Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Winter losses vs. Summer gains

180K views 644 replies 60 participants last post by  Oldtimer 
#1 ·
From time to time, there are complaints that there is too much bickering and arguing and people aren't getting to talk about what they want. Well, I can't do anything about that, people are people.

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

So ask away. You have my ear.
 
#273 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Could be done, a slow sand filter can do it, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, the problem lies in the disinfection residual, otherwise more goop grows in the lines. I say more because some already grows there anyway. Goop is actually okay, it's the pathogenic goop you want to watch out for. As Michael said, it would be good for the species if humans were treatment free purely from a natural selection standpoint, but we put value on human life. Since I am a human, I'm okay with that.
 
#274 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Actually there's not as much money in water treatment as you might think. We're spending the public's money. Don't spend enough and they unelect you. Spend too much and they unelect you. Water quits coming out the tap or starts coming out the toilet and they unelect you. We work for the guys trying to keep from getting unelected.
 
#275 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

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

Walt
 
#277 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?
 
#278 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?
This study shows that beekeepers who treat and beekeepers who do not treat had about the same amount of losses: around 34%, which is about what you had.

Did I answer your question well enough?
 
#283 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?
In the short term, yes, probably. In the long term no. And if you go that way you'll have to keep on treating, because if you don't 90% or so of your colonies will perish.

I reckon I nailed it.

Mike
 
#288 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Originally Posted by odfrank View Post

I just wanted the simplest answer. Does this study show that treating bees reduces losses and what percent? I had 36% losses treatment free. Will treating reduce those losses and how much?
In the short term, yes, probably. In the long term no.
Hi Mike, can you back up that statement with proof? Are you referring to mites developing resistance to certain treatments or claiming that in the long term no kind of treatment (ex: oxalic) will reduce losses? I'm just not seeing where you're getting the information to back up your claim that treatment doesn't reduce losses in more than the short term.

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

I'm quite open minded about the whole thing as you (Mike) know, just curious about where you're getting your long term evidence to back up this claim.
 
#279 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

No wonder Odfrank doesn't post here much.

Strange that some members of a treatment free forum, decide only certain types of treatment free beekeepers are welcome. During the 2 years I was running treatment free hives, 95% of members here were very helpful and treated me well, but for the other rather vocal 5% I did not fit their mold, and so was met with put downs and outright hostility, still continuing. Like Odfrank.
 
#280 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

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

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

Lawrence Heafner
 
#281 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

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

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

For me, I seem to be the butt of some of this but it's only ever from the same old 5%, I have a thick skin, don't care, and continue regardless. Others though as you say, cannot be bothered, I'm friends with several great people who now rarely / never post here.
 
#290 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

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

Regards Walt

Sorry Barry, you came in just as I did.
 
This post has been deleted
#294 ·
#304 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Mike, most of us are pretty familiar with Oldtimer's beekeeping background.
What's your beekeeping history and how many hives do you have? Don
Its long and complex Don, but I'll outline it so you'll have an idea of where I'm coming from. I first learned beekeeping from an ancient professional gardener and countryman, and a professional commercial beekeeper about 30 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike (UK)

[1] Barry, I've tried to follow your advice, but when I say 'you' like that, it just means anyone. I can't rejig the whole grammar to avoid it without a lot of work.
 
#306 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

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

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

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

Where is it that Dee Lusby has gone wrong?
 
#310 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Mike what your thread essentially is saying is that you are practising the bond method.
I think of John Kefuss with 'Bond Method'. Yes, it shares a lot with the 'modified bond method'. But its really just careful selective husbandry. There's no throwing of varroa into hives to really press out all but the most resistant.

And it doesn't start with apiary hives with long lineages of treated parents. You (me, you, anyone) maximise your chances of not losing the lot by getting hold of bees that already resistant - feral or bred resistant - to start with. With bought/treated colonies you have around a 1 in ten chance of sufficient resistance. Those are rubbish odds. Is that what you did?

You continue to maintain that resistance as you make increase by using as parents only those that have flourished through a winter close down and spring build up, and by maintaining high drone populations in your prime hives.

You keep an apiary as a mating yard for these purposes, siting it away from other beekeepers and building in your chances of good matings by keeping large hives at all points of the compass around. (I haven't got this far yet - its a development planned for next year.

Dee Lusby goes wrong (in public) by emphasising small celling. What she and her followers fail to do is give due credit to their insistence on 'taking your losses' through not treating. This removes the mite-vulnerable strains, and, I'm not alone in thinking, is probably responsible for 75% or so of the 'organic' crowd's success. If you ask her about this she'll freely admit that she always breeds in traditional manner as a matter of course. But she emphasises only the free-cell/small cell aspect.

I also use only starter strip only in brood frames to allow the bees to choose their own cell sizes. I _think_ it may make some difference, but I _know_ selective propagation does.

However the bond method is not the only way. There are several good breeding programs going on that use completely different methods and philosophies.
As I've said above, this is not the bond method, or the modified bond method, although it has the common element of being a resistance breeding program. If anything its probably Joe Waggle's method, with a lot of Michael Bush added, and quite a bit of R.A.B. Manley. But its just traditional population husbandry starting with sound stock.

I'd like to hear about these other good breeding programmes, methods and philosophies.

Mike (UK)
 
#314 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Is it a treatment for you to eat? Are you treating your dog by giving him kibbles?

Read the forum rules.

This is absurd.
I've read the forum rules and by those definitions I'm as treatment free as anybody.

But I fail to see, other than residues, how the physical manipulations we all do are any different than chemical treatments.

Both effect who survives.

Don
 
#321 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

>Dee Lusby goes wrong (in public) by emphasising small celling. What she and her followers fail to do is give due credit to their insistence on 'taking your losses' through not treating.

As far as Dee, as already pointed out, she has said for as long as I have known her (12 years or so) that it is 1/3 genetics, 1/3 natural food and 1/3 cell size.

I tried taking losses to get mite resistant bees. The all died from Varroa. I tried small cell (with new bees of course since none survived) and lost none to Varroa. You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.

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

Not that I'm against genetics. I certainly think there are many things bees face besides Varroa and we should be raising bees that can survive these things on their own and until you stop treating you can't breed for bees who thrive without treating.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#notreatmentupside
 
#323 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

As far as Dee, as already pointed out, she has said for as long as I have known her (12 years or so) that it is 1/3 genetics, 1/3 natural food and 1/3 cell size.
You are (both) right - but most of the attention, as Don agrees, has fallen on small cell. And I do recall long periods on the organic beekeepers list when genetics was never mentioned at all. I corresponded with her about this a couple of times, and she said, routine selective husbandry was something she'd always done, and it came so naturally she never gave it a thought.

I tried taking losses to get mite resistant bees. The all died from Varroa. I tried small cell (with new bees of course since none survived) and lost none to Varroa.
I do the same (free-celling anyhow) because you told me that a couple of years ago. I do think there is something in it, and it makes good sense anyhow. But its my understanding that others are able to succeed using normal foundation. If this is so, then yours, and Dee's, and the (only) breeders' success can be logically attibuted to genetics only.

It may well be the case that while genetics is unavoidable, small celling helps, perhaps especially in the early stages. It may be that only some of the several behaviours that bees use to manage mites are available to some populations, and while that is the case, small cells are necessary.

You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.
Am I right in thinking Marla Spivak claims success without any mention of small cell - genetics only? If so, how would you explain that?

Not that I'm against genetics. I certainly think there are many things bees face besides Varroa and we should be raising bees that can survive these things on their own and until you stop treating you can't breed for bees who thrive without treating.
I couldn't agree more. Solomon has it right - exposure to all aspects of the environment is the healthy way forward, and I reckon plain vigour, productivity and longevity in the face of that are the best guides for selection purposes. Broad-spectrum resistance, I think I've heard it called.

Mike (UK)
 
#324 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Mr Bush

I tried taking losses to get mite resistant bees. The all died from Varroa. I tried small cell (with new bees of course since none survived) and lost none to Varroa. You want to believe it's all genetics but that does not explain my success at all.
Are you certain the genetic lines you got to replace all of the colonies lost to varroa wreren't better suited to varroa? I have noted consistencies in survivabilty of bees caught at specific locations around here. There seem to be great differences in swarm size, coloration, work ethic and overwintering abilities even here in this 50 mile x 50 mile zone where I place my traps. These locations consistently provide bees with similar attributes (swarm size, coloration, work ethic etc.) year after year.

I don't know what else to attribute this to other than genetics. The entire region is mono cropped soy and corn, so it isn't like some of these bees are coming from easy to live locations. What do you think?

Thanks
 
#325 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

I think there is a number of reasons for some of the disagreement.

But first, ALL beekeepers would like to be treatment free. Treatment is expensive and time consuming. Pre varroa, no chemicals of any type were used in hives in my country. Then varroa arrived and treatment became the norm. The cost of it put some marginal beekeepers out of business, and for the rest, they now run an average of 30% less hives per man. Nobody wants that, of course.

There is an issue of definition. This, being a treatment free forum, allows really only one method, the bond method. Because any other method is not treatment free. So for example, the govt. funded breeding programs producing bees with higher varroa resistance are not strictly kosher on this forum cos they treat.

The conundrum for the likes of me, is that I am not really kosher on this forum. Because although I used the bond method, I lost everything. IE, it didn't work.
That leaves me one alternative, treat where needed, but breed from the most resistant. But that is not really kosher on this forum.

When I did the bond method, I used absolute best practise, based on information from all the best known treatment free beekeepers, Solomon included. In fact I exceeded what some of them do. But it didn't work. And for most for whom it did work, they don't know why. IE, they cannot take their bees and practises to another beekeeper and tell them it will work for them. It is not reliably repeatable.

Perhaps the most repeatable thing in TF beekeeping might be queens from beeweaver. Most reviews are positive. But it struck me as odd that commercial beekeepers are not using them to make big savings, so I asked about this on the commercial forum. The reply was that some have tried them, but they got varroa just like all the other bees. So from that, it could be concluded that environment, as well as genetics, plays a part.

Even small cell itself, is not truly bond method, because it is helping the bees against varroa by imposing something on them. Natural comb is true bond method.
 
#326 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

There is an issue of definition. This, being a treatment free forum, allows really only one method, the bond method.
You can call it the bond method, I call it population husbandry by selective propagation. The bond method (and the soft bond method) refer to the means of transitioning from treatment addicted bees to treatment free bees by propagating from those showing the best mite skills. The former probably suits professional breeders, especially if they have no access to feral or bred resistant bees; the latter suits beekeepers whose apiaries are treatment addicted.

Because any other method is not treatment free. So for example, the govt. funded breeding programs producing bees with higher varroa resistance are not strictly kosher on this forum cos they treat.
They are not transitioning methods, or ongoing health-directing operations. They are separate dedicated breeding programs. Learning about them doesn't help with the work of learning how to keep bees without treatments.

The conundrum for the likes of me, is that I am not really kosher on this forum. Because although I used the bond method, I lost everything. IE, it didn't work. That leaves me one alternative, treat where needed, but breed from the most resistant. But that is not really kosher on this forum.
Why not start one where it is? Describe it as working with Marla Spivak's methods or the soft bond method. But if you truly want help, wherever, be prepared to explain your own circumstances fully. If people can't tell what wen't wrong before they'll be hobbled as to telling you how to fix it.

When I did the bond method, I used absolute best practise, based on information from all the best known treatment free beekeepers, Solomon included. In fact I exceeded what some of them do. But it didn't work.
So you say. I understand you attempted the soft bond method of transitioning? You seem to want to extrapolate from your own failure that no-one else can succeed, and the 'bond method' is therefore unreliable at best.

But you are unwilling to offer a short summary of what you did, and your apiary circumstances, that might allow me or anyone else who hasn't followed your explanations to offer suggestions as to what might have gone wrong. We can't check your claim that you did all the right things. We can't critique your methods. You are preventing us helping you. That looks rather odd.

And for most for whom it did work, they don't know why. IE, they cannot take their bees and practises to another beekeeper and tell them it will work for them. It is not reliably repeatable.
So seek out people for whom it does work, and they _do_ know why it works. Many people don't care why it works - not about the details anyway. And some struggle to follow the more complex detail of what is happening. None of that matters. But if your car is broken, seek a mechanic, not a racing driver.

Even small cell itself, is not truly bond method, because it is helping the bees against varroa by imposing something on them. Natural comb is true bond method.
My advice would be to abandon this 'true religion' attitude to 'the bond method' and familiarise yourself with the principles and mechanisms of nature. And let people help, by telling them what you did.

Unless that happens I think this conversation is off topic. I value a forum where questions can be asked about how to raise and maintain treatment free bees, whether transitioning from treatment-addicted or starting over, in the knowledge that it is likely to work if done well. I'm not going to participate in conversations that undermine that understanding, and I'll complain if they persist.

Mike (UK)
 
#327 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Mike I don't really think we are on the same page.

With all due respect, I am not asking for your help, nor have I. Some pages back, uninvited, you commented on me and my methods, implying I was on the wrong path, and that you had something to offer. This came as a surprise as I really didn't think you knew anything about me or my bees. So in essence I asked you to explain yourself. That's all.

I have not been able to discover what it is that you think you know, that I don't know. The generalities and theories about selective breeding etc that you have offered are already known by most of the members here including myself.

Although I am normally happy to talk with literally anyone, I am not asking you to engage in a conversation with me. So don't have a problem with that, and as to your continued insistence that I write a bunch of stuff for you, I have already explained that based on input I have seen so far, it would not be worth my time. I would be very happy for you to "help" someone else, rather than me.

Really, no need to be so deadly serious about it all either. For you, it's just a hobby and it's meant to be fun. Enjoy! :)
 
#332 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

There's a simple reason for that Mark. Perhaps you can figure out what it is. Why would a group of people with no interest in advancing the concept constantly criticize and even troll a forum devoted to its discussion? Why would they try to subvert the definition of the thing? Why would they try to demonstrate that even the concept's adherents weren't actually doing the thing they claim to be doing? Do they do the same things in the Topbar forum or the Warre forum?

What treatment-free is is what it is as defined in this forum. The idea that people keep trying to conflate beekeeping with treatment-free beekeeping is absurd. There is a group of people who either can't or won't or have failed to do it in here and they won't leave or leave it alone. Why is that?

Here are the reasons I've gathered:

1. I'm lying and should be stopped.
2. My methods are poisonous to the field of beekeeping and I should be stopped.
3. I'm setting up newbees for failure and shoudl be stopped.
4. I'm headed for disaster and going to take a bunch of adherents with me and should be stopped.
5. What I do doesn't matter and I'm rocking the boat and should be stopped.

I am confident that this post will add a number 6 and a number 7 to this list. Despite all the naysayers who have been saying nay for years, I've done this for ten years using the harshest of methods in a very difficult area to keep bees profitably, and I'm still doing it and I am more successful every year. I can't see how any of the stuff said against treatment-free beekeeping can be relevant. Somebody keeps bees on foundationless, ends up with very large cells, bees crash, naturally. A retired commercial beekeeper keeps one yard of bees treatment-free, they crash, of course. These things are not surprising. Michael and I and Dee and others have done this for a very long time and we are all available in one venue or another to tell you how to do it successfully. That's what this thread was supposed to be about. I'm still here to answer questions, an actual successful hard bond method beekeeper who sells nucs, honey, and wax.
 
#334 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

It appears to me as a beginner, IMO there is NO defined method of treatment free. If someone would like to define it I'll listen if not I'll do what I think is right. To me it means NO chemicals, feeding new hives IS a good idea for a finite time period. Yes you may manipulate cell size and move frames. NOW if ANYONE would care to say what is NOT allowed IE: 1. No blah blah 2.can't...... 3. etc. Otherwise It's ME that is in the wrong forum. Mike you have great ideas and are very intelligent and articulate, it husbandry is a great topic and for sure is part of this, however maybe should have it's own forum thank you. Solomon, thank you for answering my questions, I am new at this stuff and there are way too may arguments to wade through.

Went to website can read undisturbed by rhetoric. Didn't see it a t first, not that great with computers either.
 
#336 ·
Re: Ask Questions Here!

If I delete the part of my post that says that splitting a hive is a treatment just as drone trapping would also be considered a treatment and move on the part about splitting because this is where I'm confused about whats going on.

It's my understanding that by splitting an established hive once twice or howerever many times you do it you are also knocking back the mite numbers in the original hive as well as the splits this is common knowledge and part of an IPM plan that is used worldwide to reduce mite numbers in a colony.

If those colonys are split built up split again over and over then it stands to reason that your mite numbers will be low.

If like Mike you come through winter with 7 hives four of which are split like crazy up to 30 odd hives then I'm not surprised they are doing well with low mite numbers because thats what you would expect. It dosn't actually tell me he has any resistance/tolerance in his bees.

If however a beekeeper brought those 7 hives through winter and didn't treat or split them and they survived another 2 winters ( 2 winter because studies have shown that thats the time frame it takes for a hive to succumb to varroa if left untreated) then I would be the first to put my hand up and say you are onto it.

Treatmentfree beekeepers do a hang of alot of splitting which is not something you would have routinely done pre varroa unless you were wanting to increase hive numbers.

It's the one thing that stands out to me that treatment free beekeepers do that conventional beekeepers dont and I think it has a major impact on mite numbers rather than because theres any resistance/tolerance.

If you want to be taken seriously Mike then I wouldn't be saying anything about how you have been able to magically conjure up resistant bees after 2 years because that really seems fanciful to me and is also a bit of a slap in the face for people who have put alot of money time and effort into trying to develop their own line of resistant/tolerant bees.

Lastly I want to say that your post aimed at Oldtimer #210 is extremeley condescending as you imply he has no knowledge and that you know about what he was doing with his bees here in NZ when in actual fact you had no clue.

Oldtimer has been beekeeping for many more years than yourself and has been dealing with varroa for many more years then yourself. He is an extremely valued member of our New Zealand bee community and has always called it as it is.
One other thing with Oldtimer he will share what he is doing in his Apiaries with whoever is interested and will tell it true whether things are going well or not.

That said I will leave it alone because I dont want to perpetuate any bashing it just annoyed me to see such a personal and uninformed post.
 
#338 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

If like Mike you come through winter with 7 hives four of which are split like crazy up to 30 odd hives then I'm not surprised they are doing well with low mite numbers because thats what you would expect. It dosn't actually tell me he has any resistance/tolerance in his bees.
Quite right

It's my understanding that by splitting an established hive once twice or howerever many times you do it you are also knocking back the mite numbers in the original hive as well as the splits this is common knowledge and part of an IPM plan that is used worldwide to reduce mite numbers in a colony. If those colonys are split built up split again over and over then it stands to reason that your mite numbers will be low.
We need to distinguish between different sorts of 'splits', and the different effects they might have. I try to do them in a way that has the least influence on the parent colony - though in the interest of building hive numbers I've also done them in ways that impact more.

The preferred method is: from large and thriving hives that have come through at least one winter:

I take 1 frame of eggs-to-sealed brood and one of stores - open nectar and pollen at least, together with an empty farme containing only starter strip. I put these in a divided 6-frame nuc, and 'charge' them with flying bees from either the same colony or another by shifting the donor hive to the side and letting bees fly in for a while. Then I take them to a different site where I have (at least two and often more) thriving colonies with large drone populations, and park them in a relatively isolated position. Once mated I shift them to a 6-frame nuc and slow-feed syrup to encourage them build comb.

The effect on the parent hive is limited to the loss of no more than 10% of oncoming brood, and often as little as 5%. I can't see this having much effect on varroa populations, thus giving false readings. If anyone thinks otherwise it can I'll be grateful to hear your reasoning.

Maybe we should describe this in terms of 'low-impact' splits?

The other way is making splits from young colonies, and I agree that this is riskier in terms of supplying false readings of mite resistance as I'm taking up to 20% or so of the brood. But that's still not a lot. And I'm not making any assumptions: all my hives are what they are, and we'll know more about them when they've passed through a winter and built up again - or not. That's it. This is a process, and a learning process.

I've also grafted, and plan to try cut-comb queen raising. Both these would be still better for avoiding false resistance readings, but I've yet to sort out the business of getting nurse bees separated (shaking will get the queen in the wrong place - I don't mark my queens and don't see them very often)

I've considered trying freeze-brood testing a la Spivak, but haven't got around to it yet. (I reckon pipe-freeze kits for field work - has anyone tried this?)

If however a beekeeper brought those 7 hives through winter and didn't treat or split them and they survived another 2 winters ( 2 winter because studies have shown that thats the time frame it takes for a hive to succumb to varroa if left untreated) then I would be the first to put my hand up and say you are onto it.
I'd like links to those studies. I don't see how you can make a binary ("is OR isn't") judgement of whether a hive has resistance when resistance is incremental. Depending on how many of the several mite-management behaviours the hive posesses, and in how many patrilines, the hive will do better or worse at managing - its not an on/off situation. The idea is to make the effort to discover the most resistant and propagate their genes in the local breeding pool.

The idea that two winters should be a benchmark may be desirable, but you'd have to monitor the queen to make sure there's been no break through a succession or swarming. But yes, two winters without any human impact will be better than one.

In broad terms it is my present judgement that, in a middle sized apiary context, with many other bees in the area... if a swarm establishes, builds, survies a winter, and rebuilds without any sign of mites or dwv there is a very good chance things will go on that way. That's been my experience to date. I see a little dwv in some hives for a few weeks in spring, then it stops - but those hives get marked down as watch-its.

There are plenty of uncertainties in this game, lots of trying to determine where your best chances lie. I've taken my path - this year maximise numbers while trying to minimise false readings - and others will find holes in it - quite rightly. I'm grateful for the critique. Next year, more grafting so as not to slew assays. I reserve the right to change my mind!

As you say, I'll be able to speak more authorititively as the years go by - assuming continued success. But my modest success doesn't supply the basis of the arguments I put forward here - though it does show I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and that what I've described has worked for thus far. My arguments are rather founded in the uncontraversial science, supported by widespread and (very) longstanding breeding practice. They are logical exercises in extrapolating from solid premises.

Those people who distrust logical extrapolation won't trust them. Others will hopefully appreciate the clarity and insight they can provide toward discovering the important factors in a complex topic. Horses for courses as they say hereabouts.

Mike (UK)
 
#346 · (Edited)
Re: Ask Questions Here!

Every winter. I don't split that way.
Don't split which way Solomon? How do you make splits, and why that way?

What would you say be the worst way to make splits, from the perspective of supplying false resistance impressions?

How would you build an apiary from a limited number of swarms and cut-outs of mixed parentage, some of which are certainly at least surviving if not thriving thriving ferals, with a commercial beekeeper with 120 hives 2 miles in one direction, good rough forage and known ferals on the opposite side?

Would you consider it wise to build as fast as possible, to give yourself many chances of good genetic combinations, and to raise drone numbers to counter the effect of commercial and local treating beekeepers?

To seize the opportunity, while you actually have promising bees, to parlay them into a functional apiary in the knowledge that such an opportunity may not come again for some years? (And to do so without capital with which to buy packages to re-queen.)

What is the route that maximises the likelihood of success? If you agree that making rapid increase is important, how would you go about it, while trying to maintain the ability to select for resistance effectively?

Given a handful of promising hives and nothing else in May, there are choices to be made about how to go about things in the next few months. Anything you do will open some doors and close others. How would you go about it?

Mike (UK)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top