Would we need to use a full frame, both sides for a drone trap. Maybe after the first rotation, when the population started to go down, fill one side of the frame, assuming so kind of foundation or plastic , and let the queen lay on only one side, or maybe only part of each side. The filler could be wood or high density styrofoam.
Seems like it would save a lot of eggs and a lot of feeding if you did run it over the entire summer.
"hobby farm" is an oxymoron
Brent Roberts
>Would we need to use a full frame, both sides for a drone trap
Dunno for sure Brent since I'm speculating wildly about it. I have however read about other people's drone comb trapping experiments and experiences and therefore feel I can at least speculate wildly, with some accuracy [img]smile.gif[/img] The topic of the thread is "the effectiveness of treatmens with and without brood" and it clearly appears to me that drone comb trapping of mites is every bit as much as treatment as any chemical treatment and is therefore also more effective in a broodless hive.
What initially struck me about the Bee Culture article was that they trapped out 95% or so of the mites in the hive using 8 frames of drone comb over the course of the summer. Knowing what I know about mite reproduction rates and the effect of treatments when there is brood in the hive (a scenario well put forward by Michael at the beginning of this thread) I think it's safe to say they didn't trap out all their mites with the first comb.
So what was the efficacy of their "treatment"? I'd say it wasn't very high on a per-comb basis. They didn't publish ongoing mite counts or infestation levels during the test, so we can't say for sure. That would have been a nice touch, to see how the mite population dropped over time.
I'm guessing there was a pretty constant removal of mites over the summer, perhaps 10% or a little more per set of drone combs removed. This is because mites were actively reproducing at the same time i.e., the hives were not broodless. I dunno, maybe it was more effective at first, less effective towards the end. Maybe they hardly trapped any mites at all with frames 7 and 8.
If you've got a broodless hive and all your mites have been phoretic for several weeks and they are just twiddling their thumbs waiting for some brood to arrive, and all of a sudden you put 3-4000 ready-to-eat young drone larvae and eggs in the hive... I think you're going to catch a LOT of mites. Perhaps almost all of them.
Dulcius ex asperis
The "drone brood removal method" described in Feb 06 BC (and many other places) says to remove/replace the drone frame more than once. Its hard to see that as a "broodless" hive.
>Maybe they hardly trapped any mites at all with frames 7 and 8.
How many DRONE eggs will a queen (any queen) lay in September?
My quess is the most "treatment" occurs w/ first 2 may 3 frames removed. Frame 2 or 3 probably having the most mites. These first frames reduce the mites to a level that their reproduction from then on is almost nill (low number to reproduce and very low qty of drone brood being produced.
>The "drone brood removal method" .... says to remove/replace the drone frame more than once. Its hard to see that as a "broodless" hive.
They're not describing nor advocating a broodless hive for drone comb trapping. I am [img]smile.gif[/img]
I can't help it if people want to practice drone comb trapping the WRONG way, or should I say, the LESS EFFICIENT way [img]smile.gif[/img]
Are you confused over terminology or disputing the effectiveness of treatments in broodless vs broodfull (?) hives? It's pretty simple from my point of view. If the hive has brood in it, it's not broodless. If it doesn't have brood in it, then it's broodless. Nobody is saying a hive has to be broodless for drone comb trapping to be used. I'm just saying that employing drone comb trapping, like any other treatment, is more efficient in a broodless hive.
In other words, putting a frame of drone comb containing eggs and young larvae into a BROODLESS hive with the intention of taking it out a week later after it's capped does not make it a hive "with brood" IMHO. I don't have a problem here [img]smile.gif[/img]
>My quess is the most "treatment" occurs w/ first 2 may 3 frames removed. Frame 2 or 3 probably having the most mites.
I don't know. I doubt it. I wish they'd published drop counts over the course of the summer, it would have helped understand what was going on. Think about the logistics of it:
Mites enter cells to breed 1-2 days before the cells are capped. That's a pretty narrow window, really. Given that mites are phoretic for from 3 to 13 days (and NEED to be in fact) before they are ready to breed, how many of them are going to enter cells during the 2 day period when your drone comb is "ripe"? Hard to say, but I'd guess about 1/5th of them (assuming 100% will enter cells over a 10 day period, 20% should enter cells in a 2 day period). Then, are they all going to enter the to-be-culled combs? No. Some will enter worker brood. Some will enter the drone cells found elsewhere in the hive. Meanwhile, while you're taking mites out, you've got more mites maturing and emerging all the time. 60% or better of the mites in the hive are in cells reproducing at any given time. Under these circumstances, does drone comb trapping sound all that efficient?
Now consider a truly broodless hive where all the mites are phoretic and have been for several weeks. You throw in a comb of drone eggs and young larvae. How many of them are going to dive into cells when the larvae are the proper age?
Most of them.
Dulcius ex asperis
>They're not describing nor advocating a broodless hive for drone comb trapping . . .
Thats what Im saying [img]smile.gif[/img]
>confused over terminology or disputing the effectiveness?
Whos confused?
>You throw in a comb of drone eggs . . .
Young larvae, yes. Eggs dont matter.
>Now consider a truly broodless hive where all the mites are phoretic and have been for several weeks. You throw in a comb of drone eggs and young larvae. How many of them are going to dive into cells when the larvae are the proper age?
Sounds like all we need to do is just KEEP our hives BROODLESS [img]smile.gif[/img]
>Whos confused?
Nobody apparently. Certainly not me!
>Young larvae, yes. Eggs dont matter.
Feh...
>Sounds like all we need to do is just KEEP our hives BROODLESS
Oh Dave, now you're being silly [img]smile.gif[/img]
Dulcius ex asperis
>Sounds like all we need to do is just KEEP our hives BROODLESS
Well, you won't have any Varroa.
Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it."
My book: ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
>Well, you won't have any Varroa.
It's right up there with your idea for using dynamite as a permanent solution to varroa [img]smile.gif[/img]
Dulcius ex asperis
>It's right up there with your idea for using dynamite as a permanent solution to varroa
It's the same basic principle but much easier on the equipment. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it."
My book: ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
> I can't find anything about this on the www;"Wyatt Mangum did some serious work on the
subject of varroa reinfestation via drift
within the apiary, and his numbers showed
that we can't ignore drift as a significant
issue in its own right."
> can you provide a pointer reference please?
Not everything is on the web just yet. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Dwight spoke about this at a beekeeper meeting
(VA? MD? I dunno, somewhere in the East), but
I don't know if he has written anything yet.
E-mail him - he's a nice enough guy, and is sure
to send you something or other, perhaps a
pre-print or a copy of his presentation.
wmangum@mwc.edu
I emailed him. Thanx
Triangle Bees
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks