The Way Forward?

[Adrian Quiney WI]

I've been musing on the similarities of the work of two innovators, Mike Palmer and Mel Disselkoen. As I read it Mike's method of splitting his least productive colonies in the flow and, requeening with chosen stock parallels Mel's splitting of colonies in July for brood break and resultant mite control.
What I have read here on Beesource and at MDA Splitter has me convinced that the way forward is overwintering nucs.
Has anyone else established what is the most effective length of a broodless period to knock back the mites? Mel has an example of 22 days with a queen emerging from a cell on day four after the nuc was made.
Do the experienced proponents of overwintered nucs use also use the "nuking" process as primary mite control? Thoughts anyone?

[Jack Grimshaw]

I think you have 2 different objectives here.

Mike takes his dink hives (destroying dink queen),splits into nucs and requeens with a new(hopefully better) queen. These are increase (or replacement ) hives. No brood break to speak of.

Mel ,on the other hand, does not requeen but allows the nuc to raise a queen,hence the brood break.These are also increase hives.

Making nucs is not Vorroa control but can replace your losses.
Providing a broodless period is just one part of Varroa control.
I have heard that dequeening 3 weeks before the end of your flow maximises the foragers and provides a new queen for the fall flow and to overwinter.(my area ,2 flows).Perhaps this is what Mel is attempting.Plus he has this idea about the summer solstice.

Any broodless period that is longer than the time it takes for a colony to make an emergency queen would invite workers to begin laying,a situation that will be a setback.

[Adrian Quiney WI]

Jack thanks for the reply. What I've read in Mel's work is that he requeens in two ways: One is two make a queen "On the spot" which if done on a "dink" hive would promote "dink" genetics; His other way is to add a cell. Whereas as you say Mike requeens with better stock.

I'm not sure if I was clear in my original post. I have read in other places, besides Mel's, that a period of broodlessness was helpful in knocking down varroa. If this is so what I am trying to establish is what duration of broodlessness is best. The range would be from next to none (adding a laying queen) to however long it took the split to raise a laying queen from a larva. This is because I see a potential synergy between the two innovators' methods.

I wonder if those that that have split their "dinks" added cells and not treated have seen better survival? Another difference is that in Mel's method he splits a strong hive, whereas in Mike's he splits dinks so with Mel's you would have more nucs as compared to Mike's.

[Omie]

Jack thanks for the reply. What I've read in Mel's work is that he requeens in two ways: One is two make a queen "On the spot" which if done on a "dink" hive would promote "dink" genetics; His other way is to add a cell. Whereas as you say Mike requeens with better stock.

I'm thinking an additional way might be to de-queen the 'dink' hive and then take a frame with eggs from a hive with better genetics and do the 'on the spot' cell cutting on that frame and put it in the queenless dink hive. you'd just have to eliminate any queen cells made on other frames for a few days to be sure you get a new queen from the 'good' frame with the good hive's genetics. That way, you could still use onthespot on a dink hive but get a queen with better genetics.