100% TREATMENT FREE

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Barry said in another thread:

>Maybe there isn't a place on Beesource for 100 percent "treatment free" discussion, but I would like this forum to be as close as possible to that. It's really a mindset of how you approach beekeeping.

The last five years I've been keeping bees without putting anything into the hives. I do very little management and just took honey off the hives last week. I know there is another way to keep bees without going the chemical/drug treatment route.

Regards,
Barry

My last count (in my head), I know of about six of us that use no treatment at all.

Barry
Bwrangler
Clayton
Mike
Joe C
Myself

I have been treatment free for a full two years now. Prior to that I have not used drugs, er, chemicals, since 2001.

I know that some who have gone cold turkey will treat if an outbreak occurs, but for the most part I am interested in who has gone cold turkey and to what degree. In other words have you gone truely cold turkey, or will you sneek a puff now and again?

[naturebee]

Who’s Joe C ?


I have been cold turkey no treatments since 2001

No treatments what so ever.

No feeding other than an occasional shifting of stores.

I NEVER cheat.

I never do mite counts.

[iddee]

I have two sets of bees. One, I treat with fgmo and thymol only.

The other, nothing. They originated from a man's bees that has never treated for anything and has never bought replacement bees or queens. He has kept the same strain of bees for over 20 years with no medication of any kind. I have continued with the bees that came from his.

[Jeffrey Todd]

Technically, you can add me to the list. But I have not done any treatments because 1) I have been to busy (lazy) to actually do a mite count, and 2) my bees seem OK, for now, at least. But wouldn't it be better to know than just hope? Obviously so.
Being from the pre-mite era of beekeeping, I have not yet decided what route to go, but I do know it will be as little treatment as I can get away with.
I am letting my existing comb be replaced with natural cell as the old stuff gets too old.
Regarding your list, Bullseye, are you sure that Bwrangler doesn't use OA? I thought he advocated it and even designed his own evaporators.
I am pretty sure you can add Bjornbee to your list, however. (is he the Mike you refer to?)
Would you consider Michael Bush (or is he the Mike you refer to? I am guessing it must be Bjornbee) to be treatment free? All he does now is natural cell, I believe. Which brings up a question for him, actually. Michael, do you have a different strain of bees now than you did before you switched to natural cell? I realize that the gene pool is constantly being mixed around, but do you have more feral stock now since you switched, and if so, could that have any bearing on your success againt the mites?

[ August 24, 2006, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Jeffrey Todd ]

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>Who’s Joe C ?

Joseph Clemons in Az. He has been treatment free for I think he said nine years.

>are you sure that Bwrangler doesn't use OA?

I think he experiments on a limited number of hives, but for the most part, and he will answer for himself, I think he does not treat.

>Michael Bush (or is he the Mike you refer to?

I was referring to MB. Again he will answer for himself, but I think I read that he has not used anything for a couple of years. Perhaps it was I read OA for that time line?

[BULLSEYE BILL]

I should have asked for you to state your average % of winter losses.

I generally lose about 10 to 15%, however that could be from anything from starvation to too small of cluster entering winter.

[power napper]

We have never used any apistan, checkmite, oxalic acid, menthol, fumidil, sprays or chemicals.
We lose almost half our hives over winter mostly due to starvation (won't move from brood to honey).
We do use powder sugar for dusting a hive when we know that there are mites in the hive, only a couple times to a hive a year at most.
We do feed sugar water to new splits.
We did use powder sugar crisco patties but stopped this year!

[ August 25, 2006, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: power napper ]

[Finman]

> I do very little management and just took honey off the hives last week. >

And when colony died in this kind of beekeeping he got swarm next summer to his empty boxes....

We had this kind of beekeepers 20 years ago in Finland perhaps 30% of our beekeeper number. Varroa whipped them all away and now are left only those who take good care of hives.

.

[Kieck]

I'm not one of these beekeepers who is "100% treatment free." I will use "rescue treatments" when problems start getting ahead of me, although no problem has gotten away from me for a few years, now.

I admire those who have found ways to avoid all treatments, although I think "treatments" needs definition. Is drone trapping a "treatment?" What about breaking the brood cycle to reduce mite numbers?

But I digress. More to the point, how do you explain beekeepers like Bullseye Bill (the quotation in your post comes from Bullseye Bill), Finman, in our current situation? Varroa are not just coming to the U.S. They've been here for almost twenty years. If Varroa wipe away beekeepers that do not take good care of their hives, and you imply beekeepers like Bullseye Bill are not taking good care of their hives, how can these beekeepers continue here?

[BULLSEYE BILL]

> I think "treatments" needs definition.

I would define treatments as things added to the hive, basically drugs, chemicals, etc. Drone trapping and breaking brood cycle would be a management issue.

> (the quotation in your post comes from Bullseye Bill),

True, but I was quoting Barry. Your statement is still valid. ;)

[Kieck]

My mistake. I apologize. I didn't reread it carefully enough. The quotation should have been cited to Barry. Thank you, Bullseye Bill.

Nice job with your definition, too, Bullseye Bill. Other beekeepers might not agree with it, but at least you took time to explain what you mean by "treatments."

Two other questions came to mind while I was rereading this thread:

1) Pcolar -- why don't you do mite counts? Even if you refuse to use chemicals or manipulate hives to deliberately reduce mite numbers, wouldn't it be worth knowing (for curiosity's sake, if nothing else) whether your bees are limiting the number of mites somehow or are surviving despite large numbers of mites? I'd be interested.

2) Iddee -- what differences do you see between the two groups of bees you listed in your post? Are the untreated bees exposed to fewer mites? What if you no longer treated some of the other bees with thymol and FGMO? What kind of mite load do they carry without the treatments? Would they survive without the thymol and FGMO? The others are -- what makes them different that you notice?

[iddee]

The first group are known ancestry. They all came down from one survivor hive that made it through the mites during the ninties and up to 2003, when I got my first swarm from them. I have raised from that swarm. None have ever been treated.

The second group are from removals and caught swarms. I bring them into my monitor yard until they are settled and laying good. Then I move them to my home yard and put them up for sale. There are never two generations from the same strain. Those I treat with the fgmo and thymol. Most don't stay long enough to really study.

[naturebee]

---->
I would define treatments as things added to the hive, basically drugs, chemicals, etc. Drone trapping and breaking brood cycle would be a management issue.
----->

From a chemical stand point I agree.
But drone trapping and breaking brood cycles, feeding and chemical treatments would all be harmful because it makes it impossible to assess the colony based on it’s own attributes in fighting disease and pests. They are all treatments, but I think it depends where one believes the harm lies.

[iddee]

Pcolar, are you just trolling, or do you actually believe this stuff.

Have you never been to a doctor, taken an aspirin, or applied an antiseptic to a cut?

[naturebee]

--1) Pcolar -- why don't you do mite counts?


I am NO treatments and could not and would not do anything about it anyhow. I would not pay no attention to the counts, I would only grade a colony based on it’s over all performance.

Secondly, mite counts do not mean anything. According to research, “susceptible colonies”, those with high mite counts were the colonies that produced the most honey and had the most prolific queen. So I maintain a ‘performance based’ assessment process that grades productivity and broodnest fecundity.

-->
Even if you refuse to use chemicals or manipulate hives to deliberately reduce mite numbers, wouldn't it be worth knowing (for curiosity's sake, if nothing else) whether your bees are limiting the number of mites somehow or are surviving despite large numbers of mites? I'd be interested.
-->

I do visual inspections for mites for curiosity sake, but I have never counted them. Last inspection it was difficult to spot a mite, I was curious enough to pull about 10 drone cells from each colony, and the average found was about 4 mites per 10 drone pupa.

I would do a mite count if I could do it without using treatments, maybe by natural fall.

Mite infestations seem very low this year and colonies very strong and producing well for me. I don’t know the reason for this, but lately I have been focusing on brood viability, hygienic behavior and heavy culling of poor performers in an effort to strengthen the breeding pool. And a few years back I requeened every colony suspected of being commercial stock (this after seeing how well the remote ferals were doing in comparison), and began trapping ferals from areas that have produced good performers for me. So I think seeing the rapid improvements my bees have made over the past 3 or 4 seasons, that I am in the early stages of improvement, and hopefully thing will continue to improve.

[Patrick Scannell]

I've been 100% treatment free for 2 years.

Three years ago I tried OA and FGMO with thymol, (never used any other chemicals) but since then I have only used small cell and some drone trapping.

I had only 14 hives last winter, but they all survived.

[PA Pete]

Iddee - what do your "survivors" look like, and how do they behave? E.g. could you easily mistake them for POIs (Plain Old Italians), or do they look more like the "german" bees supposedly making a comback as ferals? Any idea if they have any hygenic traits?

[iddee]

To me, pete, they look like poi's. The man that had them for all the years, says they are more black.
Drobbins and Carolina Family Farms, and SteveC have them, maybe they can tell us what color they think they are.

[ August 26, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: iddee ]

[Michael Bush]

>My last count (in my head), I know of about six of us that use no treatment at all.
Barry
Bwrangler
Clayton
Mike
Joe C
Myself

I'm sure there are others. But these are some of the ones who have stated it anyway. There's Dee Lusby, of course, but she hasn't been on the forums for a while. But I haven't heard from Clayton in a while either.

The last time I used Apistan was 2001 because the mites were taking over, I wasn't regressed yet and the bees all died anyway.

The last time I used any treatment it was Oxalic acid and that was more than two years ago. I did treat one large cell hive (with Oxalic) I got from elsewhere. I actually got others at the time and didn't treat them. Some of my hives haven't been treated since 2001. None (with the one exception above) have been treated since fall of 2003. During 2002 I fogged with FGMO and used Oxalic acid that fall.

They do have Varroa mites, but the levels in the spring have been undectable for the last three springs when the state inspected them.

[TwT]

I started with bee's in 2004, have never done a mite count and never treated with anything, I bought a small bottle of sucrocide in 05 but never opened it, started with 3 hives and now I have 12, lose a hive this spring to queen failure, saw the new queen but there was no drones in the hives yet so guest she never mated,, been lucky so for..... I have 8 mutt hives and 3 PBA hives and 1 russian hive....

[ August 26, 2006, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: TwT ]

[wayacoyote]

No chemical "treatments" but I do use SHB TRAPS. I'd like to think that a very strong hive can manage SHB's, but I'm still working on that. Since I did so many splits and regressed so many hives this year, only the original 2 aren't being fed honey &/or sugar. Next year, none will be fed. Also, due to splitting, none seem so strong as to elliminate SHB. Is is possible to eliminate the beetle or will managing suffice? One way or the other, I don't see SHB traps as any more of a "treatment" than Screened bottom boards. Both operate by separating the pest from the hive in a manner that subequently kills the pest.

Waya

[Steve C]

Pa Pete....

Here is what they look like....

The top Pic's are my Italian's whitch as you can see are a little more yellow then the feral's...
When you look at them(feral) they apear to be more black, but not totaly....
As far as how gentle.... I worked them yesterday in shorts, shortleave shirt, no vail, and very lite smoke.....
Only thing I have noticed with these if you make them mad, they will head butt and buzz all around you, but not sting....
I also made the mastake of putting sugar water on another hive and then working these and da girls crawled all over my hands licking up the sugar on my hands....???? smile.gif

I did a 6 day drop count on these and did not find a single mite....
You can look on the front of the hive and they are always sweeping the pourch(looks like it) and on the inner cover hole they are cleaning it up all the time....

http://www.myjavaserver.com/~steveciii/


Steve

[naturebee]

Steve,

My ferals look much like the bottom pic that you have.

I would be intrested to know what the queen markings are, and if they might look similar to an Italian queen but with a slightly dark tip at the end of the abdomen.

[naturebee]

--what do your "survivors" look like, and how do they behave? E.g. could you easily mistake them for POIs (Plain Old Italians), or do they look more like the "german" bees supposedly making a comback as ferals?

If I may make a well intended, kind comment.

I do understand there is a propensity out there for a belief that the true ferals would be of a certain breed of ‘old world bee‘. The mere mention of “Black Ferals For Sale” seems to prompt a frenzy of panic buying in the beekeeping community. The German Black, long thought to be the first bees brought to America, have to the most part been replaced over the centuries with the Italian types which seemed to have gained preference with American beekeepers. BUT please understand that because the Italians have gained preference over the German Blacks is NOT my point.

Allow me to explain,,,
This upgrading of the black bees (Ie. “comback as ferals“) and degrading of the Italians (Ie. “Plain Old Italians“) has probably been influenced to some degree by the talk that “old fashioned bees are somehow superior“, or the “original ferals” that seems to exist on some of these lists. BUT, I have found it BEST to “let the characteristics of the ferals in your particular area show you what the ferals for your particular may look and act like.”

IF you preference a particular type or color of feral bee without first establishing what type of feral exists and performs best in your area, this would be a huge mistake.

Remember, there is NO ‘color’ or ‘breed’ in the saying:
“select from your best performers”
IMO stands true in all aspects of beekeeping.

[Michael Bush]

> if they might look similar to an Italian queen but with a slightly dark tip at the end of the abdomen.

I breed from my best black queens and I get a lot of queens that look exactly like that. Yellow with a black tip on their abdomen. They tend to be very good queens.

[clintonbemrose]

I thought those that did not help their bees were called bee havers not keepers
Clint

[PA Pete]

Good point Joe -

I've done three removals this season where I got the queen - two were from areas where I know there are beekeepers nearby, one who runs russians, so I can't be at all sure of what I have. All look like variations on italians, though my understanding is Russians vary quite a bit in their appearance and often look like italians too. I wish there was a way other than establishing and long-term observation to determine if they have any mite-resistance, but that's what I'm setting up to do. I plan to put all my "ferals" in one outyard and watch to see how they do.

Got another two removals this coming weekend - let's see if I get more to play with smile.gif

Thanks for posting the pix Steve

[PA Pete]

Clinton -

I guess my question for you is: Do you consider you are "helping your bees" by medicating for mites? In my opinion, you're helping your particular bees, but you're (and all medicating beekeepers) likely also slowing the development of genetic-based mite resistance in any feral populations in your area. I consider this a real problem. Hobbyist and commercial beekeepers with medicated bees are maintaining a significant gene pool of mite-suceptible bees, which breed with the local ferals and likely "push down" the average level of mite resistance.

That said, I still medicate, so I'm part of the problem, but I'm trying to get away from it by investigating ferals from my area, as well as going to natural size comb in all my hives. I expect it to take a few years (and more "ferals"), but I hope to eventually be able to go without treatments and not have significant varroa problems.

[iddee]

Pete, I have what I consider very resistant bees. I feel like part of the reason I have them is that I treat to knock the mites down to a tolerable level, not to wipe them out completely. I agree that they need a small infestation in order to build a resistance. I also think that the keeper should keep that infestation down to the point that it doesn't kill the hive, to give them a chance to build said resistance. I do not treat on a regular basis, as that might kill all the mites. I treat randomly to keep the mite count down enough to allow the hive to live long enough to build their resistance to a point where they no longer need a treatment. To just raise thousands of mites and let the hive die, while infecting all hives within two miles of the dead hives, is just irresponsible, and a danger to other, more diligent beeks.

[naturebee]

--I thought those that did not help their bees were called bee havers not keepers
Clint

Not sure about that, but I understand those that help and baby their colonies are called ‘beebee-sitters’ smile.gif

Once a beekeeper has assumed responsibility for the welfare of the colony, he in the process has total control, and is Master over all responsibilities that dear old mother nature once had. I wonder who then accepts the responsibility of playing mother natures role of ‘survival of the fittest’?,,, or is it discarded in the process?

I have plenty of experience with feral colonies, and to my knowledge, I can not recall ever seeing a feeder, or any treatments placed on a feral colony by mother nature trying to ’help’ her bees. I guess then, mother nature is a ‘bee haver’ ? :rolleyes:

Because I have assumed that responsibility of playing the part of mother natures survival of the fittest as best I can. I am a beekeeper that “has” bees. Better a beekeeper having bees than a beekeeper having no bees. smile.gif

I wonder sometimes, who are ‘they’ that would be in the best position to dictate what is the most appropriate way to help a colony?,,,
mother nature, or human nature?

[ August 27, 2006, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]

[iddee]

>>I can not recall ever seeing a feeder, or any treatments placed on a feral colony by mother nature trying to ’help’ her bees.<<

I don't think I have ever known bees to hollow out a tree or plant wildflowers.....

[clintonbemrose]

I have worked with bees for 42 years and have tried many things with them and mother nature. Before retireing I made a good living with bees and put my children thru college. I suffered my losses with the best beekeepers of the time and have also shared many sucesses in bees with all. I have not treated my bees with anything but FGMO and FGMO/Thymol for the last 8 years. At this time I am working with Dr. Pedro Rodregaz on trials on fogging FGMO/Thymol and have been testing for any residues in the honey, wax, or wooden ware. I am into the second year testing. I do believe that the bees do need some help undoing what man has done to hinder them. The example that comes to mind is when man (in his wisdom) bread the honey bee larger trying to make them produce more honey. This backfired making them more succetable to other paricites. (Trachael mites and Varroa distructor) and the diseases that they carry to the hive.
Clint

[naturebee]

--I don't think I have ever known bees to hollow out a tree or plant wildflowers.....


I protest!
Bees are amazing structural engineers!!! smile.gif

You have never seen bees remove debris from a void? You have never seen evidence in your bee removals of bees to removing punk from the sidewalls of tree voids? Or to remove loose material that would otherwise inhibit a firm base in which to build comb? Guys with Styrofoam placed on top of a hive for insulation know very well that bees will chew it away in an attempt to find a solid structure that they can porpoise and build comb on.

Also, in defense of mother nature, smile.gif flowers will not germinate without fertilization, so honeybees along with other pollinators do play a VERY important role in the propagation of wildflowers.

Bees are part of the work force that helps mother nature do her job. smile.gif
Bees and all mother natures creatures like birds and other animals have the job of aiding in the propagation of plants, by pollinating and dispersing seeds, they are mother natures farmers. smile.gif

[Kieck]

Sorry, I was away for the weekend, and now I want to go back to some of the things mentioned in posts farther back in this thread.

"But drone trapping and breaking brood cycles, feeding and chemical treatments would all be harmful because it makes it impossible to assess the colony based on it’s own attributes in fighting disease and pests." -Pcolar

OK, but how about making honey bees live in moveable-frame hives? That's definitely manipulation, so does that count as "treatment?" Like others have suggested, what about some of the other pieces of equipment used? Does adding a screened bottom board count as a "treatment?" What about smoking your bees when you work them?

I asked about mite counts earlier.

"I would do a mite count if I could do it without using treatments, maybe by natural fall." -Pcolar

You can. Many of us do. Look up information on sticky boards and 24-hour drop counts. Nothing else is done to these colonies. Just the naturally-dropping mites get stuck and counted. Of course, if using a SBB is a "treatment" . . . .

"I do visual inspections for mites for curiosity sake, but I have never counted them. Last inspection it was difficult to spot a mite, I was curious enough to pull about 10 drone cells from each colony, and the average found was about 4 mites per 10 drone pupa." -Pcolar

Spotting mites on moving bees can be difficult. But 4 mites per 10 drone pupae?!? Even if I decided not to treat immediately, finding mite numbers like that in even one of my hives would just about make me panic.

"Secondly, mite counts do not mean anything. According to research, “susceptible colonies”, those with high mite counts were the colonies that produced the most honey and had the most prolific queen. So I maintain a ‘performance based’ assessment process that grades productivity and broodnest fecundity." -Pcolar

Mite counts by themselves usually don't mean anything. Interpretting those counts can be very, very useful.

For instance, if you found a hive exposed to heavy mite pressure, yet that hive had counts that were very low, wouldn't that mean something to you?

In a different instance, if you found a hive with (just to use a common method of counting mites) sticky-board counts of more than 300 mites every 24 hours in mid-summer, would that mean anything to you?

Can you provide the citations for the research you cited, please? I've heard those ideas implied by beekeepers, but I don't remember reading published, scientific results that supported that idea.

And, how do you grade "productivity and broodnest fecundity?" What, exactly, is "broodnest fecundity?" Do you count the number of young queens being produced in the broodnest (fecundity, after all, is the capacity to reproduce)? Are these grades qualitative or quantitative?

[iddee]

Pcolar, this stuff has got to stop. It's a half-dozen, I tell you, not 6. Now quit arguing and just believe me. tongue.gif

[Barry]

I said: > I do very little management and just took honey off the hives last week.

Finman said: >>And when colony died in this kind of beekeeping he got swarm next summer to his empty boxes....

Finman - "this kind of beekeeping"? Colonies don't die, I take it, in other kinds of beekeeping? I detect skepticism in your note. You see my statement as no way for a beekeeper to operate. Well, as others have said, they're just insects and no amount of "correct" beekeeping practices will keep bees from dying occasionally. I have no problem with the reality of a hive occasionally dying and occasionally a swarm filling an empty hive. In fact, this very situation happened for the first time this year. A hive didn't make it through the winter and during the late Spring a swarm repopulated it. How can I complain with that? I just took honey off that hive!

Regarding mite count, I have never done it. A waste of my time and it would give me useless information. I know when mites are in the hives, I see aimless chewed-winged bees crawling along the ground at times in the fall. In my management style, I let the bees take care of the mites as it's been witnessed by most small cell beekeepers.

- Barry

[Barry]

> I think "treatments" needs definition.

For me, it means nothing, nada. No big stuff or little stuff. No trapping, no oil, no sugar, no etc.

Just SC comb in most of the hive and that's it. I love it! What a change from the days of doing all that other stuff.

- Barry

[naturebee]

--> OK, but how about making honey bees live in moveable-frame hives? That's definitely manipulation, so does that count as "treatment?" - Kieck

I didn’t say manipulation dictated a treatment!

As I have stated before:

Exhibit A:
‘Other than what a beekeeper must do to shelter, manipulate and encourage maximum colony growth and perform the necessary beekeeping operations. The only thing that is a “treatment” are things that a beekeeper does for a colony that the colony should be doing for themselves in the area of ‘survival fitness traits’, such as fighting disease, pests and nutritional foraging. In other words, giving a colony an ‘artificial advantage’ that is not representative of there own God given ability to survive in a given environment.


-> Like others have suggested, what about some of the other pieces of equipment used? Does adding a screened bottom board count as a "treatment?" What about smoking your bees when you work them?- Kieck

See exhibit A

The configuration of a hive is not a treatment.
Smoking for the purpose of performing routine beekeeping operations is exempt under the provisions in exhibit A.

-> Spotting mites on moving bees can be difficult. - Kieck

I know, but trust me when I say I am very good at it.

-> But 4 mites per 10 drone pupae?!? Even if I decided not to treat immediately, finding mite numbers like that in even one of my hives would just about make me panic.- Kieck

I will have to disagree with you here. 1 mite in 4 out of 10 drone pupa is a low count. If you can provide reference stating otherwise, I will concede.


-> For instance, if you found a hive exposed to heavy mite pressure, yet that hive had counts that were very low, wouldn't that mean something to you?- Kieck

No necessarily!

Please read:
Exhibit B
“Selection and possibilities within honey bees – be careful what you are selecting for.”
http://www.beeculture.com/storycms/index.cfm?cat=Story&recordID=480

--> In a different instance, if you found a hive with (just to use a common method of counting mites) sticky-board counts of more than 300 mites every 24 hours in mid-summer, would that mean anything to you?- Kieck

I would really have to see how the colony is performing.
But how could you eliminate the possibility that a swarm of absconding varroa infested bees didn’t drift into the colony? This happens frequently.
ALSO, Please see exhibit B

--> Can you provide the citations for the research you cited, please? - Kieck

See Exhibit B

--> And, how do you grade "productivity and broodnest fecundity?" What, exactly, is "broodnest fecundity?" Do you count the number of young queens being produced in the broodnest (fecundity, after all, is the capacity to reproduce)? Are these grades qualitative or quantitative? - Kieck

Much of the traits I assess are based on writings from Brother Adam.
Bro. Adam states that fecundity it “the power of, and potential of producing abundantly”.
Here I am looking basically at queen performance and how the colony sets up it’s broodnest, pre flow buildups, the rate of expansion. This is very important to assess fecundity during the colony 16 weeks of colony initiation and growth stage. I won’t go into specific traits I look for as they are mostly of Brother Adams writings and these are not well excepted by most beekeepers.

[ August 28, 2006, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]

[naturebee]

--- I do believe that the bees do need some help undoing what man has done to hinder them.

I would basically agree here, BUT only in the very short term till you can get off them completely.

---The example that comes to mind is when man (in his wisdom) bread the honey bee larger trying to make them produce more honey. This backfired making them more succetable to other paricites. (Trachael mites and Varroa distructor) and the diseases that they carry to the hive.

Yes, but I believe it’s wrong to fix a wrong with another wrong (treatments).
Why not fix the root cause of the problem?

I feel that there has been a HUGE misconception of sorts in the publics perception of what the causes actually are. YES, large cell seems to have created allot of problems. BUT many beekeeper wrongly assume that if you go to small cell
“ALL your troubles are solved.”
They are failing to see the whole picture!!!

* Regression, by the returning of the bee to a more natural size, does make honeybees healthier and allows them to perform at their peak level.

* BUT, you can’t change genetics!!
The bees will only perform to the level that their genetics will permit.

* If colonies are still failing in spite of regression (which enables them to perform at their genetic peak). This indicates that the genetics are NOT at the level of fitness that they should be.

* It is of my opinion that a major cause of these problems we are experiencing are the result of a miserable state of genetic fitness that exists in most domestic honeybee stocks in America today.

[iddee]

>>The only thing that is a “treatment” are things that a beekeeper does for a colony that the colony should be doing for themselves in the area of ‘survival fitness traits’, such as fighting disease, pests and nutritional foraging. In other words, giving a colony an ‘artificial advantage’ that is not representative of there own God given ability to survive in a given environment.<<

OK, time to get serious. There is absolutely no way I can agree with any portion of the above statement when the problem lies with disease, pests, and lack of foraging 100 % brought on by the carelessness and stupidity of the human being. The bees could get along fine against the mites, if the dumb humans had not brought them over here.
The bees could forage fine if the humans had not concreted over their forage area and then imported deadly mites to weaken them to the point that they couldn't forage what little area that was left.

I think we owe them a little care, after all the damage we did. The environment they are expected to survive in was NOT god-given, It was human given. God is not so dumb.

[palikaji]

I'm a leetle nobody in Santa Cruz. I have had bees for 5 years in my backyard, all bought as packages year one. First year lost all but 1 hive of 3 through winter, 2nd year - 4 more packages and a swarm, all but one hive of 5 survived winter The 2nd year I put one apistan strip into 2 hives one time in winter and have never done anything else period to any hive. By 3rd year lost all hives gained in spring from including ones that overwintered and new swarms that moved in. Then the following spring 3 swarms moved into empty boxes on their own and from them one hive has overwintered strong past 2 years with no treatment and very little management. That hive came out so strong this February that before I could get onto it, it swarmed 4 times. I caught the 4th swarm and another incredibly strong swarm (definitely italian stock), to give me 3 total this year. The italian swarm and original hive are both incredibly strong.

I've spent the year on regression by MBush technique of feeding in empty frames for bees to draw comb between established drawn comb in brood chamber from center moving to outside, to up. The italians which are very big (perhaps Cordovan stock from someone somewhere) have become even more populous and earlier and later daily foragers than my small and darker 2 year overwintered colony.

I'm using SBB and top entrance and currently find very few mites in all 3 colonies. I will not do any treatments for winter, but if the honey is not enough to over winter, I will feed honey and plan to do pollen/honey patties for whoever has made it through Jan/Feb for spring build up.

If I lose everything this winter, perhaps I will try to tantalize some local and wild swarms to my property in spring, and I have thought of buying small cell queens to get me on the road to small cell bees, but I hope these 2 swarms I have now will be the progenitors of non- treated SantaCruzian stock who love their organic beekeeper mom. Wish I had more experience in helping them achieve that vision.

So in the end I wish I knew more of what I'm doing, but I'm behind regression and no treatment 100% and mimimal management and I don't care so much about whether the bees are someone's definition of italian or german or russian stock. I really just want strong, healthy,locally mated and acclimatized which draw their own comb and can resist normal variations of disease, pest, bad weather, bad farmers and gardeners and bad beekeepers. I'm always asking how I can make the conditions in my boxes and my backyard as much like one in nature that local bees can't wait to be in and thrive when they do get there. So I think I'm in the cold turkey category.

Michael Bush and Dee Lusby are my models and my mentors and I'm sure there are more wise women and men out there but **** - they sure know some stuff and dey on my page when it comes to concepts of organic, wholistic, bio-remediation and natural!

[naturebee]

--OK, time to get serious.

OK, here on out, no more smiley faces!

--There is absolutely no way I can agree with any portion of the above statement when the problem lies with,,,,
--disease, pests,

Breeding better bees is solving this problem, as is evident in the ferals and by many beekeepers that are able to keep bees without using any treatments.

--and lack of foraging 100 % brought on by the carelessness and stupidity of the human being.

Now here, it is a beekeepers responsibility to locate their colonies in an area where there is adequate nutritional foraging (bee habitat). The routine feeding of bees cannot be a substitute for the beekeepers stupidity in choosing a bad site.

However, if the site you have chosen is not good habitat (as might be the case with my woodland apiary). Then, by resisting the urge to feed the bees, a beekeeper can more effectively identify which colonies are able to thrive in such an environment.

--The bees could get along fine against the mites, if the dumb humans had not brought them over here.

Being serous now, what would be the difference who brought them over here?
Bees don’t care who’s to blame. This is the environment that exists today and that ALL honeybees, including ferals must live in.
So they must adapt accordingly or die.

--The bees could forage fine if the humans had not concreted over their forage area and then imported deadly mites to weaken them to the point that they couldn't forage what little area that was left.

That’s not what’s happening in areas where humans have concreted over forage areas making cities. There are beekeepers on rooftops in New York City.

That’s not the case in Europe either:

“Beekeepers say urban bees' productivity can be up to four times that of their rural counterparts”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4621184.stm

Why are they able to forage efficiently in low forage areas in Europe, and not here?
Why am I seeing productivity in several of my colonies indicating a rather good year, while some other beekeepers in my area are reporting a bad year?

IMO, it’s poor genetics. I just got done visiting a neighboring beekeeper to diagnose for him why his bees from packages were not thriving, at the same time many of my colonies and start up swarms were doing rather well.

I inspected a few of the colonies and found rather healthy looking bees, half decent queen laying, very low mite pressure, no disease. BUT, they lacked in broodnest fecundity, seemingly unable to bring in enough stores to the broodnest to support any expansion. These bees were clearly having difficult competing in this environment. But environment cannot be to blame when by comparison, my startup swarms are doing well. So that leaves unfit genetics as the cause.

--I think we owe them a little care, after all the damage we did. The environment they are expected to survive in was NOT god-given, It was human given. God is not so dumb.

The bees can manage, as the case in Europe and beekeepers on rooftops of New York City. Since you brought it up, God is smart, God gave the honeybee it’s own ability to adapt to changing conditions and diseases with varying genetic traits. And beekeepers have been using this tool for MANY centuries in breeding from the best performers. Why in these times do we NOW want to ignore these tools God gave us?
How are treatments God given?

[iddee]

>>How are treatments God given?<<

By him giving SOME enough common sense to know what to do to help a struggling being....

and with that, I'll sign out of this thread....I've got treatments to do..
:eek: tongue.gif

[Kieck]

"I will have to disagree with you here. 1 mite in 4 out of 10 drone pupa is a low count. If you can provide reference stating otherwise, I will concede." -Pcolar

Hmmmm. . . I don't know that I've had anyone tell me that I wouldn't react the way I believe I would react before. :D I said that I would just about panic -- I never said anything else about the numbers ("pupae" is the plural of "pupa," by the way). In my hives, finding Varroa on one of 20 drone pupae would indicate a vastly increased population of mites, and I would start wondering about management techniques to help out those bees. Four in 10, among my bees, would represent an astronomical increase. I firmly believe I would just about panic if I found numbers like that. Do you still disagree that I might feel panicky about counts like that? ;)

I'll step aside on the "treatments" issue. Knowing where the lines are drawn between acceptable "treatments" and inacceptable "treatments" must be personal, I think.

For example, Apistan and CheckMite+ are pretty generally regarded as "treatments." Oxalic acid and formic acid are also pretty generally regarded as "treatments." Some beekeepers accept both pairs, others reject one or the other.

On this thread, feeding sugar syrup seems to be regarded as "propping up bees that might otherwise fail." What about moving frames within hives to encourage bees to store more honey? Is moving frames also a way of "propping up" colonies that might otherwise fail? What about moving colonies to areas with more forage? Is artificially moving a colony a way of "propping up" colonies that might otherwise fail?

What about providing foundation? I know some of you actually provide no foundation, but what are the opinions about providing foundation? Is providing plastic comb to bees an inacceptable manipulation of hives? What about providing plastic foundation? What about wax foundation? Should bees make all of their own comb?

Do some of these constitute "treatments?" Why? Why not? Where do the differences lie?

[TwT]

I don't see where people get treating a hive and feeding one is the same thing (just my opinion)????? ,,,, come on people treating bee's to me is medicating them, that's the only way I can see treating, I feed my dogs but do treat them for fleas and tic's.... I'm rite at 3 years with not meds, oils, acids, powdered sugars, etc.....I started beekeeping then and never used any of those.... I want a bee that can handle T-mites, V-mites, brood disease or what ever(of course so does everyone else), the feral's are out there or they would all be dead and some people have survivor stock........ there is a difference between managing hives and treating them... just my 2 cents

Bullseye Bill said:

I would define treatments as things added to the hive, basically drugs, chemicals, etc. Drone trapping and breaking brood cycle would be a management issue.
I agree totally!!!!! also feeding hives I would add to that management list, I feed mine to build population to raise queens, most times I take about all spring honey and then when we have a poor fall flow and I might need to feed for a good safe winter, I just cant see feeding a hive as a treatment, sorry.....

[ August 29, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: TwT ]

[BULLSEYE BILL]

I am of the same mind as TwT. There are a lot of managment things that you can do to help your bees prosper that would not constitute medically treating them.

I guess I 'treat' my dogs pretty well as I feed them on a regular basis. ;) But replacing the honey I take off with syrup is not changing the bees ability to survive, it's just insuring that they will survive because I took their stores and I replaced it with a cheap substitute.

A nuc or a split will run out of stores during the darth of summer. It's not their fault that there is no nectar to gather and without feeding death is emminant. The same colony next year after it has built up strength is a survivor of not only natures pressures but of the beekeeper's interactions as well.

[naturebee]

--What about moving frames within hives to encourage bees to store more honey? Is moving frames also a way of "propping up" colonies that might otherwise fail? What about moving colonies to areas with more forage? Is artificially moving a colony a way of "propping up" colonies that might otherwise fail?

This is all covered in exhibit A.

Exhibit A:
‘Other than what a beekeeper must do to shelter, manipulate and encourage maximum colony growth and perform the necessary beekeeping operations. The only thing that is a “treatment” are things that a beekeeper does for a colony that the colony should be doing for themselves in the area of ‘survival fitness traits’, such as fighting disease, pests and nutritional foraging. In other words, giving a colony an ‘artificial advantage’ that is not representative of there own God given ability to survive in a given environment.

--What about providing foundation? I know some of you actually provide no foundation, but what are the opinions about providing foundation? Is providing plastic comb to bees an inacceptable manipulation of hives? What about providing plastic foundation? What about wax foundation? Should bees make all of their own comb?

See exhibit A

--Do some of these constitute "treatments?" Why? Why not? Where do the differences lie?

Exhibit A is there to provide some degree of flexibility to allow for different management styles of beekeeping. But you really would not be “fighting disease, pests and nutritional foraging” by the ‘normal’ use of adding foundation.

In predicting your next question:

No a cat sitting on the roof of you colony is NOT a treatment, but could be considered a mouse guard. smile.gif

[Kieck]

"No a cat sitting on the roof of you colony is NOT a treatment, but could be considered a mouse guard." -Pcolar

You were close to predicting my next question after reading your response, but not quite there. :D

Hypothetically, let's say that someone found a mite that feeds on Varroa, the same way that Varroa feeds on bees. Would you consider adding these hypothetical mites a "treatment?"

[naturebee]

--I don't see where people get treating a hive and feeding one is the same thing (just my opinion)????? -(TWT)


Consider that colonies susceptible to varroa, disease ridden colonies, colonies with bad genetics, colonies that do not produce or thrive should be culled as part of the normal selection process. Most often, just the mere fact that a colony needs feeding when others in the same growth stage do not, is usually an indication that the colony is genetically unfit or troubled in some fashion.

The problem is, some people are using feeding and treating as a substitute for performing the essential ‘fundamental beekeeping practices’, and this is where the major harm lies. Instead of removing these unfits from the genetic base, feeding unfit colonies gives them an artificial advantage and allows them to produce more drones than would otherwise be reared. This permits an unfair representation in the breeding environment of genetics from bees that “need fed”. Now you have your virgin queens mating with genetics from that of colonies that need feeding assistance, instead of the self-sufficient genetics.

--I want a bee that can handle T-mites, V-mites, brood disease or what ever(of course so does everyone else) -(TWT)

So you want bees that are self-sufficient against the mites, but are dependant on you to feed them? smile.gif

[GaSteve]

> I think "treatments" needs definition.
For me, it means nothing, nada. No big stuff or little stuff. No trapping, no oil, no sugar, no etc.

From this thread and others, I get the impression that the ONLY common thread among all the folks at this stage (no actions whatsoever for varroa) is to have a significant percentage of brood comb small cell -- regardless of strain of bee, lattitude, altitude, feeding methods, feral or "domestic", Lang hive or TBH, or any other variables.

Is it really that simple? If so, it is absolutely bee-wildering why the rest of the beekeeping world hasn't caught on.

Or is it still considered "cutting edge" beekeeping -- awaiting for the "mainstream" to catch up?

[Michael Bush]

>Is it really that simple?

Yes.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm


>If so, it is absolutely bee-wildering why the rest of the beekeeping world hasn't caught on.

Yes, it is.

[naturebee]

--have a significant percentage of brood comb small cell -- ,,,,
Is it really that simple?

IMO, NO

Beekeeping is not about just a sheet of small cell foundation. Look at Dee’s writings. Small cell (environment) is only 1/3 the equation the other two are, nutrition 1/3, and field breeding 1/3 according to Dee.

The 3/3’s of this together will equal success!

Remember, do what those that have had success have done.

[TwT]

>>>Pcolar said

Consider that colonies susceptible to varroa, disease ridden colonies, colonies with bad genetics, colonies that do not produce or thrive should be culled as part of the normal selection process. Most often, just the mere fact that a colony needs feeding when others in the same growth stage do not, is usually an indication that the colony is genetically unfit or troubled in some fashion. <<<

I agree totally, I re-queen hives that aren't up to my standards... I only want good queens.

>>> Pcolar said
So you want bees that are self-sufficient against the mites, but are dependant on you to feed them?<<<

sure I want a bee that is self-sufficient against everything. I don't feed weak hives like that, I feed for population growth and feed during queen rearing... if I rob all the honey from my hives and the fall flow does nothing and every hive is short why wouldn't I feed them, that would be crazy not to but that doesn't mean I treat my hives just because I feed for certain reasons, I'm am going for selection to get the best mite resistant bee's and honey production bee's I can raise......,,, hey but if you was to buy wax from me it would only have sugar on it :D ;)

[ August 30, 2006, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: TwT ]

[D. Murrell]

Hi Guys,

>>are you sure that Bwrangler doesn't use OA?

>I think he experiments on a limited number of hives, but for the most part, and he will answer for himself, I think he does not treat.

I started trying non-treatment/soft treatment methods in 1996. Small cell was the only method that worked with the bee's biological behavior and was totally effective against the varroa mite.

Once I got enough small cell comb, I didn't have any need to treat my bees for any reason.

Initially, in 2000, I had some 'survivor' bees with genetics that were very susceptible to parafoul brood. I requeened, and treated these bees with tetra. No problems with any kind of foulbrood/chalkbrood/mites since then.

And I've taken untreated bees and put them back on clean, large cell comb. These bees had all the advantages of bees on small cell comb except mite tolerance. These bees needed treatment to survive, so I treated them with oxalic and eventually put them all back on small cell where they survived without any kind of treatment.

I've also experimented with broodnest/comb manipulations in a few my top bar hives. Some of these managed hives showed signs of varroa overload. I re-arranged the broodnests to a natural configuration and treated with oxalic. These tbhs haven't needed any treatment since the broodnest were re-arranged.

I treated the bees in these few experiments. Letting them die to prove a point wouldn't serve any of my purposes. I know that their condition was the result of my manipulations. They would have done just fine on a small cell or natural broodnest comb where they ended up after the experiments were done with.

Once colonies are in a clean broodnest and don't need treatments to keep them alive, a beekeeper can focus on selecting bees with the kind of qualities he desires. I like a hardy, frugal, self-sufficient bee that is gentle and a good producer. And that's what I've got by selecting from my own bees.

I move my hives two to three times a year. Beekeeping is very different out west than it is in the East. Moving bees or feeding them is a necessity, as they just don't have enough forage in one spot to sustain them for a whole year. See:

www.bwrangler.com/bee/ (http://bwrangler.farvista.net/qmar.htm)wbee.htm (http://bwrangler.madpage.com/bee/wbee.htm)

and

www.bwrangler.com/ (http://bwrangler.farvista.net/qmar.htm)bee/wcli.htm (http://bwrangler.madpage.com/bee/wcli.htm)

Wyoming is a terrible place to keep bees. Here, they are on the very extreme edge of survival most of the time.

If my bees ever develop a problem that needs some kind of treatment. I will consider it. And I might use it, if it is non-contaminating to the broodnest/hive. Limited in duration. And absolutely necessary. But, so far, since 2000 with small cell, that hasn't occurred.

I shared my experience with the 'oxalic crack pipe' and sugar dusting hoping to provide beekeepers with an interim v mite solution that would allow them to migrate their bees to small cell without the catastrophic colony losses all of us early small cell beekeepers suffered. I originally recommending building a cheap 'pipe' and throwing it out after a couple of years. But, I changed those recommendations after I realized that a standard beekeeper using oxalic was far ahead of one use the synthetic pesticides. And that some beekeepers wouldn't have the time, energy, knowledge or desire to go completely clean.

Beekeeping, which has been much of my focus, livelihood and passion for almost 40 years,is in a state of transition. I've got a system that produces about double what the best commercial beekeepers in this area can produce, much to their consternation. Other than moving and the occasional requeening, beekeeping now requires almost no effort or attention from me. I have essentially no winter loss and no problems with diseases. Swarming is a problem in my tbhs, but not so in my Langs.

All my equipment is full of bees. I've got way too much honey/bees and I'm about experimented out. I shared my experiences and spent man-years typing on this internet. I suspect that soon, I will be an infrequent contributor with just a couple of hives at most.

Regards
Dennis


I've had a few hives

[Barry]

I'm with MB, it's really been that basic for me. I have not been able to "manage" my bees much at all for the last several years like I use to, and they keep plugging right along. The only difference with these hives from all the other hives I've had in the past is it has a large percentage of SC combs.

I also don't agree with the 3-3-3 thing. I have not seen it play out with my bees. I don't buy queens and I let mother nature run that program. I have mutts and like them very well. My bees have always had plenty of means for nutrition so that 3rd doesn't need my help either.

- Barry

[ August 31, 2006, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Barry ]

[naturebee]

--if I rob all the honey from my hives and the fall flow does nothing and every hive is short why wouldn't I feed them,,,,

Might be a difference in enviornment working here, but my colonies generally have just about what they need for winter by the end of June. This also carries them over thru the dry summer and gives them reserves needed to make fall bees.

Even durring a fall flow that does 'nothing for the beekeeper' does not necessarally mean the bees arent getting what they need out of it. So I find that feeding is not necessary even during a fall flow that does nothing.

[naturebee]

--I have not been able to "manage" my bees much at all for the last several years like I use to, and they keep plugging right along. The only difference with these hives from all the other hives I've had in the past is it has a large percentage of SC combs. --(Barry)

But are they ‘thriving’ and out competing as opposed to just plugging along?

--I also don't agree with the 3-3-3 thing. --(Barry)

Nutritional foraging has nothing to do with the bees needs?
And breeding has nothing to do with it either?
Bad breeding practices and good breeding practices the same thing then, no difference?

--I have not seen it play out with my bees. I don't buy queens and I let mother nature run that program. --(Barry)

You say you don’t agree and are not seeing it play out in your bees, and yet you are doing the 1/3 breeding by letting ‘mother nature run it for you‘?
Isn’t that breeding?

--I have mutts and like them very well. My bees have always had plenty of means for nutrition so that 3rd doesn't need my help either. --(Barry)

So you have your bees in an area where there is ‘plenty of means for nutrition’ and yet you say you are not doing this 1/3 also????

I think your doing it but not realizing it.

--I also don't agree with the 3-3-3 thing. --(Barry)

So you 1/3 can buy the crappiest bred bees, 1/3 throw them on small cell, and 1/3 plop them down in the crappiest location and expect them to thrive?


BTW, Maybe I miss understand here, but I thought back with the yahoo biological beekeepers broke up, your stance was that small cell didn’t work, hence leading to you and Dee parting ways. I remember you stating the failure of small cell and high mite counts, disease etc.
What gives here now, with the turn around?

Same with an another guy, who seems to do everything small cell but continually promotes a public vendetta against Dee. What’s with the politics here also?

[ August 31, 2006, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]

[Barry]

>But are they ‘thriving’ and out competing as opposed to just plugging along?

Hi Joe -

I don't bother to weigh, measure, compare, etc., anymore. In my estimation, they are no different than hives I've had over the years except that they manage the woes all by themselves.

>>--I have not seen it play out with my bees. I don't buy queens and I let mother nature run that program. --(Barry)

>You say you don’t agree and are not seeing it play out in your bees, and yet you are doing the 1/3 breeding by letting ‘mother nature run it for you‘?
Isn’t that breeding?

It's not breeding according to the script that Dee has put forth. Both Dennis and I have experienced this part differently than what Dee has written. Dee continuously selects for color and traits. I do none of that.

>So you have your bees in an area where there is ‘plenty of means for nutrition’

Yes, I have no need to "equalize" stores between hives or supplement feeding. Dee does both of these.

>I think your doing it but not realizing it.

I'm okay with that. As long as it's clear that I don't realize it, because I'm not following any of Dee's detailed guidelines outside of using SC comb.

<<BTW, Maybe I miss understand here, but I thought back with the yahoo biological beekeepers broke up, your stance was that small cell didn’t work, hence leading to you and Dee parting ways. I remember you stating the failure of small cell and high mite counts, disease etc.
What gives here now, with the turn around?

Same with an another guy, who seems to do everything small cell but continually promotes a public vendetta against Dee. What’s with the politics here also?>>

Please show me were I said that. Yes, I'm afraid you have misunderstood. I have never said SC doesn't work. Read for yourself:
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/index.htm
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/biobeefiles/index.htm
I have said I disagree with Dee's script and her fanaticism/extremism stand on some things. That other guy, Dennis, refuses to play the politics, as do I. Please give me a reference to one posting where he has been uncivil towards Dee. Just because one disagrees with another doesn't make it a vendetta to say so. We have both visited Ed and Dee and seen firsthand their operation and their bees. We have both used her bees in our own apiary and both had negative experiences with them. I have talked so much with Dee in the past on the phone and through email. Let's get this straight, Dee is the one that shut the door and parted ways, not I. I continue to host her info on Beesource and refer others to her when appropriate. Why don't you ask her why ways were parted and let us know? I have nothing against Ed or Dee. I just happen to disagree with them on some things regarding SC. Dennis and I have been in contact with each other for years and have compared our SC experience. We both experience the same thing and it is different than the "rule book" on SC beekeeping.

- Barry

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>All my equipment is full of bees. I've got way too much honey/bees and I'm about experimented out. I shared my experiences and spent man-years typing on this internet. I suspect that soon, I will be an infrequent contributor with just a couple of hives at most.

Regards
Dennis

I will miss your posts and I will miss YOU. Thank you for your contributions.

[naturebee]

--Just because one disagrees with another doesn't make it a vendetta to say so. --(Barry)

I agree, but disagreements could be handed differently than this QUOTE “,,,was surprised to find a major proponent of organic/small cell suggesting that swarming was the bees response to negative factors!,,,”

I don't mind disagreement one bit, but,,,
Keep the disagreement TO THE FACTS and keep pointing fingers , taking jabs OUT!

--Why don't you ask her why ways were parted and let us know? --(Barry)

I talk with Dee occasionally, and consider her a friend, I just never believe in prying information from friends. Thats her business.

--I have nothing against Ed or Dee. I just happen to disagree with them on some things regarding SC. --(Barry)

I may disagree on some things also, but I disagree on some things with many people.

-- We both experience the same thing and it is different than the "rule book" on SC beekeeping.--(Barry)

There is no rule book. Dee has her way, I have my way, I do some things Dees way and some things my way.

[ August 31, 2006, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]

[D. Murrell]

Ok Pcolar,

You will get my response, as you have made this a public matter.

First, I also have the greatest sympathy and regard for Ed and Dee. And if you would take the time to read my website you would see as much. This is what I have to say about them on my website:

"Lusbys

Early in 2002, I visited with the Lusbys. The Lusbys are very keen observers of their bees. They think for themselves and didn't get to be on the beekeeping fringe by following behind the crowd. They are opinionated. Love to speculate. Test their theories in the real world. Love to share. And they talk bees day and night. In other words, they are very interesting folks to meet if you're a beekeeper.

I appreciate them and enjoyed their warm hospitality. Their insight into bee behavior changed my beekeeping forever. They taught me the most valuable beekeeping principal I 've learned. They stressed, "let the bees show you". So I did."

When I regressed my bees in 2000, I mostly followed the Lusbys protocol. There were lots of questions then, and Dee was the only one with any real experience. She had lots of answers. And lots of speculation abounded about cause and effect. But everyone involved understood that is was just speculation.

As Barry, I and a few others gained some small cell experience, we saw some different observations and reached our own conclusions about small cell. Some of these differed from the Lusbys at which point she cut us off. You will have to ask her why. But she went as far as to form her own list where she could have ultimate control over who and what was discussed.

I have never had a vendetta against the Lusbys. And have withheld all of my personal experience concerning them and their bees to prevent any personal embarassment. I have even gone as far as not mentioning their names when responding to their open posts on Bee-L and elsewhere, preferring to talk about the ideas rather than the person.

But, you on the other hand, have felt free to slander both Barry and I by name. And this is not the first time either. And it's most interesting to see you talk now about the value of outbreeding and a wide genetic pool, the feral bee, when you became almost rabid when I suggest that a genetic bottle was responsible for the parafoul seen in my small cell bees contrary to the stuff Dee had been touting.

Yep, when anyone disagrees with Dee and has a differing small cell experience, here comes Joe et al to her defense when she hasn't even been attacked. And your, et. al attacks are often slanderous and personal. Why does the small cell camp feel so threatened? Why be so uptight? Why not let the ideas, observations and experiences stand or fall where they will?

It's this very perception that small cell beekeeping is under attack generally, and Dee specifically, that has hindered the general acceptance of small cell by the mainstream beekeeper. The spirit of conspiracy, fanaticism and claim to exclusive knowledge, found in the small cell camp, rivals that of any cult based religion I know of. And for some, that's exactly what it seems to be.

For a certain mindset, that's a very good draw toward the small cell camp. But for most, especially beekeepers with any kind of experience, or anyone who has been involved with a cult type religion or organization, it's a real turn off.

And the fact that this same very narrow view of beekeeping is not common at beesource has been proposed as one of it's major faults!!! I think it's one of beesources greatest assets. Beekeepers of all persuasions can get together and freely talk about things that concern or interest them. I for one welcome all exchanges as long as they are civil. And I think a non-biologic beekeeper can add as much to a discussion in the biobee forum as can a Lang beekeeper in the Tbh forum.

Now, I will finish this rant on a personal note. I would send this to you privately Joe, but you have made it public. Any personal relationship between the Lusby's and myself is a private matter between us. And you Joe, have no knowledge or business in this matter, for I have never shared any of it with you. And I never will.

I challenge anyone with any interest in this matter to go back to Bee-L and read the orignal posts concerning Dee's comments about swarming, stress and Houseling the combs in her hives.

Here's a typical one:
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0607D&L=BEE-L&P=R1258&I=-3

But there are many others like it. Search the Bee-L archives for yourself and see. Don't look to see if I have a vendetta against Dee, I don't. But does she say her bees are so content that they don't swarm? And what factors contribute to that contentment?

Now if I question that assessment of bee behavior and am surprised to hear it come from an experienced beekeeper. (Those most rabid members of the small cell camp will think I'm attacking Dee--not so!) I'm talking about one of the most fundamental bee behaviors and houseling, a purported way of naturally arranging comb. I'm talking B's not D's!

Regards
Dennis
Thinking those that mostly talk D's misunderstand those that mostly talk B's

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Dee's explanation was quite an eye opener.

I am of the opionion that it is a natural tendency of bees to swarm. Natures way of insuring their survival. We know what makes them swarm. If Dee's bees do not swarm, I would conclude that it's their management style that is responsible for it.

I have taken many colonies from houses, trees, under buildings, bird houses, and free hanging. I have had many chances to study natural comb relationships and have not found housel positioning to be utilized by bees building natural comb.

The best explanation of cell size and cell positioning I have seen is on Bwrangler's site and the observations he has reported there. Since reading his findings I have paid very close attention to natural combs and can find no flaw in his conclusions.

[George Fergusson]

>The spirit of conspiracy, fanaticism and claim to exclusive knowledge, found in the small cell camp, rivals that of any cult based religion I know of. And for some, that's exactly what it seems to be.

It was for those very reasons and a few others that I finally decided to leave the Organicbeekeeper's list. While I hold Dee in high regard and appreciate what she had to offer, I just couldn't swallow the dogma. For a while I could look the other way and ignore it but finally it became too much of a chore despite my interest in small cell and "natural" beekeeping. I'm too much of a free thinker I guess. I didn't fit in.

>For a certain mindset, that's a very good draw toward the small cell camp. But for most, especially beekeepers with any kind of experience, or anyone who has been involved with a cult type religion or organization, it's a real turn off.

Sad but true.

I wasn't going to jump in here but Dennis's post just struck a chord with me and I had to share.

George-

[naturebee]

--You will get my response, as you have made this a public matter. --(B Wrangler)

You’ve been keeping it a public mater with your “,,,was surprised to find a major proponent of organic/small cell” type comments which are hostile in nature.
Have I or Dee ever referred to you as a “a major bla bla bla from Wyoming”

--As Barry, I and a few others gained some small cell experience, we saw some different observations and reached our own conclusions about small cell. Some of these differed from the Lusbys at which point she cut us off. You will have to ask her why. But she went as far as to form her own list where she could have ultimate control over who and what was discussed.--(B Wrangler)

If I recall correctly I believe that the reason was that list had become infiltrated with too much treatment talk, as you know Dee stands firm against.

--I have never had a vendetta against the Lusbys. And have withheld all of my personal experience concerning them and their bees to prevent any personal embarassment. I have even gone as far as not mentioning their names when responding to their open posts on Bee-L and elsewhere, preferring to talk about the ideas rather than the person.--(B Wrangler)

OK “certain beekeeper from Wyoming” smile.gif

--But, you on the other hand, have felt free to slander both Barry and I by name. --(B Wrangler)

OK, prove it! Where have I slandered you or Barry by name or wothout name???????????????????
I have kept myself out of it, and have only responded to debate, is this right Barry?


-And this is not the first time either. And it's most interesting to see you talk now about the value of outbreeding and a wide genetic pool, the feral bee, when you became almost rabid when I suggest that a genetic bottle was responsible for the parafoul seen in my small cell bees contrary to the stuff Dee had been touting.--(B Wrangler)

I recall the bottle neck was caused by your mismanagement practices. Under a natural type system you would have been ok.

--Yep, when anyone disagrees with Dee and has a differing small cell experience, here comes Joe et al to her defense when she hasn't even been attacked. And your, et. al attacks are often slanderous and personal. --(B Wrangler)

I have no desire to defend Dee for her, she is capable of defending her self. My answers are derived from my own experience and observations.
I disagree with you that my discussions are slanderous and personal!!!!

--Now, I will finish this rant on a personal note. I would send this to you privately Joe, but you have made it public. Any personal relationship between the Lusby's and myself is a private matter between us. And you Joe, have no knowledge or business in this matter, for I have never shared any of it with you. And I never will. --(B Wrangler)

Calm down now.
WHAT HAVE I MADE PUBLIC??????????????
Here you are with the exact slander in this post that you accuse me of!!!!!!!!!!!

Best Wishes,
Certain beekeeper from Pennsylvania

[Barry]

--As Barry, I and a few others gained some small cell experience, we saw some different observations and reached our own conclusions about small cell. Some of these differed from the Lusbys at which point she cut us off. You will have to ask her why. But she went as far as to form her own list where she could have ultimate control over who and what was discussed.--(B Wrangler)

If I recall correctly I believe that the reason was that list had become infiltrated with too much treatment talk, as you know Dee stands firm against.--(Joe)

I only have time to respond to this right now as I'm walking out the door.

I started the BioBee email list so a handful of us who were interested in discussing small cell and the Lusby's whole idea of beekeeping had a place to do it. The group description read:

"Biological Beekeeping is for the discussion of information and application concerning the keeping of bees and production of honey using biological methodology. We discuss ways to keep bees without the use of chemicals and drugs. We seek to understand how the bees operate biologically and then formulate management methods that cooperate, as much as possible, with the bees biology. This includes discussion on breeding, diet, hive/comb construction and environment."

No where did it say you could not say a word about drugs or chemicals. This is where the tension mounted between Dee and I as I allowed discussion of drugs and chemicals, as long as it focused on ways of getting off them. Reality is, most people were already treating their bees but were interested in making the change. I can not ignore this fact and ban ANY discussion or mention of those words. They are a part of life for most and I was interested, and still am, in helping people make the change. This will inevitably require you to have discussions about drugs and chemicals and how one can stop using them. It's called grace.

Bye, gotta run.

- B

[naturebee]

-- While I hold Dee in high regard and appreciate what she had to offer, I just couldn't swallow the dogma. For a while I could look the other way and ignore it but finally it became too much of a chore despite my interest in small cell and "natural" beekeeping. I'm too much of a free thinker I guess. I didn't fit in.--(George)

George,
I understand what you are saying.
When I started searching the internet around 2000 for a solution that would help me in my beekeeping and keep my bees alive. I knew that (as in all information found on the internet) I would have to find a way to filter thru fact from fiction. So I use a special device called a BS filter to sort thru it all, because I know there may be valuable information contained within. Everything gets run thru the BS filter and I adjust the level accordingly, throwing out some things and gleaning from others. I may disagree an a few threads, or I simply may not comment on a few threads, but it all goes thru the filter and I have learned much about beekeeping using the special device.

A person I know very well that lives nearby to me is an expert craftsman of just about everything imaginable. He has the ability to repair, fix or figure out just about anything!!! His knowledge of many things is vast and I was able to learn much from him. He is a good man, honest, trustworthy and a well meaning person, but has his share of faults like all people do. One fault is that he believes there is going to be a dooms day event and keeps a stock pile of bottled water, survival supplies and toilet paper.

Now, that there is much to learn from this guy, which brings up the question. Do I waste my time in discussions with him concern about dooms say scenarios? Or do I ignore things I don’t agree with, not comment and gear discussions to productive learning?

This is how I apply it to the internet and other beekeepers. Makes no difference to me what religion, race, beliefs or faults they have. If they are good, honest, well meaning persons, they are welcome as a friend, and I don’t let simple faults get in the way. One thing is sure, I do know where I can get some toilet paper if the world sould ever end. smile.gif

One thing that I have learned from being on the internet.
“No mater how much I think I know about beekeeping, I know that I do not know all there is to know about beekeeping.”

[ September 01, 2006, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]

[D. Murrell]

Hi Joe,

>I recall the bottle neck was caused by your mismanagement practices. Under a natural type system you would have been ok.

Well, now that's an interesting assessment! For, at the time, I was following the Lusbys method. For then, I didn't have any reason not to.

But from what I've learned through that experience, I would have to agree with you. Regression is a form of mis-management.

It's based on a false assumption. And can easily produce the results I experienced. Maybe your bees had the same kind of bottleneck experience with reduced vigor/health and you just didn't realize it. As I recall, you had just a few hives that were regressed. Not exactly a large genetic base to work from. Now, the ferals, by comparison to your own regressed bees seem full of vitality, etc. Could that be the result of your own mis-management....err...regression.

Regards
Dennis

[ September 01, 2006, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]

[Barry]

Hey, look what I came across tonight as I was getting more posts off of BioBee. smile.gif

---

To: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:59:17 -0600
Subject: Small Cell Genetic Bottleneck
From: usbwrangler@juno.com


Hello Everyone,

I have encountered a problem with my small cell hives. About half the
hives are now infected with European Foulbrood disease (EF). The
infection appears to be chronic and will probably destroy at least four
of the hives without treatment.

Historically, EF has not been a problem in this area. Out of several
thousand hives, less than a dozen hives would get it and maybe only one
or two would be decimated by it. No one treated for EF. Hives
experiencing problems were routinely requeened which solved the problem.

Last year I split my surviving small cell colonies. Most of the hives had
the same kind of bee. They survived quite well handling any mite
infestation but are now being decimated by EF. The effects are as bad as
a terminal American Foulbrood infection. No spring buildup will occur in
these colonies without drastic intervention. They are extremely
susceptible to EF. Any additional stress created by exposure to
pesticides, poor nutrition caused by the drought, etc. will kill these
hives in a few weeks. These hives overwintered with about 2 deeps of bees
and now consist of less than a single box of bees and a few frames of
shot brood.

I think that regressing a limited number of colonies creates a genetic
bottleneck, especially if the bees are closely related. The bees that
survive the mites may be excellent at that task but may have other
negative characteristics like extreme susceptibility to EF. It might take
several years to for a negative trait to become apparent. By then colony
losses could be again be significant.

If this is the case, increasing colony counts by breeding from the
survivors alone will not provide a good solution to this problem. Anyone
regressing should keep this in mind. For me it has been quite a set back.

I have other small cell colonies that are headed by queens and selections
that didn't pass through the regression. They were introduced into small
cell hives and their progeny replaced the small cell stock that went
through the regression. These hives consist of 3 boxes of bees and brood
with no EF problems. They handle the mites as well as those that were
regressed and survived. Although I'm not too sure how they will draw out
the small cell foundation.

My long term solution will be to requeen those EF susceptible hives with
different stock. I can't raise queens here until the second week of June
so I've ordered some which should arrive mid May. In the interim I will
treat those hives. Maybe the bees will at least clean up the brood nests.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking that the road may be a lot longer than mites

[naturebee]

-- For, at the time, I was following the Lusbys method. For then, I didn't have any reason not to.-- (B Wrangler)

I was under the assumption that Dees advice to split up the bees to build numbers was the cause of the bottleneck. Pushing too hard to increase weakening the health and too many sister queens. I’ve had similar problems pushing too hard with chalk brood and such.

--Maybe your bees had the same kind of bottleneck experience with reduced vigor/health and you just didn't realize it. -- (B Wrangler)

I don’t think so because they most all died one year from mites and I killed allot of the Russian queens the next do to dissatisfaction. 60% my bees at this time are unrelated ferals.

--As I recall, you had just a few hives that were regressed. Not exactly a large genetic base to work from. Now, the ferals, by comparison to your own regressed bees seem full of vitality, etc. Could that be the result of your own mis-management....err...regression
-- (B Wrangler)

They are looking better but one must understand that I am continually practicing heavy culling of stock and introducing of new ferals. This year for example, I culled about 60% of my feral swarms caught and maybe 25% of my production colonies, I ended up decreasing by a few colonies. But I do have a line of outperforming feral stock that I have never had to do any culling for 5 years, and a few woodland ferals caught last season that are outperforming and showing great promise. These will be my drone source and new splits next season. This is why I have placed high emphasis on breeding because the high performance of the some of the ferals resets the bar higher causing me to cull poor performers once again.

[naturebee]

--"I think that regressing a limited number of colonies creates a genetic
bottleneck, especially if the bees are closely related."

Barry,

Yes this would be a problem in for any beekeeper pushing too hard for increases. I don’t see how it is a small cell problem or a large cell problem. It is in my honest opinion that is was a management mistake.

I believe that I do recall when Dee was suggesting to Dennis that he should keep making splits from the regressed colony. If this was the advice given, it would not be IMO in line with good beekeeping practices.

[Barry]

I'll finish cleaning up the posts on the genetic bottleneck thread from biobee and make them live so you can see the total discussion on it. I'll give a link as soon as it's done.

- Barry

[Scot Mc Pherson]

I don't chime in much, but I will here.

There is something about religion which isn't applicable here. Religion is about beliefs which are intangible. However what the OrganicBeekeeper group has achieved is something tangible. Our methods really work, and they work for people who aren't firmly entrenched in the "camp" either. That's great, and what this means is that our group has actually done its job by providing a method that works for you even if you aren't firmly entrenched in the "dogma" as you put it. That's a credit to the group. You have to have fundamentalism in order to have moderationism.

To answer the earlier question posed first, I have not used chems since I reentered beekeeping again. I have been keeping bees since 1985 and was chem free then also because well there wasn't need for it then, however I left beekeeping when I joined the military in 1995. I came back to beekeeping in 1999 and never used chems at all. The closest thing to a chem I used was sugar feed for new installations. My bees still are around and I have more bees now than I did previously. I have bought some to increase my stock drastically (an investment to grow very large very quickly, not because I needed to replace anything), but I bought them again from a reputable source which hasn't been using chems pretty much ever also....I manage what started as 500 colonies this spring, and is down to 380 or so which I attribute to new installation losses without having resources to back up colonies, and also because the 2 weeks after I installed the colonies, we had record low temps for that time of year so some of the bees couldn't even break cluster to get to the syrup. It was a bad situation. However, I have increased back up again over the spring and summer and we'll see what I have come the break of winter.

THe group's numbers are continuously growing. ANd the number of successful chem free beekeepers is also growing...forget the dogma...it just works...

[ September 02, 2006, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Scot Mc Pherson ]

[Barry]

The few times I've read there over the years, it's still the same old same old . . . . dogma . . . mantra . . . . religion, so I'll have to disagree with you no that. It still all gets filtered through the "rule book" of small cell which is posted here in 22 sections:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm

- Barry

[naturebee]

--I'll finish cleaning up the posts on the genetic bottleneck thread from biobee and make them live so you can see the total discussion on it. I'll give a link as soon as it's done.
--(Barry)

This would be great Barry, but if the intent here is to discuss what was said 2 years ago, as if time stood still and knowledge and opinions have not changed in the years after, it will be a flawed experiment. Each quote would have to be reevaluated for amendments to what each of in the present time now know.

As Dennis stated speculative thinking abounded on Bio-Bee, but IMO was a necessity due to the cutting edge thinking and attempts to explain what we were seeing. Things discussed in the present state of beekeeping would be better representative of the true ideas and thoughts existing today of those involved.

“No mater how much we think we know about keeping bees, one thing we do know, is that we do not know all there is to know about keeping bees.”

Best Wishes,
Joe

[naturebee]

--However what the OrganicBeekeeper group has achieved is something tangible. Our methods really work, and they work for people who aren't firmly entrenched in the "camp" either. That's great, and what this means is that our group has actually done its job by providing a method that works for you even if you aren't firmly entrenched in the "dogma" as you put it. That's a credit to the group. You have to have fundamentalism in order to have moderationism.--(Scot)

Yes, the medhodry has worked for me and I have modified much of it to suit my particular beliefs, beekeeping style and environment.

As far as the “dogma”, it exists in some form or another everywhere. All one needs to do if they want to see Dogma is read the stuff that occasionally pops up o the ‘tailgater’. Because there is special place to express dogma here, I guess seems to make it acceptable.

[naturebee]

--The few times I've read there over the years, it's still the same old same old . . . . dogma . . . mantra . . . . religion, so I'll have to disagree with you no that. It still all gets filtered through the "rule book" of small cell which is posted here in 22 sections:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm
--(Barry)

Barry,
Please explain what you disagree with that is contained in the 22 sections of the “rule book”.
Much of the material is very close to the teachings of Brother Adam and written material from Bee Culture and Hive and the Honeybee. Other material is also well supported by referenced material. This is my point, there is factual information to be gleaned and tailored to fit ones own beekeeping styles.

[Dick Allen]

> there is factual information to be gleaned and tailored to fit ones own beekeeping styles.

Indeed there is! ....and it is unfortunate that some beekeepers do just that. picking and choosing and ignoring what doesn't fit their styles or beliefs in order to be "right" and the other guy "wrong".

[ September 02, 2006, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]

[naturebee]

--Indeed there is! ....and it is unfortunate that some beekeepers do just that. picking and choosing and ignoring what doesn't fit their styles or beliefs in order to be "right" and the other guy "wrong".--(Dick)

Was meant more in the style of beekeeping necessary to keep bees in your environment, as opposed to gleaning some material and adapting it to a style of mistreatment or mismanagement practices.

[Barry]

<<This is my point, there is factual information to be gleaned and tailored to fit ones own beekeeping styles.>>

Okay, that's a good idea. Let us all talk about our own beekeeping experiences in the area of biological beekeeping. Let's start with "retrogression." My dictionery says "1. the process of returning to an earlier state, typically a worse one." What has been your experience trying to regress large bees into smaller bees. Forget what the rule book says, let's just all share how it went, or is going, for us. Then we'll take another part of SC beekeeping and see how everyone is doing with it or what their experience was with it. Let's look at the here and now and see where SC beekeeping is.

Who wants to start?

- Barry

[Jim Fischer]

> Let us all talk about our own beekeeping experiences
> in the area of biological beekeeping.

OK, lets talk.

Every year a new crop of enthusiastic and newish beekeepers
with small numbers of hives announce to the world in
general that they have found the one true way, light and
truth. They "don't have to treat", they "treat with FGMO",
they "treat with essential oils", whatever.

And of course, they claim that their hives have survived.
Never mind that they've never even seen a case of nosema,
and don't bother them with the fact that varroa kills hives
in two seasons (rather than one) in most cases, they point
to their hives, started from packages, and say "look at ME,
no treatments here" as if this was some sort of accomplishment
or magic trick.

No data is collected by the majority of these folks, they
can't be bothered to back up their public claims with
actual data. The sole response is "try it, you'll like it",
as if everyone had as much time to fiddle with a
handful of hives as they did.

Later, after 2 or 3 years, most of these folks drop off the map.
One never hears from them again.
One is forced to assume that they have given up beekeeping,
and taken up stamp collecting, or some other hobby. It is sad.

I'm tried of all these people who view beekeeping as some sort
of game where the beekeeper who admits he takes prudent
action (or worse yet, buys products) to deal with pests and
diseases is somehow "a loser". At the end of the decade, which
beekeepers are still standing, and which have quietly wandered
off, never to be heard from again?

If I announced to all and sundry that I was going to raise kids
without any medical treatments of any kind, regardless of
what happened to them, the phone lines would catch fire
between every reader and the local child-abuse center.

I practice "biological beekeeping"! I use every tool that modern
biology provides to keep my bees ALIVE and producing crops.

I laugh at how a tiny minority of people get indignant when
anyone asks for records, data, or even the loan of a few hives
for exposure to actual "varroa pressure" under controlled
conditions. I think it is silly for one group to call their dogma
"biological", when there is so little actual biology contained in
the mix of beliefs offered, that it would be more accurately
called "leap of faith beekeeping". smile.gif

Hey, whatever works for you... but please quit with the
holier-than-thou approach to the rest of us, who worry
and care about our bees JUST AS MUCH as you
so-called "biological" folks claim to care about yours.

And if you have some great discovery, you have two choices.

a) Trot it down to your nearest USDA Bee Lab for a quick
review by the boys in lab coats.

b) Run the program yourself, collecting data for at least
4 to 5 years consistently.

But I've seen too many people endorse too many things that
don't work when subjected to controlled conditions, and I
have seen too many people stop keeping bees because the
tempting promises of one approach or another did not pan
out.

[iddee]

""I laugh at how a tiny minority of people get indignant when anyone asks for records, data, or even the loan of a few hives for exposure to actual "varroa pressure" under controlled conditions.<<

Jim, although I agree with your whole post, I would very much like to loan you a hive or two to test for me. Maybe you can even raise a few queens from them. They have been derived from the only surviving hive an old beekeeper had from all his hives before the mite got here. If you can help me with the permits to get them into VA., I will even deliver them. I would very much like to see if I am imagining the low mite count, or if there is really something there.

[Michael Bush]

> The sole response is "try it, you'll like it",
as if everyone had as much time to fiddle with a
handful of hives as they did.

And you talk as if everyone had time to keep meticulous records for your perusal. I'm lucky to keep up with this forum, work, family and queen rearing.

>Later, after 2 or 3 years, most of these folks drop off the map.
One never hears from them again.

Like Dee? Or me? Or Barry? Or Dennis? Or Joe? Or Scott? It appears we are still on the map. Who are the "most of these folks" who have dropped off the map?

>If I announced to all and sundry that I was going to raise kids
without any medical treatments of any kind, regardless of
what happened to them, the phone lines would catch fire
between every reader and the local child-abuse center.

Se we are now going to anthropomorphize the bees? Treat them like human children? Considering that documented malpractice (not counting what gets swept under the table) is actually one of the leading causes of death in human children, I could hardly fault anyone for that decision.

>I laugh at how a tiny minority of people get indignant when
anyone asks for records, data, or even the loan of a few hives
for exposure to actual "varroa pressure" under controlled
conditions.

Do you have somewhere that would like to measure exposure to “Varroa pressure” under controlled conditions in a natural comb hive? I’ve tried to find them. If you know of someone who is interested in researching small cell, please put them in contact with me. I will be happy to help any way I can.

> I think it is silly for one group to call their dogma
"biological", when there is so little actual biology contained in
the mix of beliefs offered, that it would be more accurately
called "leap of faith beekeeping". [Smile]

Personally, I’ve never asked anyone to have any faith in any method. I have ALWAYS advocated measuring the results. Certainly when it does get where when you no longer have mite problems, counting them seems a bit pointless, but UNTIL you reach that point it’s foolish to assume any method/treatment/etc is actually working without quantifying it.

>Hey, whatever works for you... but please quit with the
holier-than-thou approach to the rest of us, who worry
and care about our bees JUST AS MUCH as you
so-called "biological" folks claim to care about yours.

I’ve never gotten the feeling that anyone in the “small cell” or other “organic” groups thinks that people who treat with chemicals don’t care about their bees.

>And if you have some great discovery, you have two choices.
a) Trot it down to your nearest USDA Bee Lab for a quick
review by the boys in lab coats.
b) Run the program yourself, collecting data for at least
4 to 5 years consistently.

But what data is there really to collect? You keep bees in a natural system and they continue to thrive. What exactly did you want to measure? If you have someone who wants to try it, it’s easy as pie, especially now. You can buy small cell fully drawn plastic comb and put a package on it. You can monitor them to your hearts content, or just let them survive. It will cost you the price of the plastic comb (Honey Super Cell) and the boxes to put it in. (which you probably have already). You could even run the combs through a table saw and cut them down to mediums. smile.gif

[D. Murrell]

Hi Guys,

I think Jim has stated an important starting point. And a failure to establish this starting point can lead to an attitude that is perceived as arrogant. Or worse, establish a climate where certain types of bee management are seen as good or bad. Maybe even even morally right or wrong!

Just what is one's reason for not treating bees? All agricultural pursuits have treated in one way or another to enhance, revive, and protect. Soils, plants and animals all get sick, develop difficiencies. And all these have experienced some benefit when man wisely intervenes regardless of whether the methods used were organic or non-organinic. Our abundant, cheap food supply testifies to this fact.

When my bees were being overcome with PMS, I became a treater. But when I saw the effects on the bees themselves, and potential for product/beekeeper exposure, I tried other alternatives. With a few exceptions the USDA/university boys were looking for new, stronger poisons.

Most of these alternative approaches provides some degree of mite control. But my experience with small cell was a completely different than the treating approach. It allowed the bees, rather than the beekeeper, to control the mites. So, it met my criteria. The bees could go back to being healthy. The hive products could be as clean as possible. And the beekeeper could be healthy also.

>Later, after 2 or 3 years, most of these folks drop off the map. One never hears from them again.

I guess I about in that situation. Biological beekeeping involves a new way of approaching bee husbandry. It involves much more than mite treatments, although that is most of the current focus for many. By looking at my beekeeping in a new way, I've changed how I mangage my bees. The results: Where I used to spend at least 3 hours a day thinking, reading and pondering bees, with all their attendant mite/disease/overwintering problems, just to achieve an average crop. I now spend maybe an hour a month to achieve double that average, with almost no beekeeping problems. I've shared my observations so others can benefit. And I could easily just seem to disappear from the screen. Not because I've failed, but because I have succeeded.

Beekeeping has become a non-issue for me and takes very little of my time and energy. I get the pollination that I need. All the honey I could want and my inspiration with few problems. That could change with the introduction of some new pest or problem. But for now, most of my focus and attentions are elsewhere.

Should I repeat myself over and over? Nah. I've shared and said what I needed to.

>The sole response is "try it, you'll like it",
as if everyone had as much time to fiddle with a
handful of hives as they did.

On another note, I glad a few people have had time to fiddle with a few hives with Huber, Langstroth, and the USDA being among that list. :>))

>If I announced to all and sundry that I was going to raise kids without any medical treatments of any kind,...

I've often laughed at the same thought. Maybe selection of the fittest works great for bees but maybe it's not so good for beekeepers and their families. True husbandry involves taking care of the bees the best way one can.

>I laugh at how a tiny minority of people get indignant when anyone asks for records, data, or even the loan of a few hives...

Getting indignant is certainly wrong. But to expect a small beekeeper, with some observations, to subsidize the federal government, or worse yet, be expected to reduce the risk for a large commercial beekeeper, is inappropriate. The constant consuming cry of gimme, gimme could be replaced by something more mature. If you need it, go out and produce it. If it's of value, share it with others so they can benefit.

>And if you have some great discovery, you have two choices.

Well, there are at least a few more choices. :>) But if you don't need the approval of the lab guys and find a method that works for you. Just use it!

>But I've seen too many people endorse too many things...

Yep, the bee mags are full of ads with all kinds of products promising all kinds of things. And many of them don't have a list of ingredients or the endorsement of the USDA. :>)))

Beekeeping is for big boys :>) And it's sure not for anyone who is risk adverse! If a person leaves beekeeping because a promise or approach fails, how could he handle the vagarities of nature and of the bees themselves. Such a person is on the way out before they even start.

But what happens when a tempting promise or approach, broadly accepted by the USDA and promoted by most beekeepers, doesn't pan out? I can think of a few of these, can't you.

For biological beekeepers, they go back to the bee. And re-evaluate their husbandry based on the bees needs and behavior.

Regards
Dennis
You would never guess I'm disappearing from the length of this post :>)))

[ September 04, 2006, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]

[Dick Allen]

>The sole response is "try it, you'll like it",
as if everyone had as much time to fiddle with a
handful of hives as they did.

Well, some people certainly have plenty of time to sit in front of their computers day in and day out.......

This is the same rehash of what you wrote about a year or so ago on small cell.

Speaking of “try it, you’ll like it” I think that sounds like what I’ve been hearing about using Bee Quick in Alaska. Those people who say it works don’t live in Alaska. I’ve asked for some temperature ranges on Bee Quick to no avail. Everyone down south simply says: “try it, you’ll like it”, and you simply ignore my request for temperature data.

[iddee]

>>>>Speaking of “try it, you’ll like it” I think that sounds like what I’ve been hearing about using Bee Quick in Alaska. Those people who say it works don’t live in Alaska. I’ve asked for some temperature ranges on Bee Quick to no avail. Everyone down south simply says: “try it, you’ll like it”, and you simply ignore my request for temperature data.<<<<

I offered you a free bottle with shipping included and you laughed at me. If that isn't good enough for you, I give up.

Yes, try it, you'll like it. I certainly hope you don't expect me to fly to alaska and try it in front of you. Of course, there's no guarantee even that would convince you. I can't help but wonder if you would have not already bought it with the hope that it would work if the name Jim Fischer were not involved with it.

[tony350i]

Jim f said > The sole response is "try it, you'll like it",
as if everyone had as much time to fiddle with a
handful of hives as they did.

MBsaid >And you talk as if everyone had time to keep meticulous records for your perusal. I'm lucky to keep up with this forum, work, family and queen rearing.

Jim F said> >Later, after 2 or 3 years, most of these folks drop off the map.
One never hears from them again.

MB said >Like Dee? Or me? Or Barry? Or Dennis? Or Joe? Or Scott? It appears we are still on the map. Who are the "most of these folks" who have dropped off the map?

I will get on that map one day too smile.gif

Tony

[ September 04, 2006, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: tony350i ]

[naturebee]

--Just what is one's reason for not treating bees?

To answer Barry question on my small cell experiences and the other question above.

I did not have success with small cell without a balance of breeding with the introduction of feral bees into my operation, and hive placement in good locations. By using ferals, I believe I may have had saved several years of breeding resistant stock by collecting stock that may have been living with varroa for several years. So the 3/3’s of whole beekeeping has helped me succeed, which IMO are basically the lost arts of keeping bees that seem to be ignored and forgotten about, and yet are found in some form in most beekeeping books written by the beekeeping greats.

What’s a treatment? This term has been associated with chemicals, pesticides, feeding bees, contaminates etc.,, just about everything, even nails, wood, smoke and glue.

But I have reevaluating this, and looking at it from the angle, “what is dangerous for the bees?,,, where might the real harm coming from”?

All concerns about contaminates, organic, non organic, pesticides, chemicals etc aside for a moment, I believe some of the most harm comes is when one interferes with the specific part of natural selection pertaining to the “survival of the fittest”, by the propping up of poor genetics that nature always intends to rid from the environment of. My goals are to promote my bee breeding in such a way that traits of economic value as well as survival traits are of equal importance, and this is where my focus is, and now away from other things.

[Ron Young]

Iddee,

Should I do FGMO, on the ones we took out of the house, or did they seem clean enough to let them fend for themselves. If they were the originals that first moved into the house, they had been their a while.

[Barry]

> OK, lets talk.

Great Jim, tell us all about your experience with SC.

- Barry

[Sundance]

Yes this conversation is much more in
tune with "Biological Beekeeping" ;)

[D. Murrell]

Hi Guys,

Barry's idea is a good one. But rather than have all the different small cell topics under one heading. A single heading for each might be more useful. Others could add their experiences, later. And the topic could reflect a timeline of thinking and experience.

How about it biobee moderator?

Regards
Dennis

[Sundance]

That would be great....... I have been using
small cell for 2 years now. More info would
be great.

[Jim Fischer]

> Great Jim, tell us all about your experience with SC.
> Barry

Sure, Barry, I've been trying to get some actual small-cell
hives into the hands of some qualified people who can
do the controlled studies required to provide the proof
(or provide the refutation) that the small-cell faction
wants everyone to take on faith for YEARS.

Despite claims that it is sooo easy to regress bees, or
sooo easy to order "small-cell packages" and small
cell foundation, no one who claims to have any of
these small-cell bees seems to want the fame and
fortune that would come with being the fellow who
showed up with hives that could sit side-by-side
with crashing hives and thrive at any one of many
competent operations that would be difficult to
accuse of the old ignorant accusation of being
"in the pocket of the pesticide and drug companies".

Yes, the "science" done to date on small cell has
been terrible-quality work, but I'm STILL trying to
fix that, as I think that the proponents of small-cell
have not been listened to, or, more to the point,
their tone has not helped them to establish any
credibility.

So, that's been my experience to date - the bees
may or may not be resistant to this or that, but the
beekeepers who keep them sure are playing close
to the chest for reasons unknown.

[naturebee]

--So, that's been my experience to date -,,,,,,
--(Fischer)

What experience?
I read your letter, but don’t see where you state any actual experience with ‘small cell‘.

Please clarify, is your experience with small cell an actual hands on ’experience with small cell’? OR is it an experience of discussing the creditability of small cell by listening and picking and choosing “claims” made in a selective sort of way?

--Despite claims that it is sooo easy to regress bees, or sooo easy to order "small-cell packages"--(Fischer)

This is the ‘selective sort of way’ I am talking about.
I know that I have certainly never said that.

But in defense of your comment, there has been so much said from so many, that just about any “claims” that you say have been made, probably have been made. But then, there will always be “claims” in all things.

[ September 05, 2006, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]

[Barry]

<<no one who claims to have any of
these small-cell bees seems to want the fame and
fortune that would come>>

Perhaps this should be a clue to the way most people approach beekeeping. I run from fame and fortune. It's a hollow promise. If it is such a value for you, again, I would suggest you do the work yourself as we all have. You keep beating this drum to death. I have offered you a hive if used in such a way, but to date you have been silent. Lusby's worked side by side with the USDA already. That experience sure doesn't motivate me to do the same. Just do it, Jim! Then you'll have your firsthand experience and you can become famous . . . and richer.

- Barry

[Barry]

Good idea Dennis. Please start a new topic/thread with the subject of your choice.

- Barry

[Sundance]

Yes....... Doing your own colony would
certainly be easy enough. Especially
with Honey Super Cell in 4.9mm now.

Give it a go, and let us know.

[Kieck]

I'll probably become embroiled in the debate just for sticking my neck out. I've been following both sides, and, really, from what I've been reading, my problem with the arguments are similar to Jim's.

See, "small cell" might work just as perfectly as the proponents are claiming. But where's the evidence? So far, all the evidence is anecdotal, along the lines of, "I've got this hive that I haven't been treating, and it's small cell, and it's still alive." But what does that mean? Where's the control?

And suggesting that Jim (or anyone else) try shrinking bees with small cell foundation in one hive or even a few hives won't really provide the evidence to support the claims.

Let's say that you have two hives, one on commercial-sized foundation, and one on small-cell foundation. The hive on larger foundation dies. Does that mean that the small cell helped the other? Or was it different genes in the bees? Or was it just dumb luck?

What if it ran the other way, and the bees on the small cell died? Would that mean that the large cell helped the other colony? Or was it different genes in the bees? Or was it just dumb luck?

Now let's say that you take 100 hives, and put them all on small cell comb, and most of them survive. Did the small cell help? How do you know? What if you had 100 hives on commercial-sized foundation in the same locations, and the rate of survival was the same?

That's the problem with the evidence up to this point. Trying small cell in a handful of hives and comparing against a handful of hives on commercial-sized foundation doesn't provide the statistical power needed to really reach a conclusion. Trying small cell on a number of hives without controls is also meaningless, from a scientific standpoint.

If small cell is working for you, great! Why change something that's working? But, until solid data is provided (with controls, from experiments that can be repeated, and with many replicates), the evidence is anecdotal. That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. It just means that it isn't convincing evidence to beekeepers who wish to see scientific evidence.

[Dick Allen]

Has anyone been in contact with Mike Stanghellini? Last year when these exact same arguments from the exact same people were being tossed back and forth Mike said he was going to do some small cell testing. Anyone heard from him since his short stay on BeeSource?

[Dick Allen]

>Give it a go, and let us know.

That won't work Bruce. The suggestion was made last year, too. It just gets deflected with the argument that goes something like "Don't expect me to do your research for you."

:rolleyes:

[ September 05, 2006, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]

[Jim Fischer]

> I have offered you a hive if used in such a way

You did?? When??

Where's the hive?
What's the current configuration?

Now, if I can round up a few more, we are good to go.

> Lusby's worked side by side with the USDA already.

"Side by side" is a bit of a misnomer. Better terms that
come more quickly to mind include "tooth and nail",
"head to head", and so on. smile.gif Its really hard to either
do good science or work bees without first removing chips
from all shoulders involved.

> Trying small cell in a handful of hives and comparing against
> a handful of hives on commercial-sized foundation doesn't
> provide the statistical power needed to really reach a
> conclusion. Trying small cell on a number of hives without
> controls is also meaningless, from a scientific standpoint.

Don't be so sure. There is lots of good science that has
withstood the test of time based upon no more than a
dozen or two hives for each "method" examined, and another
dozen or two for "controls". That's the power of statistics -
I don't need to weigh every jar of a shipment of honey to
prove that the shipment contains jars that are filled to
the correct levels. In some cases, an entire truckload can
be proven (or disproven) by weighing no more than a
dozen jars total.

[Finman]

.

Jim is really more right than all small cell keepers together.

Small cells beekeepers do not want to think that varroa developes very quickly and it adapt itself too.

I wonder one thing: Researges and professionals try to develope honeybee stock which identify mite as enemy and destroy it. But it has not happened.

But now some hobbyist succeed in few years in that huge task! How it is possible!

Like Ji says I have seen the same on forums: beekeepers who has not yet even one hive they want to raise mite resistant chemical free bees and they want nothing less. They want to show middle finger to old farts.

By the way, varroa is my friend. I have seen under 10 mites this summer. Mite is not problem. Don't give it rule your life.
.

[naturebee]

--Okay, that's a good idea. Let us all talk about our own beekeeping experiences in the area of biological beekeeping.--Barry

--See, "small cell" might work just as perfectly as the proponents are claiming. But where's the evidence?--(Kieck)

--Yes, the "science" done to date on small cell has been terrible-quality work,--(Jim)

--Jim is really more right than all small cell keepers together.--(Finman)


There you have it!

Just another example!

Barry, asked for productive discussion about experiences with small cell, and it turns into a discussion ending where’s the proof? where’s the scientific research?

A guy ‘Jim’ who has NO experience with small cell, who was eager to chime in with his “experiences” with small cell is said to be more right than all of the small cell beekeepers together?

Another try by Barry to bring productive discussion to the list gone bad.

I guess as a non researcher, I’m not qualified then to discuss my experiences. smile.gif
Bye,,,,,,,,

[Sundance]

All those who have not tried it
are missing the boat. Are really
in no position to critize the
method. Ask questions?? Of
course. But to dismiss it as
foolhardy without ever even giving
it a try is...... well....

Is small cell the answer?? Not in
and by itself, but it is certainly
the major component in my IPM.

[Sundance]

Why it's like badmouthing a product
like BeeQuick without ever trying
it out....... ;) ;)

[naturebee]

--Why it's like badmouthing a product
like BeeQuick without ever trying
it out.......

I see this discussion has deteriorated. smile.gif

Well, Maybe he aught to produce the 2 plus years of scientific research on BeeQuick done by an independent agent like I see proposed for the small cell tests.

Without a 2 year plus test by an independent agent with control hives, it would be like badmouthing the lack of scientific research on small cell without ever trying it out on ones own products....... smile.gif smile.gif

[Hillside]

The whole lot of ya's is incorrigible.

[Michael Bush]

I notice that now, Dee's experience is all written off as Africanized bees and no one seems to remember she started regressing down to 5.1mm and then 5.0mm and then 4.9mm back 15 or more years ago and hasn't treated since she started regressing. The whole AHB excuse didn't come along until recently and no one was saying Arizona had AHB back when she started this. 1,000 untreated hives over more than a decade and a half should make someone pay attention...

Of course if they aren't interested in Dee's 1000 hives, no one is interested in my measly 50 or so hives over the last five years...

[swarm_trapper]

i am totaly chem free and have been for the last three years. sure i lost hives. last year i lost half of them to nosema (my misteak not cuase i didnt use chems). we have lost 2 hives so far to mites this year, and they were not totaly on small cell. Almost all our hives have russian queens, and all are on small cell and i am happy to say that i have seen no mites yet. People say that it doesn't work and thats fine, someone needs to give the chemical companys money so they can buy honey lol.
But hey if ya havnt tried it dont knock it. why not tri it what is it going to hurt just somthing else that you will learn that will either work for you or maybe not. just my thoughts Nick

[Barry]

<<That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. It just means that it isn't convincing evidence to beekeepers who wish to see scientific evidence.>>

I can accept this statement just fine. Problem is, can those wanting scientific evidence accept it?

- Barry

[Barry]

>Jim is really more right than all small cell keepers together.

In one's own mind sorta way, I can see that. However, I don't think Jim would agree with you. He's simply putting forth the scientific challenge again and I'll bet no one will take him up on his offer again for reasons already stated here.

>Small cells beekeepers do not want to think that varroa developes very quickly and it adapt itself too.

Since I'm one of those SC beekeepers, I think nothing of the sort. I think if the bees are allowed to fight varroa on their own terms, they will adapt to deal with it right in step.

>I wonder one thing: Researges and professionals try to develope honeybee stock which identify mite as enemy and destroy it. But it has not happened.

>But now some hobbyist succeed in few years in that huge task! How it is possible!

That's a good question to ask the next researcher you talk to.

>By the way, varroa is my friend. I have seen under 10 mites this summer. Mite is not problem. Don't give it rule your life.

That's the motto of this forum: Don't let varroa rule your life!! I like that!

- Barry

[Barry]

> Another try by Barry to bring productive discussion to the list gone bad.

No it hasn't Joe. Refuse to go down that path. Some have spoken now and exposed their experience (or lack thereof) for us all. This thread can die now and you can pick things up in the thread Dennis started. That's where I'll be sharing my experience, for whatever it's worth.

- Barry

[Barry]

<<"Side by side" is a bit of a misnomer. Better terms that
come more quickly to mind include "tooth and nail",
"head to head", and so on. Its really hard to either
do good science or work bees without first removing chips
from all shoulders involved.>>

Agree. But do you really think there is a sc beekeeper that would want to go through the wringer with the USDA on a study? Why? Fame and fortune won't do it. What incentive can motivate me when I'm keeping bees quite successfully? If I was desperate, that would be something else. But I'm not. It's really quite easy for me to keep bees now. I too, like Dennis, have more honey than I can deal with, bees that I could expand with, but I don't want to grow in size. I think that's why it's always quiet when you ask for someone to step up to the plate. Our plates are already full!

- Barry

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>My last count (in my head), I know of about six of us that use no treatment at all.

Well the count is up to 15 or 17. A couple of responders were a little non committal with their answers.

It seems to me if we can maintain our bees for as long as we have, then there is hope that we are on the right track. Our track record stands for itself as proof that it can be done successfully.

I wish that I could add something to the small cell discussion, but there is little I can offer. I don't believe that I am truly regressed, that is I am only at 5.1 using Permacomb. However that in itself is having an effect and letting me maintain the majority of my bees without treatments. (As I have defined treatments) The only hives I have that seem to crash in the winter are the hives with wood and wax in them, and that is mainly comb from feral hives I have removed, cut, and placed into frames, and hives with Pierco or large cell foundation that has the highest counts and are prone to die out during the winter.

My goals at this time is to rid myself of all wood and wax in my hives. If I am to get to 4.9 it will have to be with the Honey Super Cell frames. At this time I am having some success with the HSC. I have some hives with a good amount of brood in HSC. I had been concerned previously when I had one queen prefer the PC to HSC, but now I believe that the HSC will work, it's just getting the deeps ordered and put together and ordering more HSC for next year.

[Finman]

In Sweden and in New Zeland it has been made researches and result was that small cell does not help with varroa.

If I have opinion, I may read from other's experiences. I do not need to try myself all what people get in mind whole world says.

In forums 90% of writings are nonsence. Even to talk about 100% treatment free bees is nonsence, 90% is too.

If you do not have varroa, you do have. There are a lot of places in the world wher you do not have mites.

When you evaluate you growing knowledge you find that your better knowledge have nothing to do with honey yield. Honey is in nature and bees collect it.

During my 45 beekeeping years as beekeepers I have get now 4-fold honey yield. Varroa have not dropped my yield. To get average yield 160 lbs per hive doest not come without knowledge.

Swarming it the worst. It destroyes the honey yield. To accept swarming is not modern beekeeping.

I have not noticed what small cell beekepers are going to do? What are their aim in beekeeping? Live for mite I suppose. I do not let varroa disturb my life. Varroa is my friend. I cannot fight against varroa because I have them so few. I have much more to do. Now I must extract my yield and sell it.

To be as judge in Miss Wold Competition needs not that you have been Miss Wold yourself. I am able to discuss about issues what we have in beekeeping. I need not try all alternatives. No one have resources for that.

[Dick Allen]

>--Why it's like badmouthing a product
like BeeQuick without ever trying
it out.......

Yeah Ian, are you reading this? :D

>Well, Maybe he aught to produce the 2 plus years of scientific research on BeeQuick done by an independent agent like I see proposed for the small cell tests.

....and Joe I see you are up to your shenanigans again, too. ;)

[ September 06, 2006, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]

[Jim Fischer]

> I notice that now, Dee's experience is all written off as
> Africanized bees

Well, let's examine the clues:

</font> Queens shipped by Dee to a Mr. Housel (see note on "Housel"
below) resulted in hot hives, so hot that Mr. Housel called the
Florida Apiarist office to "request backup". The bees were
DNA tested, and found to be africanized. Yes, the queens
were marked, no the hives were not "taken over" by an AHB
swarm.</font> Undocumented (or less-well-documented) claims have been
floating about that the same thing happened when she
shipped some queens to California. I don't know specifics.</font> Dee is in an area that has been dominated by AHB for
quite some time, a fact that she attempts to refute by
pointing out how docile her hives appear to be, a point
that is sparsely documented, due to the lack of regular
visitors.</font>
It appears that Dee needs to remember that she needs
the proper paperwork and permits that are required of
all bee shipments to ship bees to other states, and it also
appears fairly clear that she may have been advocating an
approach that has best results when it involves the use of
stock that many would consider undesirable for many
areas.

So, rather than using the dismissive and argumentative
term "written off", one might use the more accurate
term "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt". Regardless,
I am sure that no one will change their minds on this issue
not matter how much the signal-to-noise ratio is improved.

Note: In regard to "Housel" this same Mr. Housel had his
name attached to a very imaginative and fanciful bit of
hocus-pocus involving the relative orientation of the
patterns at the base of comb cells, said by a number of
people to have multiple and dramatic effects on bee
health, temperament, etc.

Now, never mind that the entire hexagon structure of cells,
including the cell bases is the simple result of taking a set
of simple cylinders, constructed in a "close packing" scheme,
like this:
http://www.practicalphysics.org/imageLibrary/jpeg240/230.jpg
and subjecting them to equal pressure, in the case of
honeycomb, this is the pressure of the other cells, and
the mass of the comb itself. One can see this with simple
equipment, and get very accurate honeycomb like results
if one dispenses the air to create the bubbles in consistent
quantities with a fancy "metering valve".
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/bubbles/bubble_meets_bubble.html

&gt; In Sweden and in New Zeland it has been made researches
&gt; and result was that small cell does not help with varroa.

Yes, and while I did not want to mention these depressing
results to a group that might tend to dismiss results from
studies done outside the USA, I must point out that, unlike
the work done to date on small-cell in the USA, this was
pretty darn good work.

Perhaps some can begin to understand how being "varroa
free" may have more to do with good luck in finding an
area free of varroa than it might have to do with
any specific practices, treatments, or types of bees.
(I've mentioned my varroa-free yard many times - it is
very isolated, so I expect it to be varroa free as long as
varroa are not introduced by mistake or oversight.)

[naturebee]

--In Sweden and in New Zeland it has been made researches and result was that small cell does not help with varroa.(Fin,,)

NOPE!
According to the rules set forth by the ,,,,.
Jim says no good scientific research has been done on small cell, so this is invalid and you are wrong! smile.gif

Besides, Barry says Jim is really more right than all small cell keepers together. Don't pay attention to anybody else. smile.gif

Jim has no experience with small cell, so this naturally fully qualifies him. smile.gif

[naturebee]

&gt; In Sweden and in New Zeland it has been made researches
&gt; and result was that small cell does not help with varroa.

Yes, and while I did not want to mention these depressing results to a group that might tend to dismiss results from studies done outside the USA, I must point out that, unlike the work done to date on small-cell in the USA, this was
pretty darn good work.(Fischer)

------------------&gt;

So here you are picking and choosing again. smile.gif

Actually NO Jim, this study did not meet your own requirements that you stated a proper scientific small cell study must have:

Specifically,

1. control groups
2. Run out over a long period of time (2 years or more)

[naturebee]

--Queens shipped by Dee to a Mr. Housel (see note on "Housel"
below) resulted in hot hives, so hot that Mr. Housel called the
Florida Apiarist office to "request backup". The bees were
DNA tested, and found to be africanized. Yes, the queens
were marked, no the hives were not "taken over" by an AHB
swarm.--(Fischer)

You pick and choose again!
Where’s the proof you are always asking for?
This statement is hearsay would not stand up in the scientific community.

When information is gleaned 2nd or 3rd hand, this is hearsay.

Would be nice to hear it from the people involved.

I also have some intresting hearsay. It pertains to the condition of Mr. Fischers honeybees from somebody who was actually in the hives. smile.gif

But I do not dare repeat or spread this information throughout the net because it would be unfair to do this to Jim, just as Jim should not spread harm about Mr. Housel

[ September 06, 2006, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]

[Finman]

It has been researched wild africanized colonies during years. They have mites, more or less. Non are free. Why they have not been able to develope mite free stock when some hobbiest have found those from nature?

There are plenty of professional beekeepers who have tried small cells but soon they have gived up that practice because business went down the hill.

.

[Barry]

&lt;&lt;attempts to refute by
pointing out how docile her hives appear to be, a point
that is sparsely documented, due to the lack of regular
visitors.&gt;&gt;

I have no way of proving what exactly her bees are, nor has anyone else to date that I know of. Last I talked to her (2 years ago) there was an independent lab testing her bees in Europe somewhere. Never heard the results. I can say with firsthand experience, I found her bees to be hot and unpredictable. Not the kind of bee I want.

&lt;&lt;Perhaps some can begin to understand how being "varroa
free" may have more to do with good luck in finding an
area free of varroa than it might have to do with
any specific practices, treatments, or types of bees.&gt;&gt;

You and Mr. Finman should get up to speed on what sc is about. Nowhere has anyone who seriously uses sc or bio beekeeping claims, or desires, works toward, varroa free hives. Show me where that has been touted.

Why am I back on this merry-go-round?

- Barry

[Barry]

&lt;&lt;There are plenty of professional beekeepers who have tried small cells but soon they have gived up that practice because business went down the hill.&gt;&gt;

I'm not surprised one bit. It's hard enough for the little guy with just a few hives to get out of the "traditional" mindset and practices of beekeeping and convert to a more natural environment. Trying to do that when your a commercial/professional beekeeper would be extremely hard.

- Barry

[Barry]

&lt;&lt;When my bees were being overcome with PMS, I became a treater. But when I saw the effects on the bees themselves, and potential for product/beekeeper exposure, I tried other alternatives. With a few exceptions the USDA/university boys were looking for new, stronger poisons.

Most of these alternative approaches provides some degree of mite control. But my experience with small cell was a completely different than the treating approach. It allowed the bees, rather than the beekeeper, to control the mites. So, it met my criteria. The bees could go back to being healthy. The hive products could be as clean as possible. And the beekeeper could be healthy also.&gt;&gt;

I'm right there. I was using Apistan to it's max and still having bees cave to varroa. After hearing about all the problems surfacing with coumaphos, I decided I was not going to go that way. From all that the Lusby's were sharing regarding their practices, I chose to pursue sc. Those who have worked with sc in a long term way will tell you the same thing regarding how the bees naturally deal with varroa. It's unfortunate there is so much hype surrounding this. It's not so surprising that most of us remain quiet about it and go about our happy way, but, this is a forum where others do want to know and learn so I keep talking.

- Barry

[Jim Fischer]

&gt; When information is gleaned 2nd or 3rd hand, this is hearsay.

If YOU repeated the story, it would be hearsay, but as
I got the information directly from the staff at the
Florida state Apiarist's office, I'd consider what I am
doing "reporting news". Sadly, it is not exactly
newsworthy, in that a headline like "Bees From
Arizona Found To Be AHB" sort of pegs the
"Obvious Meter", rather like the headline "Water Still Wet".

&gt; Would be nice to hear it from the people involved.

I did, but you likely won't.
They aren't about to join in on this forum and get the
sort of treatment I get, as they don't have thick enough skins.

[Jim Fischer]

Darn thing did a "double post".
Please delete this.

[ September 06, 2006, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]

[Kieck]

A little voice in my head keeps saying, "Just stay out of this thread now!" I think I'll poke that little voice with a Q-tip -- that usually makes them shut up. ;)

Earlier, I made some comments about needing to run these experiments on more than just a handful of hives to really get the statistical power needed to reach some conclusions. Jim made the point that only a dozen or two (which is still quite a few more than a handful, or "5") replicates can provide enough statistical power to make conclusions that will withstand the test of time. That's true -- assuming that the variability within those few examples is low enough to actually reach conclusions.

In my experience with bees, hives are tremendously variable. If I exposed five hives to one form of manipulation, I would expect five different responses. I'd be interested in three areas concerning small cell versus "commercial cell": 1) Varroa counts, 2) survival, and 3) production.

So, to determine statistically how many hives would be needed in the experiment to get enough power to reach some conclusions, we need some preliminary data: 1) Varroa counts on a number of hives, to get some idea of the variability; 2) survival rates on a number of hives, to get some idea of the variability, and 3) honey production from a number of hives, to get some idea of the variability. If the variability is great, we need more hives in the experiment to get enough statistical power to actually reach some conclusions. In my experience, the variability in all three areas (not including small cell numbers, because I don't have access to those sorts of figures) is large. If my hives average 100 pounds of honey produced that I take off the hives, the range might be from nothing to, say, 300 pounds. Winter survival is quite variable, too. Some years are much harder on the bees than other years.

I'd like to read those papers from other countries on research comparing small cell and commercial cell bees. Any chance you (or anyone else) have the citations for those, Jim? I could probably find them on my own, but I could save some of my time if you have the citations handy.

As far as the need for control groups, it seems that some of you question the reason. Let's see if I can use the example that's being held up to try to clarify.

"1,000 untreated hives over more than a decade and a half should make someone pay attention...

Of course if they aren't interested in Dee's 1000 hives, no one is interested in my measly 50 or so hives over the last five years..." -Michael Bush

OK, so we have 1,000 untreated hives over more than a decade. Yep, it makes me pay attention, but what does it mean? It's impressive when most everyone else seems to be treating, but, really, what does it mean? How many of those hives survived on large cell and no treatments? Is the number of small cell hives that survived without treatments significantly greater than the number of large cell hives that survived without treatments, all other conditions being the same?

Without that "control" group, we have no way of knowing whether significantly more survived or not. Let's say that those 1000 hive were the result of starting 1500 hives, under the assumption that at least some of any group of hives -- no matter how well cared for -- will die during a 10 to 15 year period. Is that better than average for the area, or worse? What if, starting that same number (1500) on large cell had produced 999 colonies over the same period of time? Yes, that's fewer colonies, but it's not significantly different.

OK, enough statistics.

[Sundance]

Get to it Kieck and let us know your
results..... ;)

[Kieck]

"Well the count is up to 15 or 17. A couple of responders were a little non committal with their answers." -Bullseye Bill

I hope, Bill, that you're not including me in that count. I tried to be "committal" will my answer -- I haven't used chemicals in my hives in the last few years, but I would if I needed a "rescue treatment." I do not consider myself "100% treatment-free" just because I haven't used "treatments" in the last few years.

"The only hives I have that seem to crash in the winter are the hives with wood and wax in them, and that is mainly comb from feral hives I have removed, cut, and placed into frames, and hives with Pierco or large cell foundation that has the highest counts and are prone to die out during the winter." -Bullseye Bill

WOW! That's interesting stuff, Bill, but I can't believe the strongest "small-cell" and "feral survivor" proponents haven't jumped all over you for saying that! :D Let me see if I understand correctly: the bees that have built their own comb ("natural size"), and have been living on their own (maybe not "feral survivors," but at least "ferals") are the most likely of your bees to crash over the winters? That seems to directly contradict what a lot of beekeepers on this thread are reporting.

[Kieck]

I'm working on it, Sundance, but it takes a lot of time and money. I might have to team up with Pahvantpiper -- it sounds like he's got more resources than I have, and he's willing to try the experiment.

Any chance you wish to contribute, Sundance? You're not too far away. :D

[Sundance]

Of course you are always welcome to come
visit and pop some lids.

[D. Murrell]

Hi Guys,

&gt;Perhaps some can begin to understand how being "varroa free" may have more to do with good luck in finding an area free of varroa ...

This isn't my situation. I'm surrounded by 5000 commercial hives that migrate to California almonds. Here, it's impossible to get more than a mile away from one of their yards. Typically, my small cell yard has about 300 of these hives within a two mile radius.

It's interesting to note that these commercial yards have collapsed twice due to varroa overload, since I put my bees on small cell. Yards that had 40 hives in them, lost all but about 1 or 2 hives.
My small cell hives kept on trucking without any mite problems.

And I have put small cell bees back into large cell hives in my beeyard and left them there for three years. These large cell hives quickly developed mite problems by the end of the first season. I treated these bees with oxalic vapor at the end of the season so they could survive. When these same bees are put back into small cell equipment, in the same yard, they thrived without treatment.

Probably not good enough for those who worship at the church of the scientific.:&gt;))) But it's good enough for an old bee farmer like me!

Regards
Dennis

[ September 06, 2006, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]

[D. Murrell]

Hi Guys,

&gt;but I can't believe the strongest "small-cell" and "feral survivor" proponents haven't jumped all over you for saying that...

I hope there is no "jumping" on anyone for sharing their observations. Sharing one's observations is a good way to get a better understanding of beekeeping and bee behavior. And it can offset some of the disadvantages of a beekeeper working in a single location with just a few hives.

Regards
Dennis

[Sundance]

Well put Dennis...... Thanks

[pahvantpiper]

I've been following this thread from the inception and have REALLY enjoyed the comments on both sides. How many times have I gone back and forth on the SC issue myself?

Well, I have zero experience with small cell so I can't add anything of substance directly to that issue, however... My father, brothers and I together have two fairly large commercial dairy farms and have bee reasonably successful over the years. We have tried and continue to try new, unproven by science, ideas that we see other successful dairymen doing. We have many times traveled out of state to see these dairy farms and what their doing "different" and what their experince has been. We have come up with several ideas of our own that work great too and other dairy farmers come to see our ideas in turn.

Anyway, my point is if we had waited for some scientific study to come out to justify something we had "heard about" or something we "thought made sence to us" we absolutely would not be where we are today in terms of growth and equity in our business.

Having said that, we do try and keep up with the most recent studies available and implement them in our business where appropriate.

Now, all the things we've tried have not worked. Some have been a total failure. But we experiment with it on a smaller scale first - on one dairy with the other being the control or on one corral of cows.

An example so you don't think I'm blowing smoke: 7 years ago we completely quit "dry tubbing" our cows. Nearly all (every dairy farmer we know) puts antibiotics in the cows teats when she's done milking for that lactation to prevent mastitis when she comes fresh again (gives birth and starts milking again). The vet still says, "you can't do that and not have problems." Well, we do and have less mastitis problems than any other dairy in our area (about 15 dairies here). We have saved ourselves tens of thousands of dollars in the last seven years.

I could give many other examples but will spare you. What do you have to lose with trying something out for yourself on a small scale first? If it works for you great, if not trash the idea and move on.

Small cell may bee all hype, but I want to find out for myself. I have nothing to lose but some time and perhaps thousands of dollars to gain in miticides if it works.

[pahvantpiper]

Kieck,

I'm not a Statitician but know I'll need more than 1 or 2 hives to run an experiment with a small enough margin of error to justify use.

You must have read my other post on my plans for next year. If you have anything to offer or suggestions on how I ought run this experiment I would accept them.

Rob

[Finman]

I am master in science in biology and I have had bees 45 years. Old fart but I stared at age of 15.

My opinion is, that it is big mistake to engourage beginners to "varroa free beekeping". Its is not beginners game even if it is true. You need first anti varroa bee stock and small cells help nothing without it.

I understand the art of natural beekeping, but say that other has chemical contaminated bees and honey, that is b*.*

I could play natural beekeeping but it is too expencive to run beekeeping which is full of risk and low income.

When you read internet, world is full of universities and official which make work against varroa almost as full day work and get earning from that.

No beginner, no biological or genetics education believe that just he can solev the bad problem of varroa. Look at budget of NewZeland when it research varroa control.

It is b*.* beve that some from nowhere rise and shout LOOK, HERE IT IS !

I know here in Finland one professional beekeepes who has elgon bees, has small cells and does not use any treatment against varroa. But still I encourage any beginner to same. When beepeeper has experience he may do what he like.

If you stand Swedish language here is the site
http://www.elgon.se/story3/sven-olof_ohlsson01.htm
.

[Sundance]

I do not hold a Masters but I do hold a
Bachelors in Biology as well as Environmental
Science.

I am baffled that someone that holds a
Masters would hold with the concept that
chemicals do not bind with sugars and wax.

And to repeat..... NO ONE I KNOW OF HERE
HAS SUGGESTED THAT SMALL CELL WILL GIVE
YOU ZERO MITES!! PLEASE BACK YOUR BANTER.

[Finman]

RESEARCH http://www.bio.pu.ru/win/entomol/Kipyatkov/iussi/2005/abstracts.htm

S17: Can European honeybees coexist with Varroa mites?
The exciting potential of remote feral bee colonies for Varroa coexistence
Adrian M. Wenner
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 93106. E-mail: wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu
Keywords: honey bees, varroa, controls, survival
When Varroa mites first became a problem, concerned parties immediately turned (A) to the use of chemicals as a control measure. That happened, despite earlier abundant evidence that chemical treatments: 1) are at best a short term measure, 2) result in an intense pressure that can lead to resistant mites, 3) keep susceptible bee strains in the gene pool, 4) can have both lethal and sublethal effects on bee colonies (e.g.,queen failure), 5) may damage favorable microfauna, 6) result in ever higher costs, and 7) may lead to residue problems in wax and honey. Seemingly, all those reservations have been borne out. Mechanical procedures (B) against varroa have gained some following, including: 1) periodic destruction of infested drone brood (labor intensive), 2) small cell size foundation, 3) screen bottom boards, and 4) mineral oil (of questionable value). Breeding programs (C) have become more prominent, involving detection, selection, and propagation of favorable traits. In the USA we now have hygienic and SMR/Russian bees under continuing development. During the past few decades, after varroa arrival, feral colonies in remote areas (D) experienced a catastrophic decline, followed by resurgence in population density. A deliberate programmed effort could have been instituted upon first varroa arrival in the United States (that is, establish experimental apiaries and wait for “survival of the fittest”), but that didn’t happen. Some individuals have now begun to exploit the potential that feral colonies provide. (By feral, I include managed colonies in remote areas that have had no treatment against varroa mites.) John Kefuss and colleagues, for example, have had success with Apis mellifera intermissa queens from Tunisia and their naturally mated descendants. Erik Osterlund in Sweden promoted a mix (the “Elgon” stock) between Buckfast bees and the east African mountain bee, A. m. monticola. Some selected bee strains (at times along with the use of small cell size foundation) have proved promising. Of special interest is the fact that some strains of Elgon bees exude an odor that apparently repels varroa mites, a trait that would likely not have become apparent in a chemical treatment regime. In the Santa Barbara area we instituted two programs; 1) deliberate introduction of varroa to a large offshore, uninhabited, island, as well as 2) monitoring varroa impact on bee colonies next to or within isolated wilderness areas or nature preserves. Results were mixed. Feral colonies composed of mixed genetic traits have survived for several years, but colonies of genetically uniform bees perished in an island ecosystem. Feral colonies located remote from beekeeper activity could now have strains quite resistant to varroa mites and should be investigated.
References
Harbo, J.R. and J.W. Harris. 2003. An evaluation of commercially produced queens that have the SMR trait. Am. Bee J. 143:213-216.
Kefuss, J., J. Vanpoucke, J. D. de Lahitte, and W. Ritter. 2004. Varroa tolerance in France of Intermissa bees from Tunisia and their naturally mated descendants: 1993-2004. Am. Bee J. 144: 563-568.
Osterlund, E. 2001. The Elgon bee and varroa mites. Am. Bee J. 141: 174-177.
Wenner, A.M. and R.W. Thorp. 2002. Collapse and resurgence of feral colonies after Varroa arrival. Pp. 159-166 in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Africanized Honey Bees and Bee Mites (E.H. Erickson Jr., R.E. Page Jr., and A.A. Hanna, eds.). The A.I. Root Co., Medina, OH.
See also: (http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/meetlusby.htm)
Honey bees and Varroa mites – natural selection vs directed breeding
Ingemar Fries
Department of Entomology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7044, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
E-mail: ingemar.fries@entom.slu.se
Keywords: Apis mellifera, Varroa destructor, natural selection, host-parasite adaption
Africanized honey bees (Apis mellifera adansoni imported into Brazil) coexist with Varroa destructor mites in South America as do isolated populations of European bees. Similar host-parasite adaptations have also been reported from North Africa. In Europe, however, it is generally accepted that the mite population must be controlled to avoid colony collapse. Bee breeders claim to have produced or imported mite resistant stock (i.e. Kefuss et al, 2003; Rinderer et al., 2001, Wallner, 1994) but such claims remain unsubstantiated or only indicative when such bees are tested elsewhere. Although progress is reported from directed selection for specific traits to limit mite population growth, this has not resulted in bees that survive without mite control measures (Harbo & Harris, 2001; Büchler, 2000). The return of feral bee populations has been reported, indicating survival of non-treated mite infested honey bees also in Europe (Le Conte, 2004). It seems as if European races of honey bees co-exist with Varroa mites only where man has not interfered by implementing mite control. We have studied the survival rate for over six years in a population of mite infested honey bee colonies (N=150) in an isolated area to determine if all colonies would perish, and their parasites along with them. Over this time period the winter mortality rate of colonies have increased and then decreased. The swarming tendency rate has initially decreased but again increased and the mite infestation rate in brood less bee colonies decreased the fifth year of infestation. Six years (in June) post mite infestation, five of the original colonies remain and along with them five daughter colonies (swarms). The results suggest that some sort of host-parasite adaption has occurred, ensuring the survival of both host and parasite.
References
Büchler, R. (2000) Design and success of a German breeding program for Varroa tolerance. American Bee Jornal, 140, 662-665.
Harbo, J.R. and Harris, J.W. (2001) Resistance to Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) when mite-resistant queen honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) were free-mated with unselected drones. Journal of Economic Entomology, 94, 1319-1323.
Kefuss, J., Vanpoucke, J., Ducos de Lahitte, J., and Ritter, W. (2003) Varroa destructor resistance in France of intermissa bees from Tunesia and their naturally mated descendants: 1993-2003. Apidologie, 34, 508-509.
Le Conte, Y. (2004) Honey bees surviving Varroa destructor infestations in France. In Experts' meeting on apiculture Varroa control, Brussels 24 October 2003, pp. 82-84. European Commission, Brussels.
Rinderer, T.-E., de-Guzman, L.-I., Delatte, G.-T., Stelzer, J.-A., Lancaster, V.-A., Kuznetsov, V., Beaman, L., Watts, R., and Harris, J.-W. (2001) Resistance to the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bees from far-eastern Russia. Apidologie, 32, 381-394.
Wallner, A. (1994) Der Varroakillerfaktor. Deutsches Bienen Journal, 2, 372-374.
Population dynamics of bees, brood and Varroa mites in honey bee colonies selected for tolerance to Varroa infestation
Peter Rosenkranz
1University of Hohenheim, Apicultural State Institute, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
E-mail: bienero@uni-hohenheim.de
Keywords: Population dynamic, Varroa destructor, Honey Bee, selection, host tolerance
A stable host parasite relationship between honey bee and Varroa mite requires mechanisms of the host to limit the increase of the population of the parasite. From autumn 2003 till spring 2005 we compared the population dynamic of Varroa mites, bees and brood in Carniolan colonies from Hohenheim to colonies selected for Varroa tolerance. These colonies were headed by queens deriving from “survivors” of a selection experiment on the island of Gotland, where 150 isolated colonies have been left untreated since 1999. After a dramatic loss of colonies in 2002 a small rest population remained stable till today.
8 Carnica and 7 Gotland colonies were established at an isolated military training area not accessible for other beekeeper. For population measurements we used the “Liebefeld Method”: the number of honey bees and brood cells were evaluated in 3 week intervals and samples of bees and brood were analyzed for Varroa infestation.
In April 2004, an average start infestations of about 700 (Gotland colonies) and 400 (Carnica colonies) Varroa mites, were calculated. At that time, the colonies had about 6,000 bees and between 10,500 (Gotland) and 14,000 (Carnica) brood cells. At the end of the season 2004 the Gotland colonies had about 16,550 bees, on average, while the average population in the Carnica colonies decreased to about 10,500 bees. The highest absolute infestation levels were measured in August with about 9.000 Varroa mites in the Carnica and 6.500 in the Gotland colonies. By the end of the year, all Carnica colonies died showing the typical symptoms of a heavy Varroa infestation. Only one of the Gotland colonies died during the summer due to queen-loss. The remaining colonies were still alive at the end of the year. However, in late winter also the remaining Gotland colonies died.
In spite of the higher start infestation and a higher brood amount throughout the season the Gotland colonies had significant lower infestation rates at the end of the season compared to the Carnica control colonies. These preliminary results indicate that the Gotland colonies have established mechanisms to reduce the increase of the Varroa population.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

&gt;I hope, Bill, that you're not including me in that count.

No, you would sneak a puff if you had too, I understand.

&gt;Let me see if I understand correctly: the bees that have built their own comb ("natural size"), and have been living on their own (maybe not "feral survivors," but at least "ferals") are the most likely of your bees to crash over the winters?

I had just about removed all deeps and large cell equipment from my operations. Until the bees had either swarmed into the stacks or I ran out of equipment and needed to use whatever I had.

So out of the 50 to 75 hives I had last year there were about ten deeps with old LC comb or Pierco LC frames. Then there are the removals I do mixed into the lot as well.

The LC frames whether Pierco or old comb ALWAYS had the greatest natural mite drop on the trays. These were the colonies that would crash first, although a couple did not and were not good producers this year.

The feral hives comb that I would band into frames, usually medium frames, had other pressures on them that the swarms moving into the LC hives did not have. First of all they were ripped out of houses etc. as late as Oct. first and did not really have that much of a chance to readjust and ready themselves for the winter even with feeding. Some of the early removals would expand into the PC frames and do quite well. An interesting note is that they will most of the time completely abandon their old feral comb by spring.

I am not saying that SC does not have mites, but hives on smaller cells seem to deal with mites better and need less help from the keeper.

One thing they have shown me is that old wax harbors a lot of nasties and has more problems related to it with mites, mice, wax moths, hive beetles, and diseases. If getting wax out of my hives helps as the numbers on the trays indicate, then my plan is to get the wax comb out.

Next years experiment will be one deep of HSC and one medium of PC for the brood area, excluders and PC honey supers above. That's my goal and I'm sticking to it. ;) Well, half of my hives will be that way. The rest will be a mishmash of everything else so I will have something to compare against.

[balhanapi]

&lt;&lt;It is b*.* beve that some from nowhere rise and shout LOOK, HERE IT IS !&gt;&gt; -Finman


Mr Finman I think it is wrong to refute somebody/somebody's observation just because he/she is a small beekeeper or a newbee so as to say. History has numerous examples of discoveries/inventions done by 'unimportant' 'ignorant' people.

I think it is always very hard to break away from the beaten path. It's human nature to resist change.

[Finman]

Mr balhanapi. Those indivual discoveries are history. Almost all new inventions have made now in big developing projects or in "brain groups". To use nowadays knowledge needs time and only group can use enough worlds knowledge.

I am good in benchmarkin in my job, because I want not make such inventions which others have taken into use 20 years ago.

Further more, I have always tramped my own paths.

.

[db_land]

"An interesting note is that they will most of the time completely abandon their old feral comb by spring." Bullseye Bill

I've noticed the same thing, but I use small cell foundation and the bees move onto it almost immediately. The darker/older the feral comb is, the quicker the bees will leave it. Also, the removal bees superceded their queen (which I usually manage to get without injury during the removal) almost immediately.

:cool:

[D. Murrell]

Hi Finman and Everyone,

&gt;Some individuals have now begun to exploit the potential that feral colonies provide... Erik Osterlund in Sweden promoted a mix...some selected bee strains ... with the use of small cell size foundation) have proved promising.

Now that sounds alot like small cell and biological beekeeping which have proved promising.

In fact Dee, Erik, Barry, and a few others were the first proponents of biological beekeeping and have kept untreated hives alive for years using these methods. I think we were the ones that showed it had some promise.

Erik wrote an article about my little bee experience. He most graciously sent me a cap and t-shirt with "Sveriges Blodlares Riksforbund Biodlarna" embrodered on them. I'm not sure what it means, but I sure prize them.

Regards
Dennis

[ September 06, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]

[BULLSEYE BILL]

&gt;Also, the removal bees superceded their queen (which I usually manage to get without injury during the removal) almost immediately.

Yep, it's like they blame her for what is happening to them and replace her. I don't worry too much if I don't see her as they are most likely to start a bunch of queen cells. If you are paying attention and catch them at the right time, you can use the extra queen cells for the less fortunate or making splits.

[Barry]

&gt;My opinion is, that it is big mistake to engourage beginners to "varroa free beekeping".

MR. FINMAN . . . HELLO . . . THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VARROA FREE BEEKEEPING!!! You're the only one saying that!

&gt;Its is not beginners game even if it is true.

It's not a game and it isn't true.

&gt;You need first anti varroa bee stock and small cells help nothing without it.

I'll take whatever stock is flying around my neighborhood. Makes no difference. Dennis has used just about every variety of bee and sees no difference on small cell. Correct me if I misquote, Dennis.

&gt;b*.*

Okay, there will be no more use of expletives, even this kind.

&gt;I could play natural beekeeping but it is too expencive to run beekeeping which is full of risk and low income.

I've experienced just the opposite. Not having the cost of treatments alone offset any extra hardware costs like 4.9 foundation.

&gt;It is b*.* beve that some from nowhere

Nowhere is where your posts will going if you keep this up.

&gt;I know here in Finland one professional beekeepes who has elgon bees, has small cells and does not use any treatment against varroa.

Well there you are then, yet another beekeeper to add to the ever growing list of oddballs.

- Barry

[ September 06, 2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]

[pahvantpiper]

What's the big deal, try a few hives for yourself, like I intend to do, and see if it works. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If it works you save yourself lots of money on chemicals and longer living hives. If it doesn't work you can say, "see, I told you so."

Rob

[Aspera]

This is a bit off the topic, but I can't help myself. This vet's opinion is that mastis starts and ends in the parlor. Good bedding, nutrition and dry treatment all help, but the milking procedures and equipment are the most critical thing (in my limited experience tongue.gif ).

[Keith Benson]

Aspera, I would say you hit the nail on the head.

Keith

[Michael Bush]

&gt;If you stand Swedish language here is the site
http://www.elgon.se/story3/sven-olof_ohlsson01.htm

If you speak English here's some of the same:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/osterlund/abjmar2001.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/osterlund/abjdec2002.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/osterlund/monticola.htm

[Michael Bush]

&gt;In Sweden and in New Zeland it has been made researches and result was that small cell does not help with varroa.

Have you actually read those studies? They are one frame of a "quilt" of various sizes, NONE of which is 4.9mm for one brood cycle. Hardly statistically significant in any way whatsoever, let alone not following the protocol that those succeeding have put forth.

&gt;Even to talk about 100% treatment free bees is nonsence

We aren't talking about it. We are doing it.

&gt;To accept swarming is not modern beekeeping.

Of course not. I have no trouble avoiding swarming.

&gt;Queens shipped by Dee to a Mr. Housel ... were
DNA tested, and found to be africanized.

So you're saying all the bees in Arizona have been Africanized since the 1980s when she stopped treating and started regressing?

&gt;may have more to do with good luck in finding an
area free of varroa than it might have to do with
any specific practices, treatments, or types of bees.

Well, I'm certainly not Varroa free. I see them. They are low enough to be undetectable in the spring when I get them inspected but there are Varroa. I lost all my bees to them in 1998, 1999 and 2001. So I am not fortunate enough to have no Varroa.

[pahvantpiper]

"This is a bit off the topic, but I can't help myself. This vet's opinion is that mastis starts and ends in the parlor. Good bedding, nutrition and dry treatment all help, but the milking procedures and equipment are the most critical thing (in my limited experience )."

Aspera,
You are absolutely right. In our experience though dry treatment is not necessary if the other three areas are managed well (contrary to what the majority of vets and other dairymen will tell you).

Sorry I started the dairy stuff, kind of boring compared to bee stuff.

[Dick Allen]

Having grown up on a dairy farm, I can say that some dairy farmers like some beekeepers think giving unneeded medications and/or other concotions to their cattle like some beekeepers do with their bees is just the thing to do.

I have a new beekeeper up the road who told me from the beginning that he "was not going to put chemicals into his hives". Then when he fed his package bee this spring he told me he mixed the syrup with cream of tartar in order help his bees invert the sugar. Go figure....

[Kieck]

I'm glad the dairy stuff came up. I see the two situations similarly.

Since this thread is about being "100% treatment free," this fits in nicely.

As I understand it, the dry treatment is given as a preventative, before mastitis sets in. Similarly, some beekeepers put Apistan (or other chemicals) into their hives whether or not populations of Varroa are high enough to warrant treatments.

Pahvantpiper didn't say in his post that they don't treat mastitis if it develops, just that they don't give the treatments before the problems develop. Aspera and Pahvantpiper both stated that mastitis can be avoided through management techniques, but neither said that mastitis should not be treated if it develops.

That's the same way I view the bees. I will continue to manage my bees as best as I can to avoid having populations of Varroa grow so large that treatments become necessary. But, if Varroa populations get out of hand, treatments may be necessary to rescue some hives (hence the term used by IPM experts, "rescue treatments").

Small cell sounds like a promising technique to control Varroa populations (I know, I know, some of you are saying that it's more than "promising"). Like others have stated, it doesn't eradicate mites, just keeps the populations low enough that the bees can survive.

But, those of you who are already keeping bees on small cell, let's say (hypothetically) that the Varroa population in one or more of your small-cell hives suddenly increases dramatically -- to the point that the hive(s) is/are unlikely to survive without a rescue treatment (again, I know that proponents of small cell are likely to insist that such a thing could not happen. . . but let's not argue whether or not is could happen right now). Would you treat under those circumstances, or would remaining "100% treatment free" be more important to you than saving some of your bees?

[pahvantpiper]

Kiek,

I think you and see things similarly. I will do everything in my power to keep bees without the use of harsh chemical treatments, or any chemical treatment for that matter. As a potential commercial beekeeper though, if sc doesn't work and my lively hood is threatened by varroa I absolutely will use chemicals. OA, Sucrocide, Apilife-var first but even harsher stuff if necessary - which I pray won't be!

We do treat for mastitis when it develops. Although we're not an organic dairy we treat much of our mastitis with some kind of liquid herb concoction-smells like oregano and peppermint. The stuff actually works relatively well. We do, however, sometimes use antibiotics.

[Sundance]

"But, those of you who are already keeping bees on small cell, let's say (hypothetically) that the Varroa population in one or more of your small-cell hives suddenly increases dramatically -- to the point that the hive(s) is/are unlikely to survive without a rescue treatment (again, I know that proponents of small cell are likely to insist that such a thing could not happen. . . but let's not argue whether or not is could happen right now). Would you treat under those circumstances, or would remaining "100% treatment free" be more important to you than saving some of your bees?"

I would hit it with Oxalic Acid vaporized,
and re-queen.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

&gt;Would you treat under those circumstances, or would remaining "100% treatment free" be more important to you than saving some of your bees?

It depends.

My goal is to get to the point that my genetics will prevail by letting those that can not survive die out. Survivors. Survival of the fittest.

This being my third year with absolutely no treatments, I should be headed into a high winter loss, we will see. Last year was about 15% losses from all reasons including my poor judgment in a few cases, I should have combined. It is time to slide the trays in and start counting.

My situation is a bit unique, I have a hugh supply of swarms I get paid to remove every year, so I am not out much financially. If I was paying for bees and buying queens I would have a different outlook.

Still, if this is a bad winter for losses and things don't go as I expect them to, I might start taking a puff off the old OA pipe for the hives that need help. But that is a year from now and a lot can happen in a year.

[ September 07, 2006, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: BULLSEYE BILL ]

[ekrouse]

You can add my name to the list. I've never treated since getting back into beekeeping 4 years ago. Started 4 hives from packages of Carniolans. Hives have screened bottom boards. All hives had mites by mid-summer of the first year (mites visable on workers and capped drone brood).

I always intended on treating, even though I preferred not to, but never could figure out which chemical treatment to use. Some chemicals were supposed to be losing their effect while others seemed too toxic.

The first year I tried using Pierco drone foundation as a mite trap, but left the frames in the hives a leeeetle too long... and about half the drones were out by the time I came back. That gave me lots of drones and lots of mites.

That fall I lost one hive to a cow with an itch and late winter I lost another hive. It may have been due to mites, but it looked like they starved (even though they had lots of honey). We had an extended deep freeze. Many bees stuck head first into cells.

The next spring I replaced the two lost hives with nucs from a local beekeeper using Kona Queen Carniolans. Haven't lost a hive since.

My methods are simple: in the fall I use powdered sugar. The rest of the year I use sumac seed pods in my smoker based on posts I read here at Beesource.com. The sumac produces a thick cool smoke. I just build a wood fire in the smoker using chunks of hardwood (mostly maple, some oak and apple) then just put one sumac pod on the top.

I've switched to all medium boxes and now use pierco 1-piece frames in the brood boxes (I use a mix of pierco and foundationless frames in the honey supers). I use SBB's and leave plenty of ventillation during the winter.

I don't know what is working, but as long as I don't lose hives and don't need chemicals I'll keep doing it.

[Kevin M]

Ekrouse.....I live in Ny as well, may i ask where you purchased your packages of Carniolans....? I have one hive of Italians now, i want to start a few new hives this coming spring, using all med.supers..
I know BetterBee sells nucs of Carniolans, but i'm sure there on deep frames, which of course won't work if i want to go all med. Thanks

[Keith Benson]

" In our experience though dry treatment is not necessary if the other three areas are managed well (contrary to what the majority of vets and other dairymen will tell you)."

Careful with the width of your brush. I do not think the majority of vets would agree. At least that is not what I was taught in vet school.

Keith

[pahvantpiper]

Sorry Keith,
Let me modify my brush width to "every vet I've had the opportunity to work with and have discussed the issue with." Do you work with dairies?

Rob

[Keith Benson]

Rob,

No I don't, and we only have a single dairy cow in our collection. She hasn't been milked in, oh, 4 years but I just had to treat her for mastitis. Go figure.

I cannot speak for all vets, nor all dairy vets, but I distinctly remember that the approach you described above was not what we were taught in vet school. The emphasis was on good management and not firing off with ABs as a preventative.

Keith

PS: I love the sig, cracked me up big time.

[ September 09, 2006, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]

[Scot Mc Pherson]

Ya know, just for the record. Michael Housel was provided Virgin queens which were therefore mated locally. Isn't there some documentation on the HOT characteristic of AHB coming from the drones?

[Jim Fischer]

&gt; Just for the record. Michael Housel was provided Virgin
&gt; queens which were therefore mated locally. Isn't there
&gt; some documentation on the HOT characteristic of AHB
&gt; coming from the drones?

Uh huh, nice try. smile.gif

If that claim were true, there would be no rational reason
for anyone to have ever mentioned the source of the
queens, as it is of course true that EHB queens mating
with AHB drones will result in AHB colonies.

It would be a massive and uncharacteristic faux-pas for
Jerry Hayes or anyone who worked for him to even
mention any names if the cause of the problem was
nothing more than "local mating", as it is well-known
that the local drones have a very good chance of being
AHB. In fact, such naming of names would be libel.
No way they would be that dumb.

Given that this was mentioned as "a problem", it should
be obvious that the queens were NOT thought
to have been locally mated, despite any excuses offered.

I leave it to others to judge the veracity of the claim that
a "Virgin" was shipped rather than a mated queen, as
each can decide for himself what value an unmated
virgin would have if one wanted a specific set of
characteristics from a queen. smile.gif

If the samples were saved rather than destroyed, one
could even compare DNA to see if the queen(s) in
question mated with "local" drones or not, as there
are only a limited number of "families" of AHB in
Florida, with most of the infestation being a result
of swarming, rather than new arrivals.

I think that the actual process was that no claim was
made as to the queen(s) being "virgins" until well
AFTER the hives went loco, and the SWAT team had
done their work, and had firm DNA-based proof
of AHB.

And anyway, who the heck MARKS an unmated
queen, even if we were to buy the story of one being
shipped across country to a hobby beekeeper in
an area known to be having AHB problems?

[Michael Bush]

&gt;And anyway, who the heck MARKS an unmated
queen, even if we were to buy the story of one being
shipped across country to a hobby beekeeper in
an area known to be having AHB problems?

I know nothing of the details of this particular transaction, but if the concept is to get local feral bees (and for the organics group it often is) and you don't have time to go catch swarms, then virgin queens are just the ticket. They will mate with the locals and you have at least half the genetics from the local population and the other half from a source you wanted. Marking makes obvious sense anytime you want to keep track of a queen, virgin or otherwise.

[Scot Mc Pherson]

As it turns out, the lusby's do not mark queens.

[Jim Fischer]

&gt; As it turns out, the lusby's do not mark queens.

I'd hazard that they don't, as to mark a queen is
likely something that would might disrupt the queen's
Chi, or misalign her Chakras. smile.gif

More to the point, marking queens is one of those
standard-issue, boring, and uncreative ways of
assuring that one's bees are the progeny of a known
quantity rather than a random queen that swarmed
from Lord-only-knows where.

Regardless, the queen(s) in question was(were) marked,
either before shipment or after it receipt, a big reason
why the incident was not charged off as yet another
hive overrun by an AHB "invasion", which has been
common in the experience of the Florida group charged
with tracking and attempting to "control" AHB infestations.

It is also (suddenly and recently) claimed that the queen
(or queens) in question was/were virgin(s), and if this was
the case, then there would have been no mention of this
specific incident, as it would have been merely another day
in Florida, where local AHB present the usual risk to a
beekeeper's hives.

Who marked the queen? Perhaps Mr. Housel, but
it seems clear that the story as initially told to the
bee inspectors who responded to the request for
help has been revised, perhaps more than once.

Dodge and weave, twist and duck, but the bottom line
here is that lots and lots of queens were shipped into
Florida this season, and only a tiny number of beekeepers
had hives so defensive that they had to call for back-up.

I think it is clear what happened here, but it also seems
clear that there are some who will grasp at any straw in
an attempt to rationalize a purely emotional stance on
an issue that seems to be emotion-charged.

I don't think that this means ANYTHING, except that those
who want to try "small-cell bees" should either attempt
the downsizing from their own stock, or buy pre-regressed
bees from a producer with valid permits to ship bees
across state lines.

Anyone who thinks that this cautionary tale means anything
more is suffering from a level of paranoia that may require
professional attention.

[Scot Mc Pherson]

Jim,
The lusbys have never shipped mated queens that I know about...Its against the whole acclimating principle to ship mated queens, the whole idea is to get queens from known productive sources, and still have half the genes of the progeny be local. Its on step towards the whole bee method. You are missing the point, this isn't a sudden claim, its a standard practice of our group...

[ September 10, 2006, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Scot Mc Pherson ]

[Michael Bush]

&gt;its a standard practice of our group

Exactly. The principle of trying to get local bees is the concept. Staring with virgin queens gives you half of those genes from the local drones.

[Jeffrey Todd]

There is one 100% treatment-free beekeeper missing from the list. This beekeeper has many colonies of bees that have survived for years without interventions, and will often give these survivors away free of charge to anyone interested. I am speaking, of course, of Mother Nature. All of the bees I have obtained from cutouts this year have been gentle, productive, and thrifty. The cell size has varied from 5 mm to 5.2 mm.
Just a while back I obtained a colony in an old hot water heater that the landowner tells me has been there for years. Now, I haven't yet opened up the heater (not an easy task) but it currently sits next to my other hives awaiting the day that I figure out the best way to do it. I am not going to settle for just trapping the bees out; if these bees can survive mites, drought, and everything else with no treatment whatsoever, I want their genetics added to my stock. And I don't have to pay someone else for their "survivor" stock that may be 1000 miles away from here.

[Scot Mc Pherson]

Actually you may wish to trap them out anyway. After you have gotten most of the bees out, then you can open it up. It will make your life SOOOOOO much more pleasant.

Remember to have plenty of swarm catching frames handy. Why are they called swarm catching frames anyway? You use them to tie in cutouts, not capture swarms...However I have used brood comb to "hold" a swarm, but not to catch one.

[Chris Z]

I'm a newbee I at this point I'm planning on being 100% treament free. this past spring I bought 3 hives that came from a beekeeper that died of a stroke two years ago and the colonies he had have had no human contact in those two years until this past spring when his wife decided to sell them. I got them at a consignment auction. so I believe these hives are surviviors. they hace had no winter protection besides the boxes weather this makes a difference or not as the past couple winters here have been pretty mild for southern michigan. well just thought I'd put my 2 cents in on my bees