Since you mention him.
Since you mention him.
Thanks, a great article -I actually have it in an old magazine (abj?) somewhere but had pretty much forgotten the specifics.
I read the article very interesting. But it does go back in time a bit, what has become of his operation now?
Can you get his queens in the US?
there's another link
which is a quite recent so it would seem that his business is still thriving.
It's really too bad the 'Bond Method' has to be named after a fictional person. I have a method, if someone ever tries it, maybe I'll get a catchy title too. :rolleyes:
As all you know, I have been using the Bond Method since I started beekeeping. But I can certainly see the wisdom of the Soft Bond Method. ("Oh James!")
It would certainly be great to discuss in the switching over thread.
"Bond method" is just a catchy name. What it gets down to is let the susceptible bees die and what is left will be resistant. This is exactly what I have done with my bees, it is what Purvis did, it is what Kefuss did. The results are outstanding. I have not treated in 6 years and my bees are thriving. My method was a bit more abrupt than what he recommends. I didn't pick breeders or measure varroa loads. I just let the bees die. Once the suscpetible bees were gone, the resistant colonies have steadily improved. The best I can tell, even a very low level of varroa removal results in declining varroa populations. Honey production was poor in the 3rd and 4th year after I went treatment free, but it is now back to reasonably high levels. Please note that I also converted to small cell. While I can't quantify the effect of small cell, I have reason to suspect the bees now mature a day or so earlier.
Thanks for the link Rolande.
Regarding naming something the Bond method, it's one of the things that stood out, when I first joined Beesource. Every method or manipulation seems to have a name. IE, checkerboarding, mountaincamp, etc. etc. All seemed rather mysterious at first, eventually i realised that a lot of these methods I've already been using, some even before they were officially "invented". But in my country, for some reason, we do them or similar things that achieve the same end, but don't tend to give the fancy name.
So. Go Bond, Soft Bond, Hard Bond, etc :). Next time someone talks about that, I'll know what they mean! :D
This is exactly what I have done with my bees, it is what Purvis did, it is what Kefuss did.
I think Dee went through the same as well as Kirk Webster. They stopped treating and what didn't die they went from there. There does seem to be a genetic component as many queen producers now list mite resistant or VSH strains. The pioneers in the greater sense are Kefuus, Lusby, Webster and Chris Baldwin mentioned earlier as well as many smaller keepers that did the Bond Test and survived. Chris gave a talk at the Treatment Free Conference in Leominster this past summer. He's on LC and had brought in some Russian genetics alone the way. He runs 1800 hives and focuses mainly on honey production. I think he's story goes that he didn't get to treating a yard or two and half of them survived, so he breed from the survivors. Another interesting thing about many of these success stories is that they do there own queen rearing and at least for the commercial beeks they have a large mating, drone gene pool to influence the outcome. Then there's Dennis Murrell's work where the SC bee would handle any genetics and cope with the varroa pressure.
>I think Dee went through the same as well as Kirk Webster. They stopped treating and what didn't die they went from there.
When Dee lost hers it was a decade before Varroa and it was mostly to AFB and such. Dennis has put commercial queens on small cell as have I and Barry with no period of losses for the new genetics. It's a nice theory and certainly breeding survivors is a good plan. But it doesn't explain small cell.