter, and there is a risk of the colony collapsing mites being spread to other colonies via robbing.

the problem is that since the treatment free contributors on this forum don't do mite counts, it is unknown what infestation rates are being tolerated, and at what level a colony is likely to collapse.

i will be undertaking mite counts in my treatment free operation and attempting to correlate them with survival and productivity. whether or not there will be predictive value in the counts which would lead to the intervention detailed above remains to be seen.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mike there are things I would / may do that are acceptable in this forum. But it would not be a full answer or the whole picture.

If you want to know what I would do, a "part" answer will not be what I would do. Would it.

With your history of arguing with everything I say, I am certain my answer will be argued with and you will demand further explanation.

For that reason you will have to ask elsewhere.

That is, unless you don't actually want to know what I would do but are just seeking another argument.

In fact an example of that has happened already. I have already given a "part answer" to what I would do, ie, a mite count. And the two usual suspects, you and Solomon, have immediately picked up on it and steering this towards an argument.

Again, ask elsewhere. Is that too hard?


----------



## cg3

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I remember when y'all spent all that time hashing out forum rules. Here.

"This forum is for those who wish to discuss Treatment-Free Beekeeping, not for them to be required to defend it. There is no need to discuss commercial or other methods of beekeeping. There are multiple forums to address any and all subjects. Any post advocating the use of treatments, according to the forum definition of treatment will be considered off topic and shall be moved to another forum or deleted by a moderator. Discussions of the definition of "Treatment-Free" will be deleted.

Posts or portions of posts judged to be uncivil may be edited or deleted by a moderator. Please avoid making any kind of accusation toward another forum user. Do not impugn their motives, do not question their skills, and do not use pejoratives."


----------



## rhaldridge

I've thought about this quite a bit, and it seems to me that almost no one is really a Bond beekeeper in strict terms. What I mean is that you would tend to make increase from your survivors, and you really might not know why they survived. 

Lots of folks have told me that no matter how good my untreated hives look now, in their second year, they will inevitably collapse. 

While that may be true, who just stands still and waits for all their hives to die? I've already made a couple of splits from my best hive, and they are doing well. They probably have benefited from the brood break involved. If all three die over the winter (such as it is here in N Florida) well, the line was too weak to waste time keeping alive. But if even one does survive, then I would make increase from that one. And from other hives that do well.

I don't know, but isn't this the way most beekeepers would approach the situation, whether treating or not treating? The point I'm struggling to make is that not-treating is going to remove the weakest bees from the yard. But you make increase from survivors, so your increase will be a mix of your strongest bees, your luckiest bees, and your middling bees that have survived... not necessarily due to their superior genetics.

Isn't the approach I've outlined a much more common approach to treatment-free beekeeping than simply setting up a number of colonies and waiting to see if any of them survive? I would suppose that one advantage of this approach is that you get valuable genetic input from local survivors, via open mated queens, so the tendency should be toward survivorship, unless you are near a large commercial apiary.


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> I've thought about this quite a bit, and it seems to me that almost no one is really a Bond beekeeper in strict terms. What I mean is that you would tend to make increase from your survivors, and you really might not know why they survived.


I don't see understanding why they survived as relevant to the fact that they survived.





rhaldridge said:


> Lots of folks have told me that no matter how good my untreated hives look now, in their second year, they will inevitably collapse.


I've heard the same thing, year after year after year.





rhaldridge said:


> While that may be true, who just stands still and waits for all their hives to die?


Nobody, that's a straw man. We keep on beekeeping. The whole point is to increase faster than losses accrue, just like with every other beekeeper. What you're suggesting is to die by attrition and that will have the same result treatment or no. I have done it by the way, just for a limited time. One does have too many hives at times you know.





rhaldridge said:


> But you make increase from survivors, so your increase will be a mix of your strongest bees, your luckiest bees, and your middling bees that have survived... not necessarily due to their superior genetics.


As I've mentioned before, I don't believe in luck, so that leaves the strongest bees and the middling bees. And yes, this is exactly what happens, but the same is the case with treated bees. My methods are adapted from Michael Palmer's. Keep the performers to perform and provide genetics, off the dinks, and requeen the middlers. If it isn't due to the genetics, it is incumbent upon you to provide a hypothesis which explains the data.





rhaldridge said:


> Isn't the approach I've outlined a much more common approach to treatment-free beekeeping than simply setting up a number of colonies and waiting to see if any of them survive?


I would say it is, however, I haven't heard of it working all that well in the long run to be frank. I ask how many of us treatment-free beekeepers did it that way? Ultimately, it always comes down to the Bond Test.




rhaldridge said:


> I would suppose that one advantage of this approach is that you get valuable genetic input from local survivors, via open mated queens, so the tendency should be toward survivorship, unless you are near a large commercial apiary.


I've discovered I have a yard near a commercial queen breeder, and in fact, I'm probably providing him drones. I have not had a hive in that yard die since I set it up. I can only recount my experience.


----------



## rhaldridge

Solomon Parker said:


> If it isn't due to the genetics, it is incumbent upon you to provide a hypothesis which explains the data.


My hypothesis is that genetics is only part of the answer.

One of the things that has amazed me in the course of researching this is the unwillingness of folks to grasp that treatments are in fact damaging to colony health. It seems to me to be at least plausible that treatments which disrupt hive and bee microbiota are in substantial part to blame for loss of colony vitality. It has been demonstrated that certain widely-used treatments do result in reduced queen longevity and fecundity. I feel reasonably certain that there are other unquantified sub-lethal effects. Among these stressors may be the extended feeding of sugar, the use of contaminated foundation, less than optimal cell size, and so forth. 

I don't know of any way to prove this, but my suspicion is that when middling-quality bees survive for a while without treatment, it is at least in part due to the lack of these stressors.

If in fact colony mortality is related to a fairly large number of factors, and not just to genetics alone, it would go far toward explaining certain anomalies. As an example, consider Tim Ives, whose colonies thrive in the midst of corn and soy country. Why do his hives produce so well, and have such low mortality, when he is surrounded by a monocrop desert? I think it can best be explained by the idea that there are many important factors in maintaining healthy bees beyond genetics, or pesticide-free forage, or leaving adequate stores.

My feeling is that natural systems, are in reality far more complex than we are yet in a position to understand. What we should be doing is reducing all the adverse actors in colony health that we can figure out, while breeding toward bees that can survive the pest du jour-- most recently, varroa-- as long as everything else, or most everything else, is right.

The fact that the drones from that large commercial apiary are not swamping your improved genetics is an indication to me that it is your cultural practices more than it is the genetics of your bees that have led to your success.

But I'm a beginner, and I've only been studying this since last winter, so I could be completely wrong.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I've discovered I have a yard near a commercial queen breeder, and in fact, I'm probably providing him drones. I have not had a hive in that yard die since I set it up. I can only recount my experience.


OK, you are probably supplying him drones. It would be naïve to think that he is not also supplying you drones.

In fact, if the guy is a commercial queen breeder he will likely be swamping the area with drones and your bees will have his genetics. Presumably those "weak commercial" genetics you have often spoken about.

Does he treat? If so, your bees have treated genetics. Yet you claim no hives in that yard have died.

The facts, as presented by yourself, are at variance with your argument about your genetically treatment free line. I would have to agree with RAldridge on this one. Additionally, I can tell you that few beekeepers are as isolated from everybody else as they think. An example to prove that, would be the fact that all this time you've been thinking you are developing your own line, then only recently have discovered you have a commercial queen breeder and his drones right next door.

The interesting thing would be what the commercial queen breeders practises are, and what kind of bees he is breeding. Are they Russians? Are they totally non varroa resistant Italians? I would like to hear your comments on this.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> OK, you are probably supplying him drones. It would be naïve to think that he is not also supplying you drones.
> 
> In fact, if the guy is a commercial queen breeder he will likely be swamping the area with drones and your bees will have his genetics. Presumably those "weak commercial" genetics you have often spoken about.
> 
> The facts, as presented by yourself, are at variance with your argument about your genetically treatment free line.


Not necessarily. One hypothesis is that a good strain with firmly embedded mite tolerance (as Solomon has developed) propagated vigorously down the queen side can offer good genetic defence despite high levels of mite-vulnerable drone input. Remember, only a few patrilines need carry the necessary behaviors. 

Then again, Solomon, are you allowing mating here, or simply inserting queens mated elsewhere?

Mike (UK)


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Solomon Parker said:


> I've discovered I have a yard near a commercial queen breeder, and in fact, I'm probably providing him drones. I have not had a hive in that yard die since I set it up. I can only recount my experience.


:ws: lol I would suggest he will be supplying a hundred fold more drones to the area than you will be Solomon, I'd also suggest 8 out of 10 queens mated in your yard are mating with his drones.

@ Mike can't fault your optimism !


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Mike there are things I would / may do that are acceptable in this forum. But it would not be a full answer or the whole picture.
> 
> If you want to know what I would do, a "part" answer will not be what I would do. Would it.


I think what you'd say is 'I'd treat them', one way or another. 



Oldtimer said:


> With your history of arguing with everything I say, I am certain my answer will be argued with and you will demand further explanation.


I'd call it dialogue rather than arguing. Asking questions of people in pursuit of objective understanding, asking for evidence, references and so on are a method of building sound knowledge. Forums are marvellous places for this valuable activity. 

In that context, when people are cagy one way or another, it is understood that they don't have a good answer to give. Understanding is taken accordingly.



Oldtimer said:


> In fact an example of that has happened already. I have already given a "part answer" to what I would do, ie, a mite count. And the two usual suspects, you and Solomon, have immediately picked up on it and steering this towards an argument.


Yes. That's because this is the no-treatment section, and we want to know whether you are leading toward a treatment, or if there is something else you would recommend, that, as no-treatment beekeepers, we could make use of. That we might be interested in.

As you are being cagy we will probably all assume it was the former. 

(That isn't a personal thing, and I'm not impugning your motives. But the fact is: anyone being cagy gets suspected of not contributing in an earnest way to the aims of the non-treatment community. And then suspicions arise as to just what they are up to. People do try to figure out other's motivations - and with good reason. We have to try to filter out bad information, just as much as allow good information into our understanding. Trying to understand where others are coming from is part of that process.)

Yes, my question was designed to discover your reasons for advocating a mite count. There's nothing wrong with that. 

So, after you'd treated them (if we're allowed to have this conversation here) what would you do subsequently? 

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. But I want to hear it from you. If you are considering keeping bees without treating them, then you'll need to be clear about what comes next. 

But also: its not just about you (or me). Having conversations of this sort are, hopefully, useful to some of the people who read this thread. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> my question was designed to discover your reasons for advocating a mite count. There's nothing wrong with that.


I did not say there was anything wrong with your question. In fact, it was a good question. No need to be so defensive.



mike bispham said:


> One hypothesis is that a good strain with firmly embedded mite tolerance (as Solomon has developed) propagated vigorously down the queen side can offer good genetic defence despite high levels of mite-vulnerable drone input.


It is hypothesised? But anything can be hypothesised so that particular argument is without foundation.

Next time we disagree on something I'll put up a counter argument and say it's a hypothesis, so that proves it. LOL


----------



## mike bispham

rhaldridge said:


> I've already made a couple of splits from my best hive, and they are doing well. They probably have benefited from the brood break involved.


The splits will have done, but has the mother hive also benefitted from partial brood breaks? That's something we never really got to the bottom of. 



rhaldridge said:


> If all three die over the winter (such as it is here in N Florida) well, the line was too weak to waste time keeping alive. But if even one does survive, then I would make increase from that one. And from other hives that do well.
> 
> I don't know, but isn't this the way most beekeepers would approach the situation, whether treating or not treating? The point I'm struggling to make is that not-treating is going to remove the weakest bees from the yard.


It'll remove, first and foremost, those with least mite resistance, probably pretty much regardless of any other strengths they might have.




rhaldridge said:


> But you make increase from survivors, so your increase will be a mix of your strongest bees, your luckiest bees, and your middling bees that have survived... not necessarily due to their superior genetics.


Sure, but you can use all-else-being-equal reasoning to say that on the whole, on average, it will be the best (genetically) suited to the (present) environment that will be the most likely to survive; that having done so they will be the most likely to thrive, and that being the case, will be the most likely to contribute to the next generation in the largest numbers.

And, that being so, what is best for your bees is happening.

Also: when treating beekeepers do this, what they get are the strongest genetics save for the fact that they need beekeeper input on a regular basis. That is a: a) warped view of what 'strongest' means, and b) undermines the nearby feral population, which is (some argue) a very important contributor to bee health and vitality generally.



rhaldridge said:


> Isn't the approach I've outlined a much more common approach to treatment-free beekeeping than simply setting up a number of colonies and waiting to see if any of them survive?


Possibly. And where the 'help' aids ailing individuals, it undermines the process by which the local population maintains health. That's why its important to be clear about which actions are running with the grain of natural selection, and which are running counter.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Originally Posted by mike bispham
> "One hypothesis is that a good strain with firmly embedded mite tolerance (as Solomon has developed) propagated vigorously down the queen side can offer good genetic defence despite high levels of mite-vulnerable drone input."
> 
> It is hypothesised? But anything can be hypothesised so that particular argument is without foundation.
> 
> Next time we disagree on something I'll put up a counter argument and say it's a hypothesis, so that proves it. LOL


Any argument is a hypothesis. Whenever you put up a counter-argument, you are challenging the standing hypthesis with your own hypothesis. That in turn may be challenged - or it may be accepted - depends if your point is good or not.

The act of putting up a counter-argument (hypothesis) doesn't prove anything.

A hypothesis with big fat holes it soon gets shot to pieces. Does mine have any big fat holes in it? Fire away.

If you can't shoot it down it doesn't mean it is true (it isn't a scientific hypothesis, subjected to extensive or conclusive empirical testing). It just means that perhaps its worthy of consideration, as an explanation. Take it or leave it. 

If you can shoot it down its been shot down. Claiming its been shot down doesn't amount to shooting it down.

Mike (UK)


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mike you amaze me... being a beekeeper thats new to varroa and treatment free beekeeping you have an awful lot to say for yourself.

It will be interesting to watch your progress over the next few years to see if you can walk the walk and not just talk.

Getting back to the question of counting mites I would have thought it would be an obvious thing to do so you know whats happening in your hives, treating or not treating dosn't come into it. It's just the same as looking to see how much honey or pollen is in the hive to get a handle on how it's doing.

As for wondering if the mite population decreases if you take a nuc from a hive I would say that it obviously does as you will be taking all the mites from the brood and bees that you are splitting off.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Ha Ha that's the weird thing. Mike does count mites LOL.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> It will be interesting to watch your progress over the next few years to see if you can walk the walk and not just talk.


No one is more interested than me!



frazzledfozzle said:


> Getting back to the question of counting mites I would have thought it would be an obvious thing to do so you know whats happening in your hives, treating or not treating dosn't come into it. It's just the same as looking to see how much honey or pollen is in the hive to get a handle on how it's doing.


Maybe. I have 40 hives to monitor and act upon, and limited time to do so, so I want to be sure that what I'm doing is spending my time in an efficient way. Many are fixed-floor nucs, which can't be easily monitored for drops.

Then I have to ask: what am I going to do if I find a hive being overrun by mites? The same thing I'd do for any other problem probably: nothing. Let it de-select itself. That is because my current strategy is to throw lots of birds in the air and see which, left alone, fly. 

I'm trying to set conditions in a way that I can tell clearly tell better from less good genetics, without spending hours poring over microscopes or fishing through floor debris. Maybe that'll come in later. If a hive has lots of mites, its probably going down. Counting them won't alter a thing.



frazzledfozzle said:


> As for wondering if the mite population decreases if you take a nuc from a hive I would say that it obviously does as you will be taking all the mites from the brood and bees that you are splitting off.


I've tried before to get a conversation going that distinguishes between splits made in a way that do reduce mite load on the mother hive, thus skewing resistance evaluations, and splits made in ways that don't. Are you willing to have accept such a difference, enabling us to talk properly about the effects of 'splits', or are you going to continue to take the stance that 'splits are splits are splits' and they all affect the mother hive? Or is it some other sort of point you are making? Perhaps you are talking about the splits themselves raher than the mother hive. 

We need to be more explicit in order to be able to determine the conditions in which splits do and don't affect mite loads.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Ha Ha that's the weird thing. Mike does count mites LOL.


No I don't. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Oh OK, my mistake. The "readings" you referred to a number of times, I thought would mean counts, as that is the usual way the terminology is used.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

If you know your mite counts and your hive dies you will know if it was probable it died from mite infestation or something else. If a hive dies it's good beekeeping practice to know why.

In my opinion any split that contains brood taken from a parent hive will reduce mite numbers in that parent hive. You have split aggressively taking a frame of brood from the parent hive on multiple occasions that will have an impact on the mite numbers remaining in that hive.

I keep saying that I don't understand how you can call a hive resistant/tolerant to mites when you are always splitting it. 

In our beekeeping operation if running double brood hives we would only split if the hive looked like it was a potential swarmer. If it was split it would be split once as in the 2 brood boxs and one queen would become one brood box each with one queen. it wouldn't be split up into multiple nucs and it wouldn't be split more than once. 

Solomon has often said that he splits to keep ahead of the losses.
After so many years running treatment free tolerant bees I wouldn't have thought there would be any losses. If there are losses what are they dying from? Mites? If you don't do mite counts how would you know?


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> Additionally, I can tell you that few beekeepers are as isolated from everybody else as they think. An example to prove that, would be the fact that all this time you've been thinking you are developing your own line, then only recently have discovered you have a commercial queen breeder and his drones right next door.


I think you're in the bullseye. I'm continually surprised to find more and more hives in my area than I ever expected. The idea of controlling your surrounding genetics only happens if your bees are in the desert like Lusby's or similar. Even then, it's a constant work to have the higher influence.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>  The "readings" you referred to a number of times, I thought would mean counts, as that is the usual way the terminology is used.

Its not too difficult to see why one might think Mike does mite counts. For instance:



mike bispham said:


> The effect on the parent hive is limited to the loss of no more than 10% of oncoming brood, and often as little as 5%. I can't see this having much effect on varroa populations, thus giving false readings.





mike bispham said:


> The other way is making splits from young colonies, and I agree that this is riskier in terms of supplying false readings of mite resistance as I'm taking up to 20% or so of the brood.


----------



## rhaldridge

mike bispham said:


> The splits will have done, but has the mother hive also benefitted from partial brood breaks? That's something we never really got to the bottom of.
> 
> Mike (UK)


It's hard for me to believe that it has a positive effect on the mother hive. When I made these splits, the mother hive was carrying about a dozen frames of brood, so taking a frame or two of brood was not much of a difference. besides that, there is in fact no brood break at all if the queen continues to lay-- still plenty of brood for the mites to infect. By taking a frame or two of brood, all you're doing is reducing bee population, at the same time you reduce mite population, so the density of infection is unchanged.


----------



## mike bispham

rhaldridge said:


> It's hard for me to believe that it has a positive effect on the mother hive. When I made these splits, the mother hive was carrying about a dozen frames of brood, so taking a frame or two of brood was not much of a difference. besides that, there is in fact no brood break at all if the queen continues to lay-- still plenty of brood for the mites to infect. By taking a frame or two of brood, all you're doing is reducing bee population, at the same time you reduce mite population, so the density of infection is unchanged.


Well put.

By 'readings' as quoted above: in case it isn't clear now, what I'm talking about is being able to 'read' a colony for mite resistance. 

If you leave a colony alone for a couple of years, and it thrives while others around it fall to varroa, I think we all agree there is a good chance you can 'read' that as a mite resistant colony. 

If a similar colony has been subjected to artificial brood breaks you cannot make the same assumption - it is likely that it is the brood breaks that are responsible for its continuing to thrive. (You cannot conclude that is the case, but the argument for believing it has resistance is much weaker as there is an alternative hypothesis.)

If a similar colony has been split hard, taking most brood, the same thing applies. 

However if it has been split lightly (say no more than 10-15% of brood) it seems unlikely to me that will have had much effect - as rhaldridge has ably laid out. The circumstances are therefore the same as in my first instance above. And we can 'read' its thriving as evidence of mite resistance, and can take account of that in our all-important selection process. 

It is important that we limit brood extraction from those hives we believe to be mite resistant, and are using to provide genetics, in order to be able to know that they are continuing to be mite resistant.

It's probably best to take just one or two frames from all our colonies to preserve clear 'readings' across the board. 

(Also: we wouldn't want to be preserving non-resistant colonies by splitting them hard, thus, without realising it, equipping our splits with a poor start, and raising unwanted drones.)

For these reasons, in non-treatment apiaries, hard splitting (supplying brood breaks) is a no no. 

We have to be able to 'read' our hives reliably for mite resistance, in order to be able to make selections effectively. What we are 'reading' is health and vitality due to onboard mite management, not mite numbers.

I can't think of anything else helpful to write. Maybe you have to be used to thinking like a breeder before it all slips into place. In my view to do non-treatment beekeeping effectively you have to think like a breeder. To understand what non-treatment beekeepers are trying to explain about the most fundamental aspects of their approach, the same. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Solomon Parker

Here's another question: If you requeen a hive with a 5-frame nuc (just kill the old queen and dump a five frame nuc, queen and all, in there) does that count as a brood break? Because that's how I requeen. The other method I use occasionally is by putting ripe cells in, but if the virgin kills the old queen before mating I could see how that could cause a brood break, but I cannot confirm that's how it happens, especially since I have observed a new queen laying alongside her mother.


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> I think you're in the bullseye. I'm continually surprised to find more and more hives in my area than I ever expected. The idea of controlling your surrounding genetics only happens if your bees are in the desert like Lusby's or similar. Even then, it's a constant work to have the higher influence.


Just because you can't control genetics entirely doesn't mean its not a good idea to try to influence them as much as you can. 

If you only have a few hives, they'll control you - that can mean continuous failure. Fighting back hard makes good sense - at least it does if you are able to do so without extortionate cost. 

Mike


----------



## Solomon Parker

frazzledfozzle said:


> Solomon has often said that he splits to keep ahead of the losses.


No, that's not what I said, I say that's what new beekeepers should do. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when I'm losing a single hive each winter and keep having more bees than I know what to do with. 
I'm going to have to combine a bunch of them before October so I can pad my numbers for the Winter Loss Survey.  I have too many, I just can't sell them fast enough and they won't die. :lpf:

I DO NOT SPLIT HIVES. I have not done for three years now. I grow new hives from mating nucs that are made from weak or middling hives that have been disassembled. There are no splits going on in the traditional sense. I can't split a hive to control mites when the original hive doesn't exist anymore. There are no walk-away splits done here.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I have too many, I just can't sell them fast enough and they won't die. :lpf


Here I can help



Mikect05 said:


> Does anybody have suggestions of where I can buy 3 queens in the northeast from non-treated survivor stock?


Have you contacted him yet?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Its not too difficult to see why one might think Mike does mite counts.


Seems resident archiving is a very useful thing in an environment such as this.

Thank you Resident Archiver


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> [Its not too difficult to see why one might think Mike does mite counts.]
> 
> Seems resident archiving is a very useful thing in an environment such as this.


Lets not get carried away. Reading the posts the context and meaning is clear. It was only easy to make that mistake by skimming and making assumptions, instead of reading properly.

Maybe we should make a note: post #474 above explains (for those who didn't get it first time) what is meant by false readings in the context of selection for the strongest parents. 

That post and the next address the context; the danger of not making spilts carefully, giving rise to the problem of false readings about mite resistance. We know understand that if we make increase carefully we can avoid any such problem, allowing true evaluations.

Think like a breeder. Get in the habit. That way you'll find the posts from serious non-treatment beekeepers are easier to read right the first time. Its all about genetics (with apologies to Michael Bush)

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Lets not get carried away. Reading the posts the context and meaning is clear. It was only easy to make that mistake by skimming instead of reading.


You assume too much. I did not skim, and I did read your posts in context.

Your meaning was certainly unclear.

I merely thank the Resident Archiver for his good work, and you have a problem?

Let's not get carried away....


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> You assume too much. I did not skim, and I did read your posts in context.
> 
> Your meaning was certainly unclear


I agree that given the widespread use of 'readings' in the context of mite counts makes confusion easy, though I don't understand how you can read my posts carefully and still think that. Perhaps I assumed too much knowledge on your part. When you've spent as long as I have working with this stuff its easy to assume others are more familiar with it than is the case. If so I apologise.

Can I take it we understand each other now? Is there anything you'd like to say or ask about the issue? Do you accept that my position is sound? Splits can be made (if done carefully) such that false readings about mite resistance (resistance against mites by bees, just to be clear - I know you guys talk a lot about mites being resistant to the treatments) ... are not a problem. Yes?

It's very often important for beginners to make rapid increase of their limited stock, to multiply up those few they believe to be carrying the genes that confer the required behaviours. Clearly, its important too that that is done in a way that doesn't interfere with the necessary evaluations of colonies for those same behaviours. 

That is what all this has been about. For those who want go non-treatment this stuff may well be crucial. Lets remember what is important. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Can I take it we understand each other now? Is there anything you'd like to say or ask about the issue?


Well not really because you are arguing over trivia again. He said - she said, type stuff.

However I would suggest sticking with industry standard terminology if you want to be correctly understood. I'll bet most people still won't know just what you meant.



mike bispham said:


> When you've spent as long as I have working with this stuff its easy to assume others are more familiar with it than is the case.


Stuff? What stuff? 

You mean bees or mites? You think you've worked with them more than me?

Let's get real here.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> ... I would suggest sticking with industry standard terminology if you want to be correctly understood. I'll bet most people still won't know just what you meant.


Perhaps you could help me shape it to a form that would be understood by people using 'standard terminolgy'? How would you express the key notions?

Come on Oldtimer, engage with the conversation. 



Oldtimer said:


> You mean bees or mites? You think you've worked with them more than me?


(Sigh) When you can't win the argument, attack the speaker's authority. Standard stuff.

I think I have a better understanding of the most important issues, as a result of 30-odd year's study - of the specific issue of how treatments prevent adaptation. See my website. Critique it, here.

Keeping lots of bees with treatments, stopping treatments and losing all your bees doesn't really confer much authority here where we are examining the essentials of treatment free beekeeping. 

Enough sniping, enough who has the biggest exhaust pipe. Lets talk non-treatment beekeeping. I'm starting to think that's the last thing you want to talk about. Again, if you can, engage with the issues. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Solomon Parker said:


> I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when I'm losing a single hive each winter and keep having more bees than I know what to do with.
> I DO NOT SPLIT HIVES. I have not done for three years now. I grow new hives from mating nucs that are made from weak or middling hives that have been disassembled. There are no splits going on in the traditional sense. I can't split a hive to control mites when the original hive doesn't exist anymore. There are no walk-away splits done here.


OK so call me thick but you say you only lose one hive each winter and you don't split and then you tell me that you make up new hives utilising all the brood bees and stores from your not so good hives to me thats splitting. 

Why are the hives no good? are they affected by varroa? How many hives do you run in total? if you have been treatment free successfully for so long I would have thought you wouldn't have many hives that couldn't cope with varroa?

How many hives from your total would you dissassemble each year? 

I can't help wondering if your underperforming hives are the hives that weren't split the year before because they were OK that year but now are succumbing to mites so they get split then that split is grown to a full hive which copes well with varroa initially then in year 2 or 3 it becomes an underperforming hive.

And so on and so forth.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

There is more to learn about bees than just not treating them, and breeding from survivors. Which is the only thing you seem to know.

The other stuff is important for treatment free beekeepers also. Take Solomon for example. Last year he found out how to graft and raise queens. It has revolutionised his beekeeping. Prior to that he thought the only thing that mattered was not treating, and for his first 8 years his hives languished and he was always struggling.

Why am I here? Until recently I was running treatment free hives, so I hung out here. I also still hope to be treatment free some day, or at least, less treatment. So I'm here.

Also, cos I'm allowed. If that's a problem for you, too bad.

We don't have to argue. They are mostly started by you, so don't complain.


----------



## Oldtimer

Barry said:


> I'm continually surprised to find more and more hives in my area than I ever expected.


Your comments were interesting and I know you do not believe genetics are that important. So what kind of hives are you surrounded by? Treatment free hobbyists? Or commercials?


----------



## Barry

Neither!  I don't know the details of those hives around me, but I would guess 90% are treated hobby hives. I know firsthand of some hives and I know they are not TF. The only TF hive I know of is the one sitting in my neighbor's yard.  Also, the hives I know about come from western packages as well as new queens yearly.


----------



## Solomon Parker

frazzledfozzle said:


> OK so call me thick but you say you only lose one hive each winter and you don't split and then you tell me that you make up new hives utilising all the brood bees and stores from your not so good hives to me thats splitting.


In beekeeping terms, in relation to MDA Splitter and the classic "walk-away split" methods, it is not a split. There is no original hive from which the split is made, it is gone. What you keep claiming is that I split for varroa control. But this is not happening. What you fail to explain is the 50-60% of hives which do not have a brood break, are not split, and indeed are hardly touched which survive year after year, producing honey.





frazzledfozzle said:


> Why are the hives no good? are they affected by varroa? How many hives do you run in total? if you have been treatment free successfully for so long I would have thought you wouldn't have many hives that couldn't cope with varroa?


Every hive has to cope with varroa, that's how it works. I certainly don't help. Usually, they simply fail to build up acceptably in the spring. For what reason? It doesn't matter, they don't do it, so they're gone.





frazzledfozzle said:


> How many hives from your total would you dissassemble each year?


I would estimate less than 20%.





frazzledfozzle said:


> I can't help wondering if your underperforming hives are the hives that weren't split the year before because they were OK that year but now are succumbing to mites so they get split then that split is grown to a full hive which copes well with varroa initially then in year 2 or 3 it becomes an underperforming hive.


No. In fact, I find that hives that are good producers are good producers year after year. If they are gentle enough I will then graft from them. Actually, I'm finding Tim Ives' observations about queen age to be spot on in relation to the overall arc of the life of a hive.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> What you fail to explain is the 50-60% of hives which do not have a brood break, are not split, and indeed are hardly touched which survive year after year, producing honey.


Perhaps I can explain it. Based on your figures you claim, currently, 32 hives. You claim a record honey production year, something over 300 lbs from 6 hives.

According to my maths, that means 20 percent of you hives made you a honey surplus. A commercial beekeeper could certainly not survive on that kind of production, and it begs the question, what was actually wrong with the 80%


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> I think I have a better understanding of the most important issues, as a result of 30-odd year's study - of the specific issue of how treatments prevent adaptation. _*See my website. Critique it, here.*_


Sounds eminently reasonable to direct us to your website, right? 

But it seems that when the _shoe is on the other foot,_ you don't subscribe to that theory! Here is what you posted earlier, insisting _Oldtimer _provide you an on-the-spot summary of his actions/philosophies:


mike bispham said:


> Great, keep at it. If you can find a moment summarise your understanding of the principles of breeding, and how they mimic natural selection for the fittest strains, and how to apply that understanding to beekeeping, I'll critique it for you.
> 
> (I'm not suggesting that in order to try to trip you up, I'm suggesting it because making the effort to produce a short essay along those lines will help you gain clarity about the things that matter, and will help me and others spot any shortcomings in your understanding. And doing that will help us gain more clarity about our own understanding)


:gh::lpf:



(and so there is no more _misunderstandings _ about quotes being out of context, a reminder that you can always click the blue arrow in the quote box to go to the original post)


----------



## Solomon Parker

At the start of this beekeeping year, I had 22 hives, lost one this spring, lost one this summer before honey as I mentioned a number of times already. That's 20 hives. From 20 I kept 6 for honey, and from the remaining 14, made something like 35 nucs, some hives being broken up completely, some having brood borrowed, some requeened, some just allowed to grow and build comb as I am needing medium drawn frames and plastic frames are not drawn as quickly. After selling nucs, the difference between 20 and 32 is nucs left over, cancelled orders, new hives. Between the ones allowed to grow and the ones kept for honey, 50-60% aren't messed with, requeened, brood breaks, or anything at all.

Sorry I can't give exact numbers in all cases, I don't keep them.

Now I wait until Fall when I decide which hives to eliminate as I only want 25 going into winter. I have too many. I sold a queen yesterday, so that helps, but I still need to sell more or eliminate weaklings. My goal is to not feed at all this winter. I must resist the urge to intervene and feed to keep my losses down.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> and so there is no more _misunderstandings _ about quotes being out of context, a reminder that you can always click the blue arrow in the quote box to go to the original post)


Oh there's a handy thing I never knew that.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Sounds eminently reasonable to direct us to your website, right?


[And so on]
It would be fine if Oldtimer could direct me to a website outlining his experience. I'm just not trawling through endless posts to glean that info. 

[Shoe on the other foot etc...] I don't get it Graham. I supply a website outlining my understanding of the relation between treating and needing to treat, and also provide on request a fullish summary of my methods and progress to date.

Oldtimer supplies me nothing. Zilch. 

Your 'other shoe' doesn't compute.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Honestly Mike, when I'm spoken down to like a piece of trash, and everything I say is treated the same way, what would you expect.

As previously said, if you were genuinely interested I'd be only too happy. Despite all the crap that's gone down, if people get off my case I forget fairly quickly, that's my personality. Some people here I've had major disagreements with in the past are now friends.

But what's been said in your posts, some deleted along with mine, show you are in no way ready for this yet. Take post #484 for example, your references to your "authority", "better understanding", etc, are just part of the general arrogance and superiority that you would have to deal with before I'd feel free to attempt a sensible exchange of knowledge.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Ah well, Mike Bispham...I very well remember you from the biobees-forum. (Especially the fruit- and endless discussions.) Hope your 'treatment free beekeeping' developed well since...


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> As previously said, if you were genuinely interested I'd be only too happy.


I am genuinely interested. But I will find it hard not to express a view as to what went wrong if I think I can spot something. That's nothing personal; just dialogue in the interest of learning. 

I'd also be interested to know what you think went wrong. Again, I might want to pick holes in your view. I might not too. Either way, it won't be anything personal, just talk about a situation that might help any of us in our own situations.

I'm sorry you think I speak down to you. I feel a bit the same. We've both got prickly with each other. I'll try harder.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> I'll try harder.


Well if you can pull it off, as I say, I'm more than happy.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mike, how your hives doing? All theories are nice and sound. But I am interested in your hives and your hands on experience. We discussed your thoughts about four years ago. Did you do any progress since? Pictures? Reports? Anything? Thanks in advance.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Ah well, Mike Bispham...I very well remember you from the biobees-forum. (Especially the fruit- and endless discussions.) Hope your 'treatment free beekeeping' developed well since...


Bernhard, my dear!

Biobees; that'll be the place where sugar sprinkling is just dandy because sugar is a natural substance, yes? Was all a bit fruit- in the end, but it had to be tried. Here people agree with me about sugar! Sanity!

Yes, my t/f beekeeping appears to be going well thanks. 40 hives and falling - its that time of year. Third year of expansion, no treatments, no manipulations, no funny business. How about yourself? Are you a sprinkler, or t/f?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Oh. You got kicked off Biobees? If the main reason you are here is cos you think people agree with your stance on sugar you will be disappointed.



mike bispham said:


> 40 hives and falling - its that time of year. Third year of expansion, no treatments, no manipulations, no funny business.


Last I heard it was around 30 hives and they were mostly collected swarms and cutouts.

Just, careful not to embellish.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Mike, how your hives doing? All theories are nice and sound. But I am interested in your hives and your hands on experience. We discussed your thoughts about four years ago. Did you do any progress since? Pictures? Reports? Anything? Thanks in advance.


Someone asked me this a little way back Bernhard, and I replied here:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...er-losses-vs-Summer-gains&p=977017#post977017

In case that doesn't work, it was post #304

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> Oh. You got kicked off Biobees? If the main reason you are here is cos you think people agree with your stance on sugar you will be disappointed.


I don't think I got kicked off Biobees. I still have the odd private, detailed, and perfectly civil email conversation with the owner, Phil Chandler, from time to time.

I know better than to think everyone here will agree on anything. If I'd been more careful I'd have said _some_ people here agree.....

The 'main reason I'm here' isn't anything to do with sugar. 



Oldtimer said:


> Last I heard it was around 30 hives and they were mostly collected swarms and cutouts.


Maybe you'd better read post 304 too. And take a note of the date, and the time of year, and the oft-stated fact that I'm trying to expand hard....

Has anyone ever accused you of blowing hot and cold?

Mike


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Biobees; that'll be the place where *sugar sprinkling* is just dandy because sugar is a natural substance, yes? Was all a bit fruit- in the end, but it had to be tried. _*Here people agree with me about sugar! *_ Sanity!
> 
> Yes, my t/f beekeeping appears to be going well thanks. 40 hives and falling - its that time of year. Third year of expansion, no treatments, no manipulations, no funny business. How about yourself? _*Are you a sprinkler, or t/f?*_


Apparently you think feeding sugar is _verboten _in a treatment-free apiary. Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to the _Treatment Free_ *forum rules*, as posted by _Solomon_, and obviously approved by _Barry_, feeding sugar is just fine! (As the phrase goes, "_Candy is Dandy_") 



> _The definition of the term treatment also *does not include* feeding items such as:
> Sugar syrup
> Dry granulated sugar
> High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
> Pollen substitutes
> _
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?253066-Unique-Forum-Rules


:ws:

Yes, you are reading this here in the _Treatment Free_ forum! :lpf:


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Disclaimer: Just because I wrote it does not mean it has anything to do with me. It is an agreed upon standard.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Disclaimer: Just because I wrote it does not mean it has anything to do with me. It is an agreed upon standard.


I understand and have no objection to your comment above. However, allow me to point out that your posts in the past have supported feeding sugar, where appropriate.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Rader, that is correct. I do occasionally use sugar. I think I should be able to get away with none this winter, which will set a dangerous precedent for future wimpy hives. More hives shall die and many will complain at me bitterly.

I did get a phone call yesterday about one of the hives that I sold last spring. The owner had split it this year and pulled several gallons of honey already, he said it was doing fantastically.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Maybe you'd better read post 304 too. And take a note of the date, and the time of year, and the oft-stated fact that I'm trying to expand hard....
> 
> Has anyone ever accused you of blowing hot and cold?


Mike why disagree with every last thing I say. I went and looked at post 304 as you asked. In it you claimed 36 hives which confirms what I said "around 30", and you also said they were swarms and cutouts which again confirms what I said "mostly swarms and cutouts".

No need to get so carried away..

I'll add, that you have frequently asserted you are more successful and knowledgeable than me because you have treatment free hives, and mine all died. However in post 304 you state that in 2011 you had 2 hives. Since then you have added more by swarms and cutouts. To me this indicates no greater success at being treatment free than I had, because if had been adding swarms and cutouts to my operation at the same rate as you, I would likely have just as many hives.

Just saying that as a reason you may consider dropping the superior tone you so often take with me, which in turn would be beneficial to constructive dialogue.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I wish to point out that I have no axe to grind regarding feeding sugar. I have fed sugar, but I try not to do it - I'm cheap! This year, I used more sugar in canning blackberries than I fed my hives.

The reason that I made the post above with _Mike Bispham'_s sugar comments and the forum rules is that he was dissing sugar users, and I took exception to that kind of behavior. 

I am not a forum rule enforcer. I am not a moderator. I have no Beesource status other than a title, which grants me _no _privileges.  But I don't mind pointing out the _foibles _of those who make misleading posts.


----------



## Barry

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> But it seems that when the _shoe is on the other foot,_


Beware of the Archiver!!!!


----------



## Barry

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> But I don't mind pointing out the _foibles _of those who make misleading posts.


I'm grateful! Just think how scared we'd all be if I paid you!


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> ..sent 3 into winter in autumn 2011. Two came through, and built up, and I multiplied and added swarms to about 50 last last year. Many were late, many never built - we had one of the wettest summers on record - and I ruthlessly let them die in one of the coldest winters we've seen in a generation, 2012-13. 7 came through, 4 were outstanding. From them, with the help of a handful of swarms, I've raised numbers to 36 - aiming to about double that into winter.


Hi Mike,

I generally agree with some of your thoughts as I did in the past. But telling me you keep 40 hives is a bit fulsome. For me the number of hives I keep is the number I winter successfully and not just one, but several winters. 

I summarize:

2011/2012 3 hives in, 2 hives out. Loss: 34 %
2012/2013 50 hives in, 7 hives out. Loss: 86 %
2013/2014 36 hives in, ???

So you killed (let die) 44 hives already. That is a lot less than I sacrificed the varroa goddess during the last ten years of my treatment (and sugar) free trials. But it pretty much shows the losses everyone seems to have when going treatment free. In the third year and fourth year you will experience a 100 % loss. That is pretty common.

You will restart. It will look very promising again. And again, in the fourth year you will suffer another 100 % loss. 

You do what others did already and is common knowledge. It is pretty unnecessary, I think, to sacrifice all those colonies. I really recommend the Soft Bond Method as described by John Kefuss. It is a lot of work and varroa durability isn't reached in a day or two, but longterm it does the same as the Bond method (let die). Probably a bit faster, because you requeen the hives that needed treatment, thus multiplyingthe genetics that endure varroa better.

No losses during winter, enhancement of the local genetics by multiplying the queens and drones from survivors and reduced treatments is the result. I think it is the happy medium/the golden mean.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Apparently you think feeding sugar is _verboten _in a treatment-free apiary. Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to the _Treatment Free_ *forum rules*, as posted by _Solomon_, and obviously approved by _Barry_, feeding sugar is just fine! (As the phrase goes, "_Candy is Dandy_")


What Bernhard and I were talking about is sugar sprinkling, or 'dusting' against mites. The biobee clan thought this was A Marvellous Thing, and I thought it was A Very Bad Idea. 

Nothing to do with feeding sugar. Kindly back up.

So; is sugar dusting a good thing? If not why not? What do people here think, and why?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

If I asked that here, there'd be trouble.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> So you killed (let die) 44 hives already. That is a lot less than I sacrificed the varroa goddess during the last ten years of my treatment (and sugar) free trials. But it pretty much shows the losses everyone seems to have when going treatment free. In the third year and fourth year you will experience a 100 % loss. That is pretty common. [...]


Hi Bernhard,

There may be factors you are not be taking into account here. Bee/mite co-evolution has been occuring, and matters are better now than before. To add to that; I've been striving to collect swarms and cut-outs from known survivors, and to make increase from them (Joe Waggle's method). I've been free-celling. And I've seen some colonies succumb to varroa while others adjacent thrive. 

All these things counter the history, and add to my optimism. I'll stay the course for now, and we'll see what happens.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> You do what others did already and is common knowledge. It is pretty unnecessary, I think, to sacrifice all those colonies.


I wouldn't characterise what happened as 'sacrificing' (or 'killing', above). Letting nature take its course is right, proper, appropriate. Its inconvenient to me, in the short term, is all. Also, while your summary of my numbers is correct, many of those losses were down to my inexperience with managing a larger apiary. In my eagerness to make increase I stretched my bees too hard, especially making increase too late, weakening most hives. I didn't take adequate measures against robbing, allowed some to stand damp, parked some in poor spots. And as I say, it was a tough winter, and I was deliberately tough on them. So a lot the losses were my fault, and nothing to do with the genetics of the stock.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I really recommend the Soft Bond Method as described by John Kefuss. It is a lot of work and varroa durability isn't reached in a day or two, but longterm it does the same as the Bond method (let die). Probably a bit faster, because you requeen the hives that needed treatment, thus multiplyingthe genetics that endure varroa better. No losses during winter, enhancement of the local genetics by multiplying the queens and drones from survivors and reduced treatments is the result. I think it is the happy medium/the golden mean.


I know this makes a lot of sense, and I've been tempted. If things go badly this winter I will review options. Part of the reason I'm not doing it now is that I'm still developing systems and equipment, and there's no time left over for close attention. Another is that I'm hopeful that my initial genetics put me in a better position than that of previously treating beekeepers. And I'm curious to what can be done with these brave little survivors.

The only thing I'm really sure about is that treatments (alone) make matters impossible. Perhaps I've been blinded by the fight to make that widely understood, and haven't given sufficient consideration to their controlled use within a systematic breeding system.

What is your story at this point? You talk about 'reduced' treatments. Are they really reduced, or have you just got better at delivering them at the right time? How many do you treat, how often?

What is your strategy against ongoing downgrading of genetics from surrounding treaters?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I'm with you Bernhard, what you say is about what happened to me, I ended up losing 100% of my treatment free bees.

What I did, so called hard bond, kind of went against my gut. But it was strongly advocated here so I swallowed my emotions and did it. In the end, it was a waste. 

At this point I'm not sure how to make my next attempt. I have considered the Kefuss method and for my bees / environment, it makes more sense. The other thing and I'm already doing it, is simply to breed from the best. I can already identify hives that have less mite issues than others, so that's one of the selection criterion for breeders. Also I treat, but only with products that will not leave long term residue in the hive.

This may not be the full story though, some TF beekeepers are finding they handle mites regardless of genetics, and in fact there are TF beekeepers using just about any method and theory you could imagine and it works for them.

Could you give a brief run down on what you do and have done?


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> This may not be the full story though, some TF beekeepers are finding they handle mites regardless of genetics,


This is technically and practically impossible. Bees are assemblages of proteins formed from a blueprint, the genes they inherited from their parents. That's it. They work or not depending on whether they have the right genes, same as every other living thing on the planet.

What may be happening is that the genetics are sorting themselves out invisibly (which they start to do as soon as you stop treating - assuming you don't lose them all). The people you speak of may have ferals around - which do the job of selective breeding for you.

There is no 'regardless of genetics.' Genetics is always there, whether you appreciate the fact or not. 

Other than that it sounds like you are on the right track. 

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> This is technically and practically impossible.


Tell that to Michael Bush.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Briefly:

Tried the hard way. I blamed the "industrial" way of keeping bees for all the problems bees have today. Frames, foundations, sugar feeding, numbers of hives per apiary, splitting, breeding - all the stuff beekeepers do.

So what I did is to throw out all frames. Fixed comb is the way to go. I tried a huge variety of containers to keep bees in, mostly Warré hives, skeps and trough hives. (Again: fixed comb. Had frame hives, too, all the time. Just to compare.)

I followed a strict let-die regime. No feeding, no treating. Doing this for ten years, suffered massive losses. And just because I had seperate apiaries and some apiaries where I treated the bees (tried all the different treatments available for comparison) I had bees to restart my treatment free project. Over and over again. Bullheaded as I sometimes can be.

I didn't do any swarm preventions, so multiplied with swarms and also did a lot of cutouts.

Didn't help. Promosing starts, disastrous flops in the end.

I had longterm survivors. Especially in one hive. That hive is 60 years old (just the hive not the bees), a horizontal hive, plastered with a thick propolis layer, filled with fixed comb and a lot of honey. But even that hive collapsed after five years. I still keep the daughter queens, though, trying to keep that line.

So I am Mike just ten years later.

I learned a lot about how much hives can take, about the different stages from suffering first mite damages to a collapse. If you watch it happen over and over again, you can say: hey, now it is too late for a recovery. One good thing I learned. But that's the only good thing about the Bond method. Not good for the bees, certainly. I probably go to hell one day for letting all those colonies suffer and die. For nothing. Definitely not worth to waste a number of hives to it. If you want to do some research and educate yourself, start with less hives. They all collapse the same way.

I stumbled over the Soft Bond Method just when I wanted to give it all up. It works for me. Some years I do have to treat only 10 %. Some years are bad and I have to treat about 90 % of all hives. There is no average. But I have untreated colonies and I multiply from those, that do seem to cope well with varroa. *I requeen all the others that get treated. That is about it.

What I have learned is, that it is not sugar, nor frames, nor moving hives, nor the beekeeper, nor varroa. I can rule that out from my own experiments. Bees do as fine (or not) in a log hive as in a frame hive. With or without sugar. Doesn't matter.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Yes the fallacy with the no sugar theory is it's based on the idea that sugar won't give them enough nutrients. But it falls over because bees actually get nearly all their nutrients from pollen, not pure nectar.

Anyhow a very interesting story Bernhard, you certainly gave it your all, nobody could try harder than that. Any Africanised genetics in the bees where you are?

Scary that you did this for 10 years and it still didn't work out. I did it for 2 years and got wiped out, I've already been around bees enough to see the situation could not be redeemed in that case so let it go and need to try a different plan. I kinda considered doing the whole thing over but as I did everything right, I just feel history will repeat, You saying you did it for 10 years has confirmed to me I don't want to go through it for 10 years I'll definitely have to change the plan.

Other thing, what do you mean by soft bond? Just treat if badly needed? Or what?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Soft Bond by John Kefuss:

http://www.immenfreunde.de/SBT.pdf


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> In the third year and fourth year you will experience a 100 % loss.


Yes, I've also been hearing that for quite some time. I haven't found it to be true as I have been keeping bees treatment-free for ten years without ever having more than a 71% loss in any given year. Perhaps Michael Bush is on the money.




mike bispham said:


> So; is sugar dusting a good thing? If not why not? What do people here think, and why?


Well, the appropriate response in this forum would be no. But let's back that up. http://beeinformed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/powdered-sugar-use.pdf The Bee Informed National survey shows no statistical difference when using sugar dusting.




mike bispham said:


> This is technically and practically impossible.


Michael Bush would say you're mistaken, and he would credit small cell. I'm starting to think he's right. With the Bond Test, small cell is what can tip the balance. I've seen it done without small cell, using bees from Bee Weaver and similar sources, but often the foundationless crew has troubles. And before the arguments crop up, small cell is not "natural," but it is more natural and more normal than the widely available standard cell size. If you can't explain my successes, then perhaps small cell (or GASP!!! Housel Positioning) is really the deciding factor.


----------



## WLC

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I've purchased BeeWeaver packages since I'm convinced that it's far better to start with resistant stock, or better yet, feral colonies, than it is to try and 'Bond' your way to resistant stock.

I've since discovered that there is a small but significant amount of African genetics in BeeWeavers.

I did put PF120's small cell medium frames in my supers. 4.9mm seems to be the natural cell size for Africanized bees. 

To my disappointment, they're building ladder comb between PF120 frames in the mediums (again).

Different stock, same problem.


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



WLC said:


> I did put PF120's small cell medium frames in my supers. 4.9mm seems to be the natural cell size for Africanized bees.
> 
> To my disappointment, they're building ladder comb between PF120 frames in the mediums (again).
> 
> Different stock, same problem.


Part of it is just stupid plastic frames with their thin top bar thickness causes more bridge comb and laddering.

Shaving the end bars down to 1 1/4" spacing and sticking an extra frame in the box helps. I find smaller bees do better with tighter spacing.

Anonymous regards


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



D Semple said:


> Shaving the end bars down to 1 1/4" spacing and sticking an extra frame in the box helps. I find smaller bees do better with tighter spacing.


Have you done this with the Mann Lake frames? I've been doing it and it seems to work fairly well. I do get the occasional perpendicular comb across several frames. I bought a small planer, I can do a frame in about four seconds.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mr. Parker; If it is small cell that makes the difference, how do all of the beekeepers that have bees on 5.2 and larger have bees that survive? There are many Arkansas beekeepers that do not treat or seldom treat that have colonies survive for several years.


----------



## D Semple

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Have you done this with the Mann Lake frames? I've been doing it and it seems to work fairly well. I do get the occasional perpendicular comb across several frames. I bought a small planer, I can do a frame in about four seconds.


Yes, I use a jointer (which I encouraged you to buy for the same purpose if my memory is correct).

Don


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



AR Beekeeper said:


> Mr. Parker; If it is small cell that makes the difference, how do all of the beekeepers that have bees on 5.2 and larger have bees that survive? There are many Arkansas beekeepers that do not treat or seldom treat that have colonies survive for several years.


I know. Yet you say yours don't. How do you explain that? I've seen it go both ways around here. I'm looking for a hypothesis which explains the data.





D Semple said:


> Yes, I use a jointer (which I encouraged you to buy for the same purpose if my memory is correct).


Same thing, I found one on Craig's List.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

My Bond Yard was started in 2006 with 12 colonies on Pierco plastic foundations and standard was foundation and have not been managed in any way. As of last week there are still 6 colonies that are alive. How many of your small cell colonies that have been left completely alone are still alive and how many years have they been that way?


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

All of my colonies are small cells, ~32 as of this writing. I don't know what to do with "left completely alone" as I keep bees like any other normal person. I do not split for mite control. About 50-60% of hives are not interfered with in a given year other than occasional inspections and then honey collection in June. There is little to no inspection done between June and September in this locale.

I can say off hand, at least five hives have not been much messed with in the last two years. I have one hive that has been treatment-free for ten years, never requeened.

So your Bond yard was not small cell? Any splitting at all? Any management?


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I followed a strict let-die regime. No feeding, no treating. Doing this for ten years, suffered massive losses.


Hi Bernhard, 

I'm just going to ask questions in reply, which may seem short, but I'm trying to get directly to te things that seem important.

Can I understand that all this time you were making increase only from your most promising? How did you evaluate for that?



BernhardHeuvel said:


> And just because I had seperate apiaries and some apiaries where I treated the bees (tried all the different treatments available for comparison) I had bees to restart my treatment free project. Over and over again. Bullheaded as I sometimes can be.


So your initial genetics, time and again were treated apiary bees? 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I didn't do any swarm preventions, so multiplied with swarms and also did a lot of cutouts.


So no to the question about multiplying only from your best?



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I had longterm survivors. Especially in one hive. That hive is 60 years old (just the hive not the bees), a horizontal hive, plastered with a thick propolis layer, filled with fixed comb and a lot of honey. But even that hive collapsed after five years. I still keep the daughter queens, though, trying to keep that line.


Do you keep her daughters for drone material? In fact what is your drone policy? How do you defend any good genetics you might have against imregantion by treatment-dependent strains?



BernhardHeuvel said:


> So I am Mike just ten years later. I learned a lot about how much hives can take, about the different stages from suffering first mite damages to a collapse. If you watch it happen over and over again, you can say: hey, now it is too late for a recovery. One good thing I learned. But that's the only good thing about the Bond method.


As I understand it John Kefuss travelled all over to source mite resistant genetics. That is is, to my mind, a critical part of the Bond method.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Not good for the bees, certainly. I probably go to hell one day for letting all those colonies suffer and die. For nothing. Definitely not worth to waste a number of hives to it


If we'd all just let those that can't handle mites die, we'd be back to normal in a few years. Its the maintenance of non resistant bees that is the problem. Its not waste, its natural process.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> . If you want to do some research and educate yourself, start with less hives. They all collapse the same way.


Others report differently - but then perhaps they took strong and urgent steps to source resistant genetics from the beginning, and then got organised to defend those genetics against the lousy drones. Or perhaps they got lucky with isolation and good bee country, resulting in naturally adapted ferals. 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I stumbled over the Soft Bond Method just when I wanted to give it all up. It works for me. Some years I do have to treat only 10 %. Some years are bad and I have to treat about 90 % of all hives. There is no average. But I have untreated colonies and I multiply from those, that do seem to cope well with varroa. *I requeen all the others that get treated. That is about it.


That seems like a reasonable process. But I'd definately work to get in more resistant genetics, and to arrange a well stocked mating yard to try to get the resistance moving in down the drone side as well.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> What I have learned is, that it is not sugar, nor frames, nor moving hives, nor the beekeeper, nor varroa. I can rule that out from my own experiments. Bees do as fine (or not) in a log hive as in a frame hive. With or without sugar. Doesn't matter.


Not varroa? How can you say that? 

The big question on my mind is: how many hives are you working with, and how many treated hives are around you, how close? Unless you can influence the drone side strongly you will tend to constantly backslide. 

The other is: are there longstanding ferals near you? Can you draw on them more?

More and more people are reporting success Bernhard. How do you account for that?

Mike (UK)


----------



## AR Beekeeper

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

No, my bond yard is standard cell foundation,wax and plastic, and have had no feeding, requeening or other manipulations, except for removing a queen or two for breeders. They have just sat in place and I have watched the entrances to see if they have survived winters and drouths. They have produced swarms, some I caught, others I did not. My purpose in making the yard a bond yard was to see how long colonies could survive with no help from beekeepers and how successful they would be in requeening themselves.

This yard is the last registered yard north of Mtn. View and it is bordered by Government lands. The closest registered yard is my home yard and it is 4.5 miles away according to a GPS.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I should have come to visit you when I was in your neck of the woods the other week.

That's an interesting experiment, but I'm a beekeeper, I keep bees. That involves a lot more than just stacks of boxes in the corner of the yard as you know. If I did that, I'd be accused of being a bee haver.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

[MB]This is technically and practically impossible. (remarking on Oldtimer's suggestion that genetcs might be irrelevant)
[Solomon]
Michael Bush would say you're mistaken, and he would credit small cell. 

He may say I have him wrong; but I think he'd agree that genetics are always relevant, that having the right genetics is essential, but would add: that in his experience small cell also makes a positive difference. That's an addition, not a correction.



WLC said:


> I've purchased BeeWeaver packages since I'm convinced that it's far better to start with resistant stock, or better yet, feral colonies, than it is to try and 'Bond' your way to resistant stock.


Its a no brainer. You wouldn't start a labrador breeding business with alsatians. You wouldn't start a pig farm by going round the local pig farms asking them to give you their unwanted runts. 

If you possibly can you start a breeding project with sound initial genetics. Every time. You do your utmost to only allow further sound genetics into your breeding population. 

These are basic breeding principles.

In every field of husbandry the best breeding stock are worth tens or even hundreds of times more than ordinary stock. There is a reason for that.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> That's an addition, not a correction.


Understood.




mike bispham said:


> alsatians


You might clarify for those that don't speak Brit. I know exactly what you mean, I used to listen to Billy Connolly.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Solomon Parker said:


> Yes, I've also been hearing that for quite some time. I haven't found it to be true as I have been keeping bees treatment-free for ten years without ever having more than a 71% loss in any given year. Perhaps Michael Bush is on the money.


The thing people tend to forget about this (and with many things beekeeping), is it is location dependant.

Bernhards experience was true for him, in his location.

Others, who are not familiar with what's what where he is, can postulate why bond didn't work there. But I suspect the reasons postulated are wrong, because there are "successful" tf beekeepers who have done all those "wrong" things, yet succeeded.

What I have noticed, is the relative ease with which even unskilled hobby beekeepers in the US convert their bees to TF, even by using the bond method, and that in other places it does not work, full stop.

Another thing I have noticed, is there is a correlation between countries where tf is easily achieved, and countries that have Africanised genetics. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>In the third year and fourth year you will experience a 100 % loss.

On large cells it did not take that long. Two was sufficient. But on small cell it didn't happen. Not in the third, or the fourth, or the fifth or the sixth or the seventh or the eighth or the ninth or the tenth or the eleventh...

>To my disappointment, they're building ladder comb between PF120 frames in the mediums (again).

On any frame with a thin top bar (plastic or otherwise, small cell or large cell) the bees will connect between the boxes. This is a well known phenomena and has been documented since the late 1800.

Thick top bars:
a quick search of 50 years among the bees turns it up on page 46.

"When attending that same convention that very practical Canadian bee-keeper, J.B. Hall, showed me his thick top-bars, and told me that they prevented the building up of so much burr-comb between the top-bars and the sections. Although I made no immediate practical use of this knowledge, it had no little to do with my using thick top-bars afterwards. i was at that time using the Heddon slat honey-board (Fig. 6) and the use of it with the frames I then had was a boon. It kept the bottoms of the sections clean, but when it was necessary to open the brood-chamber there was found a solid mass of honey between the honey-board and the top bars. It was something of a nuisance, too, to have this extra part in the way, and I am very glad that at the present day it can be dispensed with by having top-bars 1-1/8 inch wide and 7/8 inch thick, with a space of 1/4 inch between top-bar and section. Not that there is an entire absence of burr-combs, but near enough to it so that one can get along much more comfortably than with the slat honey-board. At any rate there is no longer the killing of bees that there was every day the dauby honey-board was replaced."--C.C. Miller, Fifty Years Among the Bees.

"Q. Do you believe that a half-inch thick brood-frame top-bar will tend to prevent the bees building burr-comb on such frames, as well as the three-quarter inch top-bar? Which kind do you use?

A. I do not believe that the one-half inch will prevent burr-
combs quite as well as the three-quarter. Mine are seven-eighths."--C.C. Miller, A Thousand Answers to Beekeeping Questions 

>Mr. Parker; If it is small cell that makes the difference, how do all of the beekeepers that have bees on 5.2 and larger have bees that survive?

In my experience they are still fighting Varroa on 5.4mm. Some of them surviving isn't everything.

>This is technically and practically impossible.
>He may say I have him wrong; but I think he'd agree that genetics are always relevant

Relevant to survival against Varroa? Not in my experience. Relevant to winter survival? Most definitely. Relevant to general health? Most definitely.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

*Oldtimer said :* ..."some TF beekeepers are finding they handle mites regardless of genetics."

*Mike Bispham replied:* "This is technically and practically impossible... There is no 'regardless of genetics.' Genetics is always there, whether you appreciate the fact or not. 

*Adam Foster Collins suggests*:

Sometimes the genetics that tip the scales in favor of colony survival could in fact be the genetics of the mites. It is possible that in some cases, it may be the mite population that is adjusting itself to find a balance with the host on which their lives depend...

Adam


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Michael Bush said:


> [...]
> This is technically and practically impossible.
> >He may say I have him wrong; but I think he'd agree that genetics are always relevant
> 
> Relevant to survival against Varroa? Not in my experience. Relevant to winter survival? Most definitely. Relevant to general health? Most definitely.


It surprises me to hear you say that. Do you have no belief at all in the genetic nature of the 'hygienic' traits of grooming, allogrooming, uncapping, undertaking that (many well qualified folks) talk about? 

Would it be fair to hypothesise that you have bred, or are working with, bees that rely on a small cell mechanism, whereas others' bees rely on different mechanisms to manage varroa? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Adam Foster Collins said:


> *Adam Foster Collins suggests*:
> 
> Sometimes the genetics that tip the scales in favor of colony survival could in fact be the genetics of the mites. It is possible that in some cases, it may be the mite population that is adjusting itself to find a balance with the host on which their lives depend...


One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this: they only detect those mites that have large families. If there are lots of mites in the cells they have a higher chance of being detected. (Having large families is called 'fecundity')

This is 'selection' against large families. And strains of mite that have large families do the most damage - because they can build up explosively. So in effect the bees are 'breeding' less fecund strains of mite, which they can live with. 

That's an elegant solution, and also an example of co-evolution. Those mites that have large families tend to kill their hosts. In protected apiaries that doesn't matter, because they can spread into the next hive, but in more natural settings that tends to end the fecund strains. 

In nature everything is trying to extract as much energy from wherever it can get it, and convert that energy to newborns just as fast as it can. That's the name of the game. Most things specialise one way or another (because that pays off in the energy-extraction-to-newborns-game - there is never another reason). And everything constantly, constantly evolves, to and fro, over and back, as advantages are gained and lost in extraction or defence of energy. Predator and prey consantly evolve (the 'arms race')

That's co-evolution. Its a fact of life, as certain as gravity. Genetics are the mechanism by which things are built. Things with the right sort of blueprints are built to suit the present resources and predators, and to compete well with brothers, sisters, cousins and further relatives, will do better than things built badly. The eternal competition for energy sorts the winners from the losers, and the better suited genes go forward into the next generation.

That's the deal. That's the mechanism of life. Fiddle with it - or don't - at your peril. Its always there.

Successful husbandrymen know this. They may not know much about the detail, but they understand the importance of 'putting best to best'. As John Kefuss says, you don't need to know how an aeroplane works to fly in one. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> The thing people tend to forget about this (and with many things beekeeping), is it is location dependant.
> 
> Bernhards experience was true for him, in his location.


Absolutely so.

The important thing therefore is *to understand what is making the difference!*

Why is one location better suited to another for tf beekeeping? 

Why, in the same location, did one beekeeper succeeed and another fail?

Having some idea of the reasons helps you overcome the difficulties presented by some locations. 

That's why its good to understand the basic setting with the Theory of Living Things. Genetics plus co-evolution is the science of survivability, of flourishing, of population success or failure.

Applying it enables you to predict the likely problems, in any setting, and with any starting stock, and design solutions to overcome them. 



Oldtimer said:


> Others, who are not familiar with what's what where he is, can postulate why bond didn't work there. But I suspect the reasons postulated are wrong, because there are "successful" tf beekeepers who have done all those "wrong" things, yet succeeded.
> 
> What I have noticed, is the relative ease with which even unskilled hobby beekeepers in the US convert their bees to TF, even by using the bond method, and that in other places it does not work, full stop.
> 
> Another thing I have noticed, is there is a correlation between countries where tf is easily achieved, and countries that have Africanised genetics. Draw your own conclusions.


Yes, yes and yes. 

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Pleased you have a basic grasp of that.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Do you have no belief at all in the genetic nature of the 'hygienic' traits


In Germany there are some group actively breeding for varroa 'tolerance'. And believe me, those guys are Germans, which means they are very very nitpicking/bean-counting. They have a smart and scientific system to filter out all the strains that show resistance. 

http://www.toleranzzucht.de/en/home/the-association-of-tolerance-breeding/
http://www.coloss.org/bibliography/buechler_et_al_Apido_10.1051.pdf

They have a huge database with Carnolians, dark bees and so on and where they compare the varroa durability in the breeding lines.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/bienenkunde/ZWS/Startseiten/englisch/Bienenzucht-Start.html

(Not just Germans, there is a lot of work going on an European scale.)

Those breeders do work thoroughly, believe me. And they started those projects two decades ago. Still their success is very limited. 

It is discussed how that come. To me it is obvious, since there are different strains of varrao mites, too. Yes, there is more than one ecotype of varrao. In fact there are different ones and there are virulent ones and less virulent. And they do spread over the world. So it is more about mite breeding than bee breeding. Since the mites are flexible enough and outbreed bees and beekeepers through inbreeding and crossing, there is little chance to solve the mite problems through breeding.

The only way to control a population in biology, is to control birth rate. Birth rate of the varroa mite is somewhat protected, since the mating and reproduction takes place within a protected space, the capped cell. 

Opening capped cells is a behaviour that hardly is fixed in genes but is learned from other bees. To learn this you need smart bees. To get smart bees you need good nutrition and warmth when brooding. See Professor Tautz on temperatures during brooding and their effects on the bees intelligence. 

And you need bees that show other bees how to do it. That is why splitting works well, bees with the behaviour or knowledge get transfered to a new hive. 

You as a beekeeper could show the bees, too, uncap cells with varrao with your hice tool. :0) 

I requeen to keep the strength of the hive up (only a number of bees fulfill a number of hive tasks) and to breed for smarter bees.

In Germany there is a movement that work with removing all the brood combs at the end of the season. The brood goes into a stack/tower of hive bodies (plus one queen, confined to a small area) in a separate apiary. All the brood emerges within weeks and get treated. 

Bees and queens of the original hives go onto fresh comb in a seperate apiary. The mite numbers are low. Bees that emerged in the tower are added to those colonies after the treatment. The good thing about this is, you break the reprodution cycle of the mites plus the bees in the wintering hives had no treatments, so are unstressed by any substances. Especially the queen does not suffer the drawbacks of treatments. (And the microbes within the hive...) Such colonies always come out stronger in Spring than hives that got treated within the hive. 

So yeah, a lot of experience out there. No reason to re-invent anthing again. 

To control mite population you need to control the birth rates. That is tricky, but can be done either mechanically - by removing all the brood from the hives - or behaviourly. You need smart bees for this. Hint: there are no smart bees in hives that are not thriving. 

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this: they only detect those mites that have large families.


Mike do you know this, or is it one of your theories presented as if fact?

That's not the way varroa specific uncapping behaviour works over here, so can you link something authoritative to back your claim?

.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Mike do you know this, or is it one of your theories presented as if fact?
> 
> That's not the way varroa specific uncapping behaviour works over here, so can you link something authoritative to back your claim?
> 
> .


Read through the documents by Marla Spivak from the links page on my website. Google 'uncapping behaviour.'


----------



## Oldtimer

Please provide a link.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> I'm asking you to back your claim. That is your job, not mine.


I've already provided you with the link on at least one occasion, and it stands permanantly in my signature space.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

As I think your original statement is incorrect, I asked for a link to prove it, and if you can provide an authoritive one I'll happily accept.


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer is clearly a good and experienced beekeeper who has provided a wealth of information to this forum about all things beekeeping. It's mid winter down there and up in NYC school hasn't started yet. Obviously a couple of guys with a lot of time on their hands.


----------



## Daniel Y

Oldtimer said:


> You ask me to debate, engage, and critique, then when I do you get your knickers in a twist. See the problem?
> 
> Please provide a link.


Actually you don't. To do so woudl require you did your own homework. It is not resonable to expect someone esle to provide you with a corse in the subject matter in order to converse. The information is easy enough to find. I found and read it with less than 6 months of beekeeping under my belt. it is like Bee genetics 101.

Actually from what I read the detection and the decapping are two seperate gentic traits. Both recessive. I may be mistaken and it is the uncapping and the removal that are seperate. Anyway you have more than one trait and both are recessive. This is what I understand is one of the greatest reasons it is difficult if not impossibel to make it a realiable trait in any breeding prodgram. It is getting dominated by any gene that slips into the breeding stock.

Breediing the best to the best has always been a well known method of stock improvment. But it does not work for bees. Not like it has for other animals. That is due to genetic differences in the bee, primarily in sex determination. In other animals ony two gene X and Y determin sex. in the Honey Bee it is 20 or so and growing. Simply put they have not yet figured out just how many sex genes there are.

One other difference I beleive is pesent with the method of breedign the best to the best. Beekeerps tend to consider any bees other than their own less than best. Even though the practice in other area of agriculture is that one faremr will frequently breed his stock to the stock of another farmer. Best in other animals is far more defined and measurable. Seldom if ever does a single individual own the best cow and the best bull. I never once bred a single boar that I owned to any of my sows. I paid stud fees for the best available boars. And they are not cheap. Maybe we shoudl all have oru queens taking matign flights from the edge of M.B.'s Apiary. Assurance of no brood in those mating nucs though. we would not want to introduce a population of inferior drones.

You will never get anywhere by selecting the best of all queens and then mating her daughters in a free for all amoung mutts. Even with careful painstaking selection and control over both the male and female. breeding is a very slow often fruitless process.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

recessive ?

Here's me thinking all this time it's additive.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Daniel Y said:


> It is not resonable to expect someone esle to provide you with a corse in the subject matter in order to converse.


In internet conversation, it is practically required you provide a link to the material you are talking about if it s available if you want to be taken seriously. It is those who won't follow links or won't provide them who are not taken seriously. But what do I know about the internet, I'm young.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks guys. 

Interesting post Daniel, although not quite what I was talking about. Mike and I were discussing his claim re large mite families. You say I should do my homework on it, I have indeed done my homework on it, it's something I've been looking into for a while now. Which is how I know he is mistaken. 
It's really a storm in a teacup, but since people are commenting but don't know what the debate actually is, what happened was -

Mike said- "One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this:* they only detect those mites that have large families*". (highlighting mine)

I said I think the statement is not correct, I was specifically referring to the part I have highlighted. I asked for evidence to back the statement.

Mike didn't think he needed to supply evidence, I thought he should, argument ensued.



Probably I was foolish to press the matter, but on the other hand I don't think people should give their own (wrong) theories as if fact and refuse to be questioned.

Since it's turned into such a big deal, I'll let it go. But if Mike wishes, and does find anything on it and is able to present in a friendly way, I will still be happy to discuss.


----------



## Daniel Y

Fair enough. here is the page from my Google search for "Uncapping Behavior"
http://www.searchya.com/?q=uncappin...F1F1C1N1V0Q2Y1L1R1J0T1L1H1P&cr=1541620277&ir=

I genuinely offer it in the interest of discussion of the topic. all the other chatter can fall away but the topic is interesting and I believe important to improvement of beekeeping. the more that beekeepers understand the better they can become.

Sorry that I am not able to sort out links more specific to population of mites in relation to uncapping but my daughter will be boarding a plane in a few hours to Oregon. she will be gone a week and got up early to say goodbye.

I know I am aware of the problem with the bees detecting the mites but cannot recall where exactly I read it. In all If VSH ever makes progress it will only be after traversing a very rugged road to get there.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Daniel Y said:


> Fair enough. here is the page from my Google search for "Uncapping Behavior"
> http://www.searchya.com/?q=uncappin...F1F1C1N1V0Q2Y1L1R1J0T1L1H1P&cr=1541620277&ir=


First of all, that's not Google. Secondly, posting the results of a search when the subject is not searches is an insult.


----------



## Oldtimer

By the way Daniel the genes you referred to as recessive, that is not strictly the case. More accurately, this behaviour involves quite a few genes, I have heard as many as 27. However the precise number is not certain it is not yet fully understood.

Bee genetics is a little different in some ways. In regards to VSH behaviours, the genes involved are not recessive in the same way the term is often used in relation to say, humans. It is more that they can be "crowded", or have to appear in certain combinations.

And no I don't have a link for any of that LOL 

It may be taken with a grain of salt if you wish.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Mike and I were discussing his claim re large mite families. You say I should do my homework on it, I have indeed done my homework on it, it's something I've been looking into for a while now. Which is how I know he is mistaken.
> 
> Mike said- "One of the 'hygienic' mechanisms that seems most useful is that of 'uncapping'. Here bees detect mites in the capped cells, uncap and remove them. The more interesting part is this:* they only detect those mites that have large families*". (highlighting mine)
> 
> I said I think the statement is not correct, I was specifically referring to the part I have highlighted. I asked for evidence to back the statement.
> 
> Mike didn't think he needed to supply evidence[


I think what I said was some thing along the lines of, since you can't be civil, find it yourself. Anyway, some links and further reading with insights below. Note the quote from the 3rd link, which I think substantiates my claim.

(Search was: "bees uncapping, hygiene")

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/...7/Apidologie_0044-8435_1998_29_3_ART0007.html

http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/genetic_aspects_queen_production_3.html

http://www.extension.org/pages/30361/varroa-sensitive-hygiene-and-mite-reproduction

"We have observed that VSH bees respond vigorously to highly infested brood (e.g. 15–25 mites per 100 capped cells) that is transferred into the colony (Fig. 4). They uncap and remove many mite-infested pupae quickly. They respond with much less intensity to brood with low infestation rates (1–5 mites per 100 capped cells), probably because the chemical signals that trigger removal are less concentrated and harder to detect."

Now, before anyone starts throwing tantrums, the bit about 'bees effectively breeding less fecund mites' was my own interpretation of what is going on. I don't know if this has occurred to anyone else, but seems obvious to me that given that they are selecting highly reproductive mites for removal and letting less fecund mites go, that will be the effect. If you don't have a breeder-brain maybe its not obvious. Take it or leave it, for sure someone will poke fun at it.

Link on to selecting for VSH here: http://www.extension.org/pages/30984/selecting-for-varroa-sensitive-hygiene

Good overview of US breeding programs, 2010
http://www.altigoo.com/IMG/pdf/Rinderer--Breeding_for_Resistance_to_Varroa_Destructor.pdf

This covers some distinct points:

Host adaptations reduce the reproductive success of Varroa
destructor in two distinct European honey bee populations
Barbara Locke1, Yves Le Conte2, Didier Crauser2 & Ingemar Fries1

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

"In Avignon, France and in Gotland, Sweden, Varroa miteresistant
honey bee colonies reduce the average reproductive
success of their infesting mites by about 30% compared to local
control colonies. Although these resistant populations are
genetically unrelated and separated by over 2000 km, natural
selection has in both cases resulted in the reduce reproductive
success of this parasitic mite.

From an evolutionary perspective, the Varroa mite’s strict
dependence on its host’s biology causing a reduction in host
fitness from parasitic infestation has imposed strong selective
pressures leading to a coevolutionary arms race. In most
cases of coevolution, parasites will have an evolutionary advantage
above their host due to their faster evolution caused
by a shorter generation time (Hafner et al. 1994; Schmid-
Hempel 2010).However, in this particular system, V. destructor
is of clonal origin in Europe with low genetic variation
(Solignac et al. 2005). In addition, the honey bee has 10 times
higher genetic recombination levels than any higher order eukaryote
analyzed thus far (Beye et al. 2006). These aspects
may have provided the honey bee with an evolutionary advantage
in the arms race with V. destructor, an arms race that possibly is in the hosts favor, with mite adaptations limited.
A counter-adaptation could be expected according to coevolution
theory (Thompson 1994; Schmid-Hempel 2010)
but with the lack of genetic diversity among mites this may
take a long time. On the other hand, the adapted resistance in
these two honey bee populations has evolved incredible fast
by natural selection.
Mechanistic explanations of the bees’ ability to suppress
mite reproductive success remain unknown. Both the
Avignon and Gotland populations have experienced similar
selection pressures of natural mite infestation that is unique
compared to most other European honey bee populations
due to apicultural management and both have evolved a similar
colony-level mite-resistant trait. However, these populations
have different life-history traits and different environmental
factors that would also be involved in their adaptive
responses to the mite pressure. The evolved mechanisms behind
the ability to suppress reproductive success of mites
may differ between these two distinct populations. In general,
one may expect different traits to be favored in different
populations living in distinct environments even with similar
natural selection pressures, especially in traits involved
in coevolutionary relationships (Thompson 1999). Although
the two populations have clearly both evolved the ability to
reduce mite reproductive success, the between-population
differences are less clear. Therefore, more detailed investigations
are necessary to identify and tease apart the possible
mechanistic differences.
A suggested mechanism involved in reducing the mite’s
reproductive success could be for example, the adult bee
behavior known as Varroa-sensitive hygiene (VSH), which
involves the uncapping or removal of mite-infested brood
(Harbo and Harris 2005; Ibrahim and Spivak 2006). It has
been shown that bee colonies expressing this behavioral trait
may selectively remove pupae with reproducing mites resulting
in the remaining infested cells having a misrepresented
higher proportion of infertilemites (Harbo and Harris 2005;
Ibrahim and Spivak 2006). This could potentially be a mechanism
of the Avignon population, in light of the observed high
mite infertility rates. Since the Gotland population does not
demonstrate hygienic behavior (Locke and Fries 2011) nor
had significantly high proportions of infertile mites, there is
no reason to suspect that they are expressing VSH. Instead,
the suppression of mite reproductive success in Gotland may
be due to another mechanism, such as pupal volatile compounds
that can inhibit the initiation of egg-laying of mites
(Garrido and Rosenkranz 2003; Milani et al. 2004).
Besides suppressing mite reproduction, both Varroaresistant
European honey bee populations in this study also
share the fact that they have been unmanaged, enabling natural
selection (as opposed to artificial) to shape the evolution
of their mite resistance. This is an important consideration
since it highlights the impact that apicultural practices otherwise have on these host–parasite interactions (Fries and
Camazine 2001), suggesting a human interference in coevolution
between species."



Oldtimer said:


> I will still be happy to discuss.


I'll believe that when I see it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush

> I don't know if this has occurred to anyone else, but seems obvious to me that given that they are selecting highly reproductive mites for removal and letting less fecund mites go, that will be the effect.

I did not originate the idea, by any means, but I've been saying that for more than a decade now...

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#notreatmentupside

" As long as you treat you keep breeding weak bees and super mites. The sooner you stop, the sooner you start breeding mites adapted to their host and bees who can survive with them. "--Michael Bush

http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm

"The only way to have a sustainable system of beekeeping is to stop treating. Treating is a death spiral that is now collapsing. To leverage this, though you really need to raise your own queens from local surviving bees. Only then can you get bees who genetically can survive and parasites that are in tune with their host. As long as we treat we get weaker bees who can only survive if we treat, and stronger parasites who can only survive if they breed fast enough to keep up with our treatments. No stable relationship can develop until we stop treating. "--Michael Bush


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

So how many hives you have been watching collapsing, Michael? Say, in the last decade.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK well thanks for providing a link Mike Bispham, in a friendly way, other than the "if you don't have a breeder brain" put down, it was helpful.

The link in fact proves what I have been trying to get across, that bees do not ONLY uncap large families, as per your original assertion. The reason this matters, is for VSH by uncapping to be effective, it is necessary for the bees to do it early in the lifecycle, before there is a large family that would be released by the uncapping. There may be a number of mechanisms in a number of bee populations around the world, but what has been shown to be happening in the NZ VSH bees that are being developed, is the bees uncap the cell while the mite family is small, in fact before she has laid a female egg, which lets the mother out so it interrupts her breeding attempt, then they re cap the cell, without having to kill the larva.

The reason it is important, if you are into this stuff, to know that bees do not only uncap large mite families, is that if that's all our own VSH ones did, it probably wouldn't work as there would already be a large mite family, and the uncapping would be too late to prevent that.

My understanding, taken from the seminar I went to run by the scientists and breeders involved in the program, is that this is how it works for the VSH population being developed here. There are also other VSH mechanisms in other places and perhaps you are more familiar with those. 

This post, and the post I wrote Daniel, is based on information I got at that seminar and discussions afterwards, it is not from the net. So cannot provide any links, but there is a genuine reason for that. I guess I know my fellow NZ beeks who also attended the seminar will probably read my post, so that knowledge would be an incentive to keep me honest.

So, you may take it as opinion and a grain of salt if you wish.

If you read enough of my past posts you will see I have often been asked to provide supporting links for things, and if I can I have done so, rather than try and avoid it by name calling and abuse, which is pointless.


----------



## JWChesnut

Michael Bush said:


> >
> "The only way to have a sustainable system of beekeeping is to stop treating.


Michael, I've stripped the nuance from your quote, because the opening sentence is what new beekeepers invariably hear. (including some of the most vociferous types on this thread).

I maintain asking backyard beekeepers to sustain the massive, predictable losses that their implementation of this idea invariably results in is wasteful and counterproductive.

I maintain that rationalized and directed selection has been the system with which early modern agriculture has adopted to novel parasites. Directed selection requires 1) indentification of desirable traits, 2) amplification of these traits, 3) and backcrosses to mix with other selected traits.

For bees (like most other out-crossing species), isolation and saturation are essential to creating local races. 

There is enormous inertia in species, they revert to type in unbounded outcrossing populations. Moving the whole genome en bloc and en mass is enormously difficult and wasteful. We can also anticipate (viz. AHB) that local racial adaptation fixes very undesirable traits.

If small beekeepers want to participate in genetic selection, they should confederate as part of a larger program. Not all apiaries are situated to benefit from wildings-type out-crossing. The prescription to "not treat to get to not treating" is inappropriate for these apiaries.


----------



## jim lyon

BernhardHeuvel said:


> So how many hives you have been watching collapsing, Michael? Say, in the last decade.


Mike will correct me if I am wrong but I believe he states that he lost all of his bees when he was treating and (possibly) once since which he attributes to being away from the country for most of a year. Pretty sure he has said that he repopulated with packages. I asked once if they were from a tf producer and never got a reply.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> The reason it is important, if you are into this stuff, to know that bees do not only uncap large mite families, is that if that's all our own VSH ones did, it probably wouldn't work as there would already be a large mite family, and the uncapping would be too late to prevent that.


Not if the infant mites are too young to survive outside the cell. 



Oldtimer said:


> My understanding, taken from the seminar I went to run by the scientists and breeders involved in the program, is that this is how it works for the VSH population being developed here. There are also other VSH mechanisms in other places and perhaps you are more familiar with those.


There seems to be a consensus that there are a range of mechanisms, often requiring several genes, and that just a few patrilines with those genes is often sufficient. Varroa resistance comes from a collection of behaviours, perhaps unique to each colony. Nobody knows the whole story. 

I don't bother keeping up to speed with all this, for the reason John Kefuss gives: you don't need to know. Let the bees/natural selection figure out how to handle mites. With that said I may work up a freeze-brood testing set next year and give it a go. It might speed things along. But while I'm interested I'm not going to get into a close discussion of the mechanisms. I have better calls on my time. The bees can breed the mites they want; I'll breed the bees I want.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Opening capped cells is a behaviour that hardly is fixed in genes but is learned from other bees. To learn this you need smart bees. To get smart bees you need good nutrition and warmth when brooding. See Professor Tautz on temperatures during brooding and their effects on the bees intelligence.


Can you supply a link to a scientific source that verifies this? 

I seem to recall bees teaching each other how to deal with mites was an article of faith at Biobees, but was never substantiated. I recall the logic: Bees teach each other where food can be found, therefore: Bees must be able to learn:, therefore: bees can teach each other to to manage mites. This process was kicked of by sugar dusting, whereupon bees would learn how to groom mites from each other as they cleaned sugar from each other, and teach each other, thus reducing the need for sugar dusting. Fab theory. 

Lets note: contrary to your assertion, there *is* plenty of scientific evidence showing that uncapping is governed by genes.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> And you need bees that show other bees how to do it. That is why splitting works well, bees with the behaviour or knowledge get transfered to a new hive.


Splitting works by making brood breaks. Systematic brood breaks are an effective treatment. Effective treatments prevent adaptation. And round you go again.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> In Germany there is a movement that work with removing all the brood combs at the end of the season. The brood goes into a stack/tower of hive bodies (plus one queen, confined to a small area) in a separate apiary. All the brood emerges within weeks and get treated.
> Bees and queens of the original hives go onto fresh comb in a seperate apiary. The mite numbers are low. Bees that emerged in the tower are added to those colonies after the treatment. The good thing about this is, you break the reprodution cycle of the mites plus the bees in the wintering hives had no treatments, so are unstressed by any substances.


What has that to do with non-treatment beekeeping?



BernhardHeuvel said:


> To control mite population you need to control the birth rates. That is tricky, but can be done either mechanically - by removing all the brood from the hives - or behaviourly. You need smart bees for this. Hint: there are no smart bees in hives that are not thriving.


That's why you cull/requeen them/source resistant genetics in the first place/defend those genetics by apiary positioning and dedicated drone production hives. 

I can't help noticing Bernhard that you haven't responded to my questions asking about the original genetics of your non-treatment efforts, or about drone control. 

For anyone wondering about Bernhards real intentions here, it might be worth noting he's been joining in the general denunciation effort by prompting Frazzlefrozzle and Oldtimer to belittle me on other threads. A veneer of reason here, playground bullying tactics out of sight. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Actually Mike I dont think I've belittled you at all, that really is the pot calling the kettle black

I guess I just can't stand the way you talk down to people. 
You have a very condescending and arrogant way of posting. Especially considering you have been beekeeping with mites for what... 2 years at most?

Sorry to make it personal but geez you wind me up


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> You have a very condescending and arrogant way of posting. Especially considering you have been beekeeping with mites for what... 2 years at most?


25 years was I think the recent guestimate. On and off, yes. But more or less continuous study, thousands - yes thousands - of hours of it, getting a tight grip on my topic. 

There's a big cultural gap between popular and academic modes of discussion. 

And people who gang up to belittle a person rather than fight on grounds of reason have been a pet hate of mine for a long long time. I respond to bullies by doing my best to make them look silly.



frazzledfozzle said:


> Sorry to make it personal but geez you wind me up


Try to focus on the content, not its form. Its a big world and not everybody works the same way as you. However: attacking the arguments effectively gains you respect everywhere; attacking the man is universally contemptable. Playground bullying tactics from adults are beneath contempt. Everywhere.

What most of us are here for is earnest and honest dialogue leading to the acquisition of genuine knowledge. We can spot less than e & h dialogue a mile off, and we despise it because it gets in the way of our aims and goals. It couldn't be more anti-social. You can have good conversation, constructive dialogue and fun at the same time. But you have to play cricket, as we Brits say.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> For anyone wondering about Bernhards real intentions here,...


For anyone wondering about my intentions, my real intentions: ask me. Simple as that.

Wait - I answer that right here. I am sick of people preaching treatment-free beekeeping by the HITS method either without beekeeping background (sorry but pulling a couple of hives through winter is no beekeeping) or without highlighting the losses, the suffering and the nonsense that comes with going treatment free full stop. 

I rather like a systematic and practical approach and I do not like theoretical and philosopical talk. 

I joined the discussion to stop people like you. Stop them to prevent the people running into losses and more losses. You think it is all natural, but in fact it is just poor beekeeping. I have been through that, believe me, and I cannot recommend anyone to do what I have done. Above all because it is completely unnecessary. With the Soft Bond Method you can get the very same results. 

If you want to kill 43 of 50 hives each winter, that is your thing. But do not invite beginners and others to do the same. Come back when you have been successfully established a local solution for you.

So many hives I killed and others did that, too. It's enough! I feel ashamed about what I have done. Ashamed enough to face and counter your wordy posts. Written without practical experience.

Again I recommend the Soft Bond Test. It achieves the same but without all the killing. It doesn't waste bee lifes. Which is completely unnecessary and completely unnatural. 

It's my history that makes me write here. You as a person or your writings do not matter to me. That is not meant as an insult, I just want to clarify, that my intention is clear: prevent others from doing stupid things. 

I am all for treatment free. But be smart, do it smart. Don't let the bees suffer from your bad beekeeping. 

End of post. End of conversation.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I'm sorry Mike but I can't believe what you just posted ! 

Are you for real or just trying to get a reaction???


----------



## frazzledfozzle

You posted here that you quit bees when varroa arrived on your shores and had taken it up again a couple of years ago.

My question was how long have you been keeping bees with varroa not how long have you been keeping bees.


Without going back through my posts to you I don't thinkI've been "playing the man" I think I've asked questions and queried your replys but I've never talked down to you the way you talk down to everyone who has a different point of view than yours.

I thought Solomon was hard enough to get my head round be he has nothing on you. 

I don't know where you are coming from or what your motivations are but I will be really interested to see where you are in 2 years on your TF journey.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Bernhardheuvel :applause:


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Not *if* the infant mites are too young to survive outside the cell.


Emphasis if.



mike bispham said:


> There seems to be a consensus that there are a range of mechanisms, often requiring several genes


The most authoritive literature I've seen has always talked about multiple genes, and I have not seen anything authoritive saying just one gene.



mike bispham said:


> and that just a few patrilines with those genes is often sufficient.


That's not what our NZ scientists have found. However for other places, and other bees, maybe you are correct, our scientists have only worked with our bees. Do you have a link supporting your view? No worries if you don't though.



mike bispham said:


> I don't bother keeping up to speed with all this, for the reason John Kefuss gives: you don't need to know.


If you lose 100% of your bees, you might want to know. For you, it is too soon in your journey to know if you will have long term survivors.



mike bispham said:


> With that said I may work up a freeze-brood testing set next year and give it a go. It might speed things along.


Feeze brood test is just for general hygiene. If you really want to work something up, you'd be better to test for varroa specific hygiene. I can describe the method our scientists are using if you wish.

Just for interest, our breeding program has now produced a bee that can defeat varroa, through the VSH mechanisms I've described. But they have not yet been able to fix the trait, ie, the offspring are variable. It is considered this is because of the large numbers of genes involved and the need for them all to show up in the right combination. However, the project is still ongoing.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> For anyone wondering about my intentions, my real intentions [...]
> 
> I joined the discussion to stop people like you.


Well now isn't it good to have that out in the open! 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> So many hives I killed and others did that, too. It's enough! I feel ashamed about what I have done.


There's no need for any sort of shame or regret. You did what you thought was right, after lenghty consideration. Those bees would have died anyway.

Nature is immensely wasteful and cruel Bernhard, and it isn't our place to interefere. For the very good reason that by interfering we may improve things in the short term, but will make them worse still in the long term. The continuing agony of bees is only prolonged by treatments. In that, long term view, it is treatments that are cruel.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Again I recommend the Soft Bond Test. It achieves the same but without all the killing. It doesn't waste bee lifes. Which is completely unnecessary and completely unnatural.


Try to get straight on what 'natural' means. Use a dictionary. It means: that which occurs without the hand of man. Check that, think about it, then return to your statement above. You are thinking yourself round in circles, accumulating guilt on each turn, because you misunderstand the meaning of 'Nature'. Its a common enough error.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I am all for treatment free. But be smart, do it smart.


What do you think I am trying to do? I've spent an immense amount of time unpicking the mechanisms at work, and talking about them, because I think 'smart' is my way. 

The only way to discover whose 'smart' is right is to talk about our beliefs honestly, openly, earnestly, and, in my view, to base our understanding on empirical science. that means proper references, and sound logic. 

It doesn't mean ad hominem, playground bullying tactics, hidden agendas. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

frazzledfozzle said:


> Bernhardheuvel :applause:


We can read that: 'The objective of my posts is to stop people (like Mike Bispham) from discussing or promulgating non-treatment methods'.

That's been pretty obvious for some time. And your methods are pretty despicable. 

Mike


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Mike, we wait another four years and see then how far you have come. At least you have some bees now. Now that is a start to work from. Good luck.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Mike, we wait another four years and see then how far you have come. At least you have some bees now. Now that is a start to work from. Good luck.


And as we watch things unfold we are free to discuss, openly, honestly, earnestly, our beliefs about the mechanisms that govern bee health? No more hidden agendas? No more evasiveness? No more playground tactics? Is that your proposition?

Mike?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> We can read that: 'The objective of my posts is to stop people (like Mike Bispham) from discussing or promulgating non-treatment methods'


There was a never a doubt about it. It is you that cause problems, not treatment free beekeeping. 

You simply are not in the position to discuss anything about treatment free. Because to discuss the matter first you need knowledge. Knowledge is information + experience. You have a lot of information, fine. But you do not understand what we have been telling you, because you lack knowledge. You cannot connect the dots. 

That is why anyone possibly could discuss the matter with you. You can't possibly understand, even if you read another ton of information. 

So that is your turn now: become experienced. 

As long as you are not experienced, there is no discussion possible. Would you discuss rocket science with a rocket engineer as a layman? Would you try to explain him, how to build rockets? Would you seriously expect him discussing with you?

That is the reason why you should trust at least a little those people, who have done it.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



mike bispham said:


> Try to get straight on what 'natural' means. Use a dictionary. It means: that which occurs without the hand of man. Check that, think about it, then return to your statement above. You are thinking yourself round in circles, accumulating guilt on each turn, because you misunderstand the meaning of 'Nature'. Its a common enough error.


Mike, not wanting to get into another debacle like yesterday, but just going to express my view on that statement. You say nature is that which occurs without the hand of man. I'll just remind you that without the hand of man, our bees would not have varroa mites. We did it to EHB something around 100 years ago, after they'd lived eons without varroa mites. So by your dictionary definition, Bernard is correct.

For that reason I've always regarded varroa as unnatural to EHB. It's semantics I know, but if you want to argue semantics with Bernhard over it, going by what the dictionary says, he is correct, as you have (unwittingly) pointed out.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

I'm with Bernhard It's all very well to read and study but you wont be taken seriously until you actually keep bees treatment free for a few years.
It's ridiculous for you to keep spouting forth about stuff you have read but havn't actually tried much less acheived.

As much as Solomon winds me up at least he's actually doing the beekeeping. 

No one can take anyone seriously when they post about their success with treatment free beekeeping methods after less than 2 years !

And you need to stop with poor me I'm being picked on nonsense. Anyone that can read will have read your posts and will know whats been said by who.

As I've said before come back and give me advice when you have kept bees treatment free for a couple more years and I will pay attention but right now you are just a bag of wind.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

> You have a very condescending and arrogant way of posting. Especially considering you have been beekeeping with mites for what... 2 years at most?




mike bispham said:


> 25 years was I think the recent guestimate. On and off, yes. But more or less continuous study, thousands - yes thousands - of hours of it, getting a tight grip on my topic.


It seems rather odd that you need to guess, what you posted earlier was quite clear!



mike bispham said:


> I made arrangement to locate swarms and cut-outs, and *sent 3 into winter in autumn 2011. *Two came through, and built up, and I multiplied and added swarms to about 50 last last year.


By most calendars, that is about 2 years! :scratch:

From the same rather lengthy post:


mike bispham said:


> So its early days. I'm not yet in a position to say I've succeded, but I can say I'm trying, and that things are currently looking very good.


And finally:


mike bispham said:


> I respond to bullies by doing my best to make them look silly.


In my view, this tactic is backfiring on you!  :lpf:

:ws:



(click any of the blue arrows in the quote boxes to go to the original post|)


----------



## frazzledfozzle

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Rader Sidetrack Thats very cool how you can get those different quotes in their own boxs and even have little blue arrows pointing to the original post.

Thanks for doing the multiple quote thingy I dont know how to do that and it has made what I've tried to say more understandable in the scheme of things 

cheers


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



frazzledfozzle said:


> Thanks for doing the multiple quote thingy I dont know how to do that and it has made what I've tried to say more understandable in the scheme of things


Quick tutorial: What you want to click the "reply with quote" button or the "("+)" button and then "Reply to thread." It will give you the quote inside what are called tags, they have brackets around the word "QUOTE=frazzledfozzle;986471" and "/QUOTE". I can't actually put the brackets in or it would turn it into a quote.

To make multiple quotes, simply separate out the lines you would like to respond to, and put the "QUOTE=frazzledfozzle;986471" tag in front, including brackets and the "/QUOTE" tag at the end. Those are forum speak for open quote and close quote. By changing the phrase after the = sign, you can quote from somewhere else.



Thomas Jefferson said:


> The trouble with internet quotes is you never know if they're legitimate.


But it must have the brackets for the forum to read it right. 

[/quote] And there must be an open quote and close quote tag in the right order or it won't work. For instance, this is quoted backwards.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

> they have brackets around the word "QUOTE=frazzledfozzle;986471" and "/QUOTE". I can't actually put the brackets in or it would turn it into a quote.

Using the above example, here is what it should look like with brackets in your _Compose Reply_ window:

[QUOTE="frazzledfozzle, post: 986471, member: 75270"] quoted words here[/QUOTE]

Once posted, it would look like this:



frazzledfozzle said:


> quoted words here




A key concept is that brackets [] must always be balanced. There must be a closing bracket "]" for every opening bracket "[". If the brackets are _not _balanced, part of the BBCode itself will be displayed and quotes won't be in that nice box with the clickable link.

The above example with displayed BBCodes was accomplished with the use of the BBCode tag "NOPARSE". More on that and all BBCode is available in the BBCode link at the very bottom of every thread page.


----------



## Solomon Parker

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

Thanks Graham.


----------



## Michael Bush

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*

>>"The only way to have a sustainable system of beekeeping is to stop treating.

>Michael, I've stripped the nuance from your quote, because the opening sentence is what new beekeepers invariably hear. (including some of the most vociferous types on this thread).

I have no problem with that distillation in general.

>I maintain asking backyard beekeepers to sustain the massive, predictable losses that their implementation of this idea invariably results in is wasteful and counterproductive.

I am not asking them to sustain "massive predictable losses". Nor am I advising them to. I had no "massive predictable losses" when not treating once I had natural comb. I had "massive" losses both when treating and not treating on large cell comb.

The feral bees have already taken any genetic losses necessary and they are the genetic population I would expect a backyard beekeeper to leverage by raising their own queens and not treating.

>I maintain that rationalized and directed selection has been the system with which early modern agriculture has adopted to novel parasites. Directed selection requires 1) indentification of desirable traits, 2) amplification of these traits, 3) and backcrosses to mix with other selected traits.

That method is a system that requires constant and continuous control over both sides of the genetic equation, something that is impractical with bees in the large picture.

>For bees (like most other out-crossing species), isolation and saturation are essential to creating local races.

But the local feral bees are already saturating your gene pool...

>There is enormous inertia in species, they revert to type in unbounded outcrossing populations.

Exactly. That's why all of these complex, energy intensive breeding systems for particular traits will fail in the long run.

> Moving the whole genome en bloc and en mass is enormously difficult and wasteful.

Ah, but nature has already done it for us.

> We can also anticipate (viz. AHB) that local racial adaptation fixes very undesirable traits.

Which you can breed back out as we beekeepers have been doing for thousands of years. But I have not had an issue with that. People I know of in AHB areas only occasionally have a hive too hot to work.

>If small beekeepers want to participate in genetic selection, they should confederate as part of a larger program.

The "larger program" is already being done by nature but could certainly benefit greatly if people would stop bringing in outside stock that is genetically incapable of surviving on its own. The best way to participate is to stop weakening the gene pool with bees from different climates that can't survive on their own.

>Mike will correct me if I am wrong but I believe he states that he lost all of his bees when he was treating and (possibly)

I lost all of them to Varroa when treating on large cell, yes. I lost all of them to Varroa when not treating on large cell, yes. I now have winter losses, but no more losses to Varroa since regressing to natural comb.

> once since which he attributes to being away from the country for most of a year. 

Actually I was gone 3 years/winters and with them swarming to the trees and winter losses and no management whatsoever, there were still about 30% of them doing great.

>Pretty sure he has said that he repopulated with packages.

Unfortunately, yes.

>I asked once if they were from a tf producer and never got a reply. 

I don't remember seeing the question, sorry. I had no source of TF bees. My intention had been to requeen them all with my own queens. My schedule prevented that. Most of those put away huge amounts of honey and didn't make it through the winter. The ones that were my local stock did.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> You simply are not in the position to discuss anything about treatment free. Because to discuss the matter first you need knowledge. Knowledge is information + experience.


Your premise is nonsense. All sorts of knowledge is gained from sources other than direct experience. 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> You have a lot of information, fine. But you do not understand what we have been telling you, because you lack knowledge. You cannot connect the dots.


That's your opinion. Or it could be. Since by your own admission your purpose here is to prevent me expressing any views, and you seem quite willing to disparage anything I say without regard to its content, it would be illogical of us to take anything you say about me at face value, even as representative of your own opinion. 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> That is why anyone possibly could discuss the matter with you. You can't possibly understand, even if you read another ton of information.


I have discussed the matter with hundreds of people, including scientists directly involved in the effort to raise resistance and people who have been successful (unlike you). Over a considerable period of time. 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> That is the reason why you should trust at least a little those people, who have done it.


I do. As I say, that doesn't include you. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Ask Questions Here!*



Oldtimer said:


> For that reason I've always regarded varroa as unnatural to EHB. It's semantics I know, but if you want to argue semantics with Bernhard over it, going by what the dictionary says, he is correct, as you have (unwittingly) pointed out.


I see what you mean, but I don't think it unsettles what I said. We may have started the problem (so the problem is unnatural in origin) but new predators/pests/diseases are also a very regular part of Nature, and Nature has a method for dealing with them. In this case, we know, if we leave her to it, she does it. 

What I said about interference and cruelty at this stage remains true. The short term remedy of treatments is 'kind' - in the short term - but cruel in the longer term. The sum of suffering is greater. I stand by the countryman's adage: 'never help a wild animal', and am willing to defend the proposition that we must, for these purposes at least, regard the honeybee as a wild animal (because it mates openly).

To clarify a point probably lost in the general melee: I'm not against anyone treating as part of a systematic attempt to raise resistance without losing stock. I haven't chosen to try that way, but I'm fine with bernHard going the Soft Bond route, and I might take elements of it myself. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

JWChesnut said:


> If small beekeepers want to participate in genetic selection, they should confederate as part of a larger program. Not all apiaries are situated to benefit from wildings-type out-crossing. The prescription to "not treat to get to not treating" is inappropriate for these apiaries.


I agree with this, up to a point. The difficulty is knowing when you can successfully balance sound initial genetics and numbers against the undesirable features of the local population. I've taken a gamble that I'll be able to do it - though I was hopeful of a much better crop of good feral swarms and cut-outs this year than I got.

Knowing what the critical factors are is the first stage: estimating the pros and cons of initial (and present) stock against the likely drone input the second.

But it seems to me that a strategy of fast and hard increase from well assayed stock, and an effort to raise drone numbers (again from best stock) is a positive in all circumstances.

Mike


----------



## squarepeg

oops


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Hi Mike,

what a "successful" treatment free beekeeper is, has been discussed before. And the discussion showed, that it is not easy to define.

Personally I don't think an apiary with untreated hives which "has bees", is successful. Because if you replace losses year after year with swarms, cutouts, splits and packages - that is not sustainable and never enhances the local stock.

The oldtimers here say, if you loose more than 3 % of your hives during winter, you do a poor job as a beekeeper. That was pre-varroa, though. Today up to 10 % loss every winter is considered normal. Most beekeepers here have much less losses each year. 0-5 %.

Also a bunch of hives that are in a poor state, fleshless, starving and generally weak, can't be seriously called a success. See the other thread thriving vs. treatment free. If I look into nature I see strong creatures with a good health. What have been showed me by some treatment free beekeepers was far away from it. I see the videos an Dee's hives and they do seem to be fairly strong. But where are the videos of your hives? And I would also be interested in videos and pictures of Michael Bush's hives. Just to get a feeling how hives do in other treatment free projects.

I also asked Michael, how many hives in total were killed in his project so far, excuse: let die.  It would be nice to get an answer.

It also would be good to compare the number of hives available and those habitated. If you have 1,000 hives and just about 200 are habitated each year, that won't be a success in my eyes. Far from it.

I want people going treatment free successfully, meaning: do the transition more slowly. Take more time. Have much less or zero losses. Have strong and healthy colonies. In my experience the sturdiest colonies are very strong colonies.

From what I distilled from successful full-stop treatment free beekeepers, is, that they usually start with a high number of hives. Minimum 100, mostly 500-1,000 colonies. This is another start going treatment free, because the probability that there is a colony that adapts, is much higher than starting with one or two hives. Numbers do matter. Also most of them are experienced beekeepers, very experienced beekeepers. Bees don't die from beekeeper faults in their hands.

Bottom line. For beginners with a couple of hives it is more difficult if not impossible to go treatment free from now to tomorrow. Full stop. It is advisable for them to use slow approach. No haste, take your time. Beekeeping itself is difficult, learn bees first. Than go treatment free, slowly. It may need 50-100 years to get there, so there is no reason to run.

It would be good, if the big names in the treatment free world also would advise beginners to take the slow route. Full stop is not the only way, it is one way. And there are prerequisites to it: experience in beekeeping, high number of hives.

Not every beekeeper wants to keep 100 and more hives. But those beekeepers could found a local treatment free beekeeping association. 5 beekeepers with 10 hives, properly cared for, make 100 hives, too. Also (practical) experience is gained much better through local sharing.


----------



## frazzledfozzle

Thanks for the pointers regarding the multiple quotes Solomon and Radar .

I will get some practice and try to see if I can get it to work


----------



## Solomon Parker

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I want people going treatment free successfully, meaning: do the transition more slowly. Take more time. Have much less or zero losses. Have strong and healthy colonies.
> 
> ...It is advisable for them to use slow approach.
> 
> No haste, take your time.
> 
> Than go treatment free, slowly. It may need 50-100 years to get there, so there is no reason to run.
> 
> It would be good, if the big names in the treatment free world also would advise beginners to take the slow route.


I keep asking, who has gone the slow route and succeeded?





BernhardHeuvel said:


> Minimum 100, mostly 500-1,000 colonies. This is another start going treatment free, because the probability that there is a colony that adapts, is much higher than starting with one or two hives. Numbers do matter. Also most of them are experienced beekeepers, very experienced beekeepers. Bees don't die from beekeeper faults in their hands.
> 
> And there are prerequisites to it: experience in beekeeping, high number of hives.


Again I ask, who are you talking about?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

A good example for a 'successful' slow approach is Eric Österlund from Sweden. He has to treat about 70 % of his hives, but about 30 % are continiously untreated. From those he breeds. I met him personally last year on a small cell conference in Germany. Where I got the numbers above from.

Dee Lusby may be a good example for a beekeeper starting with a big number of hives. I also have followed a presentation of another commercial beekeeper with 2,500 hives going treatment free. I see, if I can find the reference for you.


----------



## Solomon Parker

BernhardHeuvel said:


> He has to treat about 70 % of his hives...


And this is your definition of "success?"


----------



## Oldtimer

Beeweaver used to treat, then scaled it back, finishing all treatments in it think, 2008


----------



## Michael Bush

>I also asked Michael, how many hives in total were killed in his project so far, excuse: let die. It would be nice to get an answer.

How many died because they were not treated, once I was on natural cell and small cell? As far as I'm concerned, none. None died from Varroa. None died from brood diseases. Have any died over winter? Of course. And all were examined for evidence of mites and brood diseases of which there were none.


----------



## zhiv9

Solomon Parker said:


> Again I ask, who are you talking about?


I think Beeweaver, Kirk Webster and John Kefuss would be other examples.


----------



## zhiv9

Solomon Parker said:


> I keep asking, who has gone the slow route and succeeded?


I don't know of anyone. I think the slow method, while having theoretically less risk, is much more difficult than the straight Bond test. If the intent is to force the bees to evolve, you need to provide selective pressure. How much selective pressure is enough?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Solomon Parker said:


> And this is your definition of "success?"


Yes, because he is making progress. I look at the 30 % untreated. (Bottle half full/half empty...)

So what is your definition of success?


----------



## Daniel Y

zhiv9 said:


> How much selective pressure is enough?


This is a topic that I would like to see serious discussion about. it is one I do not think one bee breeder much less beekeeper actually has a grip on. I know for a fact that selection pressure in other cases. That result in something more like mutation type results. are on the scale of 1 in thousands. that means for every several thousand individuals produced. only one is selected. and that process for selection requires days just to examine for desirable traits.

But we are talking about promoting natural methods. so what would be natural selection or more accurately survival rates? I see a lot of comments about the high losses of treatment free beekeepers. High compared to what? Traditional beekeepers? I don't see that. I also see traditional beekeepers reporting complete losses. Natural losses? Who even knows what they might be? Can we find out or at least make an informed guesstimate? I suspect natural survival is extremely low. It is critical to how natural selection allows those individual with the ability to resist to move to the forefront. it not only gives them advantage. it clears out the clutter and gives them room to expand at a tremendous rate. It is a feast and famine sort of situation. Every failed colony makes a place for the resistant colony to take up residence. SO nature not only favors the strong it actively destroys the weak. I believe that it is the destruction that is far more important than the advantage. This would tend to favor the hard core bond method. kill em quick so there is room for the indestructible. I don't think many beekeepers would tolerate such methods.


----------



## Solomon Parker

BernhardHeuvel said:


> So what is your definition of success?


It seems to me it would be obvious, 0% treated, like I have been doing for ten years.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Michael Bush said:


> And all were examined for evidence of mites and brood diseases of which there were none.


Ok. Not a single loss from varroa/diseaes then. How many died through the last ten years in total? (Not from varroa.) It also would be nice to get an average percentage of colony losses each year. Just to compare. Thank you.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Solomon Parker said:


> It seems to me it would be obvious, 0% treated, like I have been doing for ten years.


I did the same with some survival apiaries, too. Ten years. All natural: honey, no sugar, fixed comb - no frames. No swarm preventions, no splitting, no harvesting - nothing. Would be interested in your overall losses, too, during that decade. Thanks.


----------



## Solomon Parker

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I did the same with some survival apiaries, too. Ten years. All natural: honey, no sugar, fixed comb - no frames. No swarm preventions, no splitting, no harvesting - nothing.


That doesn't sound like beekeeping.




BernhardHeuvel said:


> Would be interested in your overall losses, too, during that decade.


Freely available on this website, my website, and my blog. The last two winters I have lost a single colony, 1/23 and 1/11. The most I've ever lost in a single year was 5/7 the winter of 2009, their first exposure to +/- 0 degree temps. My first batch of 20 was reduced to 5 in 5 years, average loss of 3/yr with no splitting, 2003-2008. I have always been fully open and honest with raw numbers.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Thanks. So about 22 hives in total, right.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Ok. Not a single loss from varroa/diseaes then. How many died through the last ten years in total? (Not from varroa.) It also would be nice to get an average percentage of colony losses each year.

I did not keep a specific tally. An apiary is a kind of super-superorganism. Splits make up losses (which would otherwise be swarms). Most of my losses were during the time I was not here to manage them at all and in a winter where it was -27 F (-33 C) every night for several weeks. 

Winter losses are all over the place. Fall flows play into it as it gives you young bees. Sometimes there is no fall flow. When I'm here, if that happens, I give them some pollen and maybe feed syrup. We also get winters that vary greatly. Some winters are -27 F (-33 C) every night for several weeks. Some never get much below 0 F (-18 C). On rare occasions there is not a flying day from October to April. Usually there is some flying days somewhere in the middle of winter. So some winters losses run maybe 5-10%. Some winters more like 30%. I consider 10% typical with a typical winter. I have seen the first killing frost as early as September and as late as Christmas. The last killing frost could be as early as April or as late as May. This last year it was May. A typical winter is a winter following at least a little bit of a fall flow where we have a couple of weeks of -10 F (-23 C) and a few days somewhere in the middle of winter for the bees to take cleansing flights. With a strong fall flow, some flying time in winter and nothing below 0 F losses are at about 2%.


----------



## Solomon Parker

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Thanks. So about 22 hives in total, right.


That would be a pretty good record considering I have 32 now.

I've probably had a total of 90 or so if you count each different queen as a different hive as I do. Of course some were sold, many combined. I've probably had less than 30 actually die.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> If I look into nature I see strong creatures with a good health. What have been showed me by some treatment free beekeepers was far away from it.


As Daniel says below, you are only seeing the few who thrive - because they have the best genes of their generation. (And also to be fair, yes, they likely got a good start in life. Breeders ave a cautionary maxim for use in evaluation for breeding purposes: 'Well bred or well fed?) 

That their parents were able to arrange that good start is another feature that counts in their favour.)

You are not seeing the many who failed, whether quickly or slowly (Nature usually arranges for things to go quickly - lack of vigour leads to attacks of one kind or another that finish the weak off mercifully)

This is an important point Bernhard that I'd urge you to consider well. Its been estimated (by I think Seeley) that in nature something in the regeon of 3/4 of swarms don't make it through their first winter. (Its the early ones that tend to pull through). Nature is harsh. Its a competition in which losers frequently perish. Its ugly. But that is how health is maintained in a population. Interfere with 'hospital hives' and you downgrade the health of the population. That's just a fact. 

Using a 'Hard Bond' approach is simply arranging for more or less what would happen anyway to occur in one place, where you can see it. There is no ethical difficulty. You can always finish them off quickly if you think that appropriate - or arrange to be able to requeen.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I also asked Michael, how many hives in total were killed in his project so far, excuse: let die.


That isn't killing hives. Its allowing nature's heath-seeking mechanism to do its work. What populations need - positively need - is for the weak to be removed from the breeding pool. That's most effectively done by termination. 

Try this: a unusually fierce winter will kill off many individuals, but the survivors are more than usually well selected, and the populations will, all else being equal, rebuild faster than usual as a result. That's elegant - and the more you look at the multiple mechanisms of natural selection, the you more realise just how beautifully elegant it all is. 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> From what I distilled from successful full-stop treatment free beekeepers, is, that they usually start with a high number of hives. Minimum 100, mostly 500-1,000 colonies. This is another start going treatment free, because the probability that there is a colony that adapts, is much higher than starting with one or two hives. Numbers do matter.


I agree. The more you have the more opportunity for corkers to pop up, from which you can make increase and requeen.

More importantly _as long as your hives contain a good proportion of resistant stocks_ the greater the likelyhood of transmission of desirable genes down the drone side. This reduces failures due to matings with lousy (treated) drones)

(Michael Bush writes elsewhere recently that feral stock _are_ doing selection/health raising work for you. This is true - _in some places._ Where it is stalled due to a high population of treated colonies it is necessary to work harder to maintain resistance. This means more hives containing more drones, and spreading them around constructively. Some lucky people have thriving ferals - some don't; most probably don't really know.)



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Also most of them are experienced beekeepers, very experienced beekeepers. Bees don't die from beekeeper faults in their hands.


Good point. I'm learning more about practical beekeeping every year, and hopefully reducing unneccessary losses as a result.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Bottom line. For beginners with a couple of hives it is more difficult if not impossible to go treatment free from now to tomorrow. Full stop.


Unless the feral situation is good it will be impossible. Matings with a majority of non resistant drones will lose any resistance in each generation. You need a good number, and you need (preferably the very best) to be producing plenty of drones. That is why I have focussed on making increase (while trying to mimimise any positive effect on reducing varroa splitting has beccause that would give me false resistance readings, making selection difficult)



BernhardHeuvel said:


> It is advisable for them to use slow approach. No haste, take your time. Beekeeping itself is difficult, learn bees first. Than go treatment free, slowly. It may need 50-100 years to get there, so there is no reason to run.


All the while you maintain 'hospital hives' undermine your ferals - unless you take action to stop that happening. That in turn undermines your own efforts.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> It would be good, if the big names in the treatment free world also would advise beginners to take the slow route. Full stop is not the only way, it is one way. And there are prerequisites to it: experience in beekeeping, high number of hives.


Understanding the key mechanisms is the important thing. Those mechanisms are the stuff of the science and art of breeding (made harder by open mating). This is, otherwise, straightforward population husbandry. 

Talking plenty about the principles and methods of population husbandry, applied to bees, will allow anyone who wants to try to design approaches that suit their own circumstances to maximise their chances of success.

This is identifying clearly the key problem/solution arena, and prioritising it, letting peripheral issues take their proper (secondary) place. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Sasha

Austrian beekeeper Alois Wallner - selection for bees which attack/bite varroa
http://www.voralpenhonig.at/default_en.htm

Juhani Lunden, Finish beekeeper. He treated mites with oxalic dribbling only, giving less every winter. Does not treat anymore, not on small cell.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.htm


----------



## Solomon Parker

Sasha, these are excellent websites and exactly what I was looking for.

It was interesting to read some of the details, the Wallner case focusing on clean (if I understand that term correctly) wax.

The Lunden case was interesting one as well but needs some parsing. First, it was admitted that the Bond style apiary was kept in a way which disadvantaged the bees in overwintering. And while there were other issues involved, they all died ultimately. The second thing I wanted to explore was the nature of the treatment. The treatment was as you say, less each winter. That's kinda like putting the wall closer to the edge of the cliff until the animal learns how to fly, which is more or less Bond Lite in my view.

Thank you for these links Sasha, very educational.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

The balance is not disturbed within the hive only. I learned from Dean: No bee is an island. Neither is a beehive. No colony is an island. It is embedded into an environment. And this environment is out of balance, badly! At least here where I live. 

You can't save a colony that is embedded within a bad environment. Just a thought that I want to share.

For this reason there are no ferals here. I found a bee tree, but this tree looses it's colonies each winter. Every year a swarm moves in. Every winter it dies out. This goes quite some time. Year after year. 
























It's the environment here that may be a factor to consider, too. Nothing really thrives in an environment out of balance.


----------



## Tim Ives

Mike[/QUOTE]



Oldtimer said:


> Mike do you know this, or is it one of your theories presented as if fact?
> 
> That's not the way varroa specific uncapping behaviour works over here, so can you link something authoritative to back your claim?
> 
> .


Oldtimer... Fact : I see it all the time.


----------



## Oldtimer

Not sure you understand Tim. We were talking about large mite family uncapping vs small mite family uncapping, which I doubt you are seeing. But if you are seeing it, at what ratio?

I think you didn't quite read what I said properly, and are just talking about VSH uncapping in general, which many of us me included see all the time too.

To se what I was referring to earlier, requires a microscope and a lot of research time.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Solomon Parker said:


> Sasha, these are excellent websites and exactly what I was looking for.
> 
> It was interesting to read some of the details, the Wallner case focusing on clean (if I understand that term correctly) wax.
> 
> The Lunden case was interesting one as well but needs some parsing. First, it was admitted that the Bond style apiary was kept in a way which disadvantaged the bees in overwintering. And while there were other issues involved, they all died ultimately. The second thing I wanted to explore was the nature of the treatment. The treatment was as you say, less each winter. That's kinda like putting the wall closer to the edge of the cliff until the animal learns how to fly, which is more or less Bond Lite in my view.
> 
> Thank you for these links Sasha, very educational.


They eventually learned how to fly...
http://www.saunalahti.fi/lunden/varroakertomus.html

Don´t ask how many mites there are, I do not know, only some 10 powder sugar tests from breeders were made and showded about 2-5% infestation in adult bees in early June. 

The next 12 years will be spent breeding them to gather as much honey as they used to. But as in all other animal and plant breeding, resistance comes with a price, the varroa resistant bees will never gather as much as the normal ones. Honey production is the only valid measure for varroa resistance.

The picture from this week, feeders were removed.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> The next 12 years will be spent breeding them to gather as much honey as they used to. But as in all other animal and plant breeding, resistance comes with a price, the varroa resistant bees will never gather as much as the normal ones.


What makes you think that? What is the scientific evidence?



Juhani Lunden said:


> Honey production is the only valid measure for varroa resistance.


I agree its a good measure - given (properly) untreated bees - but why would it be the _only_ valid measure? Less productive bees that thrive without treatments may be just as much resistant as more productive ones. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## cg3

What's the point of resistant bees that don't produce honey?


----------



## Michael Bush

>What's the point of resistant bees that don't produce honey? 

Not much, I guess pollination. But where is the evidence that is true? I think that may be the result of aggressive breeding for just resistance, but if you select for productive, healthy, gentle bees then you can select the combinations of many traits, that give you that.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

mike bispham said:


> What makes you think that? What is the scientific evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree its a good measure - given (properly) untreated bees - but why would it be the _only_ valid measure? Less productive bees that thrive without treatments may be just as much resistant as more productive ones.
> 
> Mike (UK)


This is what I ment:
Imagine there are two beekeeperes who have managed to breed varroa resistant bees. I think it is irrelevant, what causes the resistance or if the other trait is 100% effective and the other one 95%, the only real measure is the honeyproduction (or the overall economy, "more honey with less work" as Brother Adam said) 

In the end, there is no point of counting mites or freesing pieces of brood etc. Actually there is no point in in even today, as we do not know how these measurements correlate with varroa resistance.
As cg3 pointed out, there is no point of resistant bees, which don´t produce honey.


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> I think it is irrelevant, what causes the resistance or if the other trait is 100% effective and the other one 95%, the only real measure is the honeyproduction (or the overall economy, "more honey with less work" as Brother Adam said)
> [...]
> As cg3 pointed out, there is no point of resistant bees, which don´t produce honey


That's just your opinion. You are prioritising honey production. That's one measure.

Self suffiency is for me a more important measure. I'd rather have bees that thrive without my attention, gathering a reasonable amount of honey, than bees that get more but need attention. 

Trying to maximise production at any cost is what got us into this mess in the first place, and what keeps us here. 

Working toward the goal of genetically diverse, self-sufficient, locally adapted bees seems to me to be a more reliable aim for the long term.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y

Juhani Lunden said:


> As cg3 pointed out, there is no point of resistant bees, which don´t produce honey.


I will second that this is only your opinion. My interest in bees is to produce hives for almond pollination. What do I care about honey production? I care about bee production.

But on the subject of varroa and honey production. IN my first year my only hive was moving along just as i expected until about mid July. When suddenly all production halted. I mentioned it a couple of times on this site and was told most likely my flow had stopped. Eventually I discovered varroa in the hive fairly heavily. It is now my opinion that it was the varroa infestation that brought the production of this otherwise healthy looking hive to a near stand still. Once treated they started producing again. This year this same hive mite free never showed no slow down in July. Mites do more than just kill colonies.


----------



## Oldtimer

If you want good pollinators, my guess is the best honey makers are also the best pollinators.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

You took the bait, Oldtimer. 

If you make honey bees that do not make honey, they aren't honey bees anymore. Better preserve bumble bees or so. Yes, those are endangered, too, as other wild pollinators. Must be bad husbandry, I suppose...

Anti-honeybee-husbandry: not knowing what a honeybee is.

Mella fluunt tibi. 
(Latin for: The honey may flow for you. Émile Warré, father of the people's hive.)


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> It is now my opinion that it was the varroa infestation that brought the production of this otherwise healthy looking hive to a near stand still. Once treated they started producing again. This year this same hive mite free never showed no slow down in July. Mites do more than just kill colonies.


That's all a bit obvious. What does it have to do with tf beekeeping?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> If you make honey bees that do not make honey, they aren't honey bees anymore.


It's funny how some people don't do greyscale. No one is talking about raising bees that make no honey, Bernhard, that would just be daft. The conversation is about whether using honey production as a key selective measure about all other considerations is the best way to go about tf beekeeping. Or something of that sort. Do try and get with the program will you?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> No one is talking about raising bees that make no honey,


Apparently you missed the discussion a few posts above. Here's part of it:


Juhani Lunden said:


> As cg3 pointed out, there is no point of resistant bees, which don´t produce honey.


That would be _cg3_, plus _Juhani Lunden_, plus Bernhard. :lookout: Do they qualify as "no one"? :scratch:


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Apparently you missed the discussion a few posts above. Here's part of it:
> 
> "As cg3 pointed out, there is no point of resistant bees, which don´t produce honey."


Do you really think cg3 really meant 'no honey at all'? None whatsoever? Do you really think anyone, anywhere in the world, entertains the notion of raising honeybees that don't make any honey at all?

Or might s/he have meant 'less than the optimum amount by a significant degree', or something of that sort?

Sometimes, black-&-white people, you need to read between the lines - to look for the actual meaning within the words, rather than deliberately obtusely taking them at face value. I know the confusion/disruption factor is weaker, but you'll make those of us who value good conversation much happier.

For heaven's sake stop the nonsense and engage in the conversation. Here's the (evolving) question for those who've missed it:

How much, and under what circumstances, should we rely on honey productivity as measure by which to select for mite resistance. And why. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> Do you really think anyone, anywhere in the world, entertains the notion of raising honeybees that don't make any honey at all?


Of course there are! You don't have to read Beesource very long to see that there are people who own bees simply for their pollination efforts, and make no effort to harvest any honey those bees may produce. 

:gh:


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Of course there are! You don't have to read Beesource very long to see that there are people who own bees simply for their pollination efforts, and make no effort to harvest any honey those bees may produce.


You are not responding to the question I asked. I'm sure you're right in saying some may be largely indifferent to honey production levels, but does anyone deliberately raise bees with the aim of not producing any? 

Even if they were, (and I'd be appalled, but not surprised) I don't think that is a widespread practice. And anyway: its all beside the point.

Question for you Graham: what measures, what assays, do you use to select for mite resistance? 

What assays would you suggest for those who are indifferent to productivity (and are aiming to raise mite resistance)

What assays would you suggest for those who want zero productivity (and are aiming to raise mite resistance)

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> And anyway: its all beside the point.


Then why did _*you *_bring up the subject in the first place? :lpf: :gh: 

Lets look at your two posts on the subject, both made _today_:


mike bispham said:


> *Do you really think anyone, *_*anywhere in the world,*_ entertains the notion of raising honeybees that don't make any honey at all?





mike bispham said:


> Even if they were, (and I'd be appalled, but not surprised) _*I don't think that is a widespread practice. *_And anyway: its all beside the point.


How do you reconcile both statements? If you don't write what you actually mean, how can the rest of us even begin to understand what you are trying to say?

:ws:

.


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> How do you reconcile both statements?


First: honest conversation evolve. People learn, and adjust their positions accordingly. The statements don't have to be reconciled: in the first case it hadn't occurred to me that some people might actually want to breed out productivity (and I'm still trying to digest the implications of that for a selection process); in the second case I'd taken it on board. Is there something strange about that? Is learning a foreign concept to you? Perhaps you manage to learn without ever changing your former understanding?



Rader Sidetrack said:


> If you don't write what you actually mean, how can the rest of us even begin to understand what you are trying to say?


So you see you are misrepresenting what happened. Any inconsistency in the two statements is due to my adjusting my position in the light of new information. 

Try to get over the urge to be difficult Graham. This is a place to talk about real things of interest to real beekeepers. Join the effort. There is no difficulty understanding my position at any stage, and to suggest there is is just more disruptive behaviour. Try to contribute to discussion of the issues. I've asked you several clear and relevant questions. You could start by addressing those. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

OK, here is my response to your first question ...


mike bispham said:


> Question for you Graham: what measures, what assays, do you use to select for mite resistance?


Since you are looking for _techniques _ in treatment free beekeeping, Michael Bush has put a lot of effort into developing a comprehensive website dedicated to just that:

http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm

I don't see how anything I might write here could be more useful to you in your quest. :gh:


P.S. You could also buy his book ....


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike let's be fair, it's not reasonable to regularly change your position to whatever will win an argument at the time, but if challenged put it down to "learning". I don't think you learned anything just changed your position to whatever was convenient.

The above is a very minor example but it is something you and WLC do a lot, (you not as much as WLC), and in the end stifles any attempt at sensible discussion.

I don't see much learning happening in these types of discussions anyway, where the idea often seems to be to promote a hypothesis, often just assumed, as convincingly as possible, arguing with all comers. But if cornered, sneakily change position, or the subject. Learning comes from working with bees. The other learning that happens on Beesource is when someone often a newbee has a problem and asks for a solution and is given one and can use it. 

But a lot of the above discussions turn into over intellectualised claptrap.


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Since you are looking for _techniques _ in treatment free beekeeping, Michael Bush has put a lot of effort into developing a comprehensive website dedicated to just that:http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm


I've been aware of Michael's website for about some time. In fact there has been a link to it from my own website for several years. http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/selected links.htm

What I really wanted was to hear your own thoughts, because that would help me evaluate your remarks and might supply insights into your motivations for belittling my own efforts, and generally obstructing conversation. 

Do you actually practice tf beekeeping at all? If so, how do you go about it?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Mike let's be fair, it's not reasonable to regularly change your position to whatever will win an argument at the time, but if challenged put it down to "learning". I don't think you learned anything just changed your position to whatever was convenient.


You're not much good at arguing OT are you. A (constructive) argument is a series of exchanges during which inconsistencies between the interlocutors are worked out through a process of question and response. Either one, or both participants learn something in the process - and find either a way to resolve their differences, or perhaps a crystalisation of the reasons they can't.

In that context: whenever you discover something new it entails that the understanding you had before was incomplete. That might not cause a wholesale revision in the way you view things - but it might too. 

I'm not going to stop learning just so you can treat my writing over time as 100% consistent. 

(As I recall, there was a post a few months back in which you expressed admiration of my 'courage' - or something like that - for changing my position in the light of new information. And now, here you are condemning me for doing exactly the same - perfectly normal - thing! Rather demonstrates what you're up to doesn't it - your usual tricks - anything but the conversation; work to damage the reputation of anyone who challenges your own position.)

As for your accusation that this is something I do often: examples please. On another thread. I'll respond. For the record, that's the first time I've invoked learning as a reason to change my position. Its so obvious I've never felt the need before - frankly I'm astonished to find people who need this stuff to be explained to them.

Lets try the topic with you: how would you evaluate mite resistance in the hypothetical situation that you were trying to raise the (faintly ludicrous) trait of non-honey storing?

If I get a sensible answer to that I'll fall off my chair. Promise. Then I'll make a sensible and polite response to it.

If you continue to block the conversation here I'll push my ignore button. You have a history; one chance to change.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> How would you evaluate mite resistance in the hypothetical situation that you were trying to raise the (faintly ludicrous) trait of non-honey storing?
> 
> If I get a sensible answer to that I'll fall off my chair. Promise.
> 
> Mike (UK)


That I was trying to raise? I think you have me confused with someone else.

However since you ask, and at risk of you falling off your chair, I do have an opinion on the matter. Please realise that any energy expended by the hive superorganism on dealing with mites, such as purging infected brood, etc, comes at a cost. 

Consider that _Apis Cerana_, who are very mite tolerant, spend a lot of time grooming, cleaning, etc, and make pretty small honey crops.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> That I was trying to raise? I think you have me confused with someone else.


Dear Oldtimer,

Perhaps you didn't notice I'd written 'hypothetical' in that sentence?



Oldtimer said:


> However since you ask, and at risk of you falling off your chair, I do have an opinion on the matter. Please realise that any energy expended by the hive superorganism on dealing with mites, such as purging infected brood, etc, comes at a cost.


I'll agree with that - in principle. However; is there any scientific evidence that such a cost is significant? Note that Marla Spivak has written that bees with raised hygiene levels are no less efficient (at collecting and storing honey). It seems to me very likely that competitive pressures act to reduce any such expenditure, resulting in the most energy-efficient solutions. In those bees that control their mites effectively by 'breeding' for low fecundity it seems entirely plausible that any labour cost is marginal at worst.

These are (mostly) opinions and speculations of course - the Spivak part isn't. So it appears we will need scientific evidence to try to settle the matter - although hearing from other tf beekeepers may well be illuminating too. 

Since you raise the position that there is a significant energy cost to mite-management, I hope you'll agree that the onus should be on you to provide up to date high quality information in support of that position.

I hope you'll agree too that should you be unable, or unwilling, to do so, it would be right and proper for you to acknowledge that the position is, in your own understanding, unfounded in science.



Oldtimer said:


> Consider that _Apis Cerana_, who are very mite tolerant, spend a lot of time grooming, cleaning, etc, and make pretty small honey crops.


Again I'd appreciate proper evidence. Are we talking about colonies bred to raise production - comparing like with like? Is there an established causal link between honey crops and mite management behaviours in _Apis Cerana_?

Or is this handy speculation, that has taken on the status of factoid through endless repetition?

Best wishes,

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I'll agree with that - in principle.


Well, there's a first.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Well, there's a first.


That'll do it. First on my ignore list.


----------



## Daniel Y

Mike, actually yes. At least as far as I have seen reported. somewhere around 50% hygenic behavior it begins to cost to much in honey or other production. Not only does honey production fall off but some behaviors actually cost in hive population as well such as brood removal.


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> Mike, actually yes. At least as far as I have seen reported. somewhere around 50% hygenic behavior it begins to cost to much in honey or other production. Not only does honey production fall off but some behaviors actually cost in hive population as well such as brood removal.


I've seen the same thing 'reported' endlessly Daniel. What I'm asking is: what is the scientific status of that claim. Its simple enough. What's the proper evidence?

Again, bear in mind, Dr. Marla Spivak, who's worked in this field for donkey's years, has stated unequivically that there is no loss in productivity due to internal mite management. 

There are plenty of people who have an interest in promulgating 'reasons' that support a preference for treating. (Chemical manufacturers and their supply chains chiefly, who stand to lose significant amounts of money should tf catch on in a widespread way, and who'd be stupid not to try to defend their interest in a determined manner), but also ordinary especially commercial beekeepers who don't want to risk/can't be bothered/don't see a benefit in working to raise resistance... and seek to justify their position). 

Its my view that this particular piece of 'information' is a self-serving myth constantly promulgated by a loose coalition of invested parties. Convince me otherwise. 

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

Straight up, I know of no properly done study on it, apart from Spivaks work. So if you want me to convince you Mike sorry won't happen but would never expect to do that anyway. There's a few issues around existing work though, some of which are how hygienic were the bees being at the time, what were the mite levels in the hygienic hives, and what were the mite levels in the non hygienic hives.

Bees that are actually very productive, can have their productivity severely curtailed if they have a heavy mite load, so if they are bees with a mite load that need treating, that can be a bigger issue than hygiene practises.


----------



## Daniel Y

Mike, I cannot recall where I saw it but it was in an article and referencing actually several researchers all basically saying that yes hygienic behavior can bee over done. I do not recall exactly where I saw the article and have no idea in what papers it would actually be claimed. I do know it was not the run of the mill beekeeper conversation. It may have been on vsh.org that I first ran across it. I do know there are more reliable claims so it might be worth the time to search.


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> Mike, I cannot recall where I saw it but it was in an article and referencing actually several researchers all basically saying that yes hygienic behavior can be over done.


I wouldn't quarrel with that. I thought what you were saying was, in agreement with Oldtimer, that mite resistance invariably entailed significant production costs.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I thought what you were saying was, in agreement with Oldtimer, that mite resistance invariably entailed significant production costs.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Please show me where I said that. The invariably part in particular. Or withdraw the statement.


----------



## Daniel Y

Oldtimer said:


> That I was trying to raise? I think you have me confused with someone else.
> 
> However since you ask, and at risk of you falling off your chair, I do have an opinion on the matter. Please realise that any energy expended by the hive superorganism on dealing with mites, such as purging infected brood, etc, comes at a cost.
> 
> Consider that _Apis Cerana_, who are very mite tolerant, spend a lot of time grooming, cleaning, etc, and make pretty small honey crops.


I would guess he is referring to this.


----------



## Oldtimer

Can't be, cos I did not use the words invariable, or significant. 

It was an exaggerated and made up statement to make me look foolish, and he will refuse to retract it.


----------

