Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Treatment Free: It's a path, not a solution

41K views 253 replies 40 participants last post by  drummerboy 
#1 ·
I have been treatment free for about 15 months now. I mean that in the "truest" sense - no manipulations or additions of any kind for the purpose of combating mites. The bees have struggled, and one could say that the treatment free approach I'm using is "not working" very well. So I have been considering my alternatives. And I find myself wondering if it's really fair to ask treatment free to "work". Isn't it really just choosing a different way to approach beekeeping - one with a certain set of challenges that must be overcome? One could say that it's "living with mites", but then again, that is what everyone does. I feel like it's often just about living with mites, and not fighting them directly.

I quit treating last April, and entered last winter with 11 hives. Came out with 8. Lost two or three through the spring and early summer and have built back up through cut-outs and swarms to 18 at this point. I have just set up nucs for the year. 10 of my number are those nucs.

Over the last few years I have done a lot of study; reading everything I could find on ways of dealing with varroa, working with the bees - and in the end, I feel that for me personally, it just make the most sense not to interfere with the mite.

At the end of the day, I've come to believe that keeping bees without treatments (for the most part) really just amounts to managing bees with mites. Sure, you can graft from your best and work toward a more resistant bee, but with most of us living in areas where there are plenty of other, treated bees around, your progress could be slow.

Many people who are treatment free talk about making increase from "catching swarms" and "feral survivors", but I believe that most of those bees are just swarms from other people's treated bees, so all that collecting just amounts to replacing lost bees with new bees. The only difference really is that you worked for them, rather than paid for them, and in many cases, you can at least count the fact that if they came early enough in the season, the queen probably wintered at least once in your locality.

There are so many challenges that face bees (pesticides, pests, disease, weather) and beekeepers (economics, pests, disease, weather, insanity) that the death or poor performance of a colony could be the result of any combination of things. Mites are one, albeit a major one.

If you look at treatment free in the broadest sense; across all the people who take that approach, it really isn't about some genetic secret. It isn't about small cell. It isn't about not feeding sugar syrup, pollen sub or using three deeps or all mediums. There really isn't "a solution" in terms of some remedy that will rid the bees of mites.

It's about not treating.

So from what I can see, it really boils down to not fighting mites, and then managing day-to-day, month-to-month around the results. It's about deciding that you don't want to artificially combat mites and then replacing the work of doing so with other work.

Isn't it?

Adam
 
See less See more
#85 ·
I have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence of good mating results in yards with lots of drone strength and (most importantly) poorer results in yards with less drone strength to satisfy myself that most matings happen from local drones. I am convinced that natures way of preventing inbreeding is from multiple matings more than drones from afar. A few years ago we had some nucs weak on drones and placed them in their own yard with 2 strong yards just a mile away in opposite directions. I assumed that "sandwiching" them in such a way would result in good matings. The strong yards "caught" very well while the nucs weak in drone population did poorly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrazyIvan865
#87 ·
Saltybee, I hear you, and that is in line with what Oldtimer and others are saying as well. I completely respect that approach, and every other approach - treated or not. If I had real answers, I might get pushy, but as far as I can tell, no one's got it figured out. I think the best approach is to follow what you believe and to remain open to listening to the beliefs of others at the same time.

Zhiv9, Jim,

Ever since I heard Keith Delaplane's talk on Polyandry, I've really been convinced that the mating of a queen to as many drones from as many different strong colonies - from as many different genetic backgrounds - as possible may be the biggest key to the adaptable strength of the bee. It's as if each "family" or genetic line has slightly different strengths, and the broadest mating equates to the biggest "tool belt" for surviving all the world throws at them.

So I have to admit, even the idea of what I said about minimizing the drones in some of the colonies that are treated, or suffering from mite damage makes me wonder:

What "tools" might be lost with those drones?
 
#88 ·
What "tools" might be lost with those drones?
Even above the genetic level, there are things drones can do for us. The first one I can think of is a bait for mites. I posted results of a survey I did earlier this year where I actually pulled brood out and counted mites. I was very disappointed that I got no engagement on it whatsoever. I still wonder why. Check it out: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-and-Worker-Brood-in-a-Treatment-Free-Colony

What I found confirmed the theories treatment-free beekeepers have had for a long time, that mites infest drones more, and that one method my bees use is to suppress mite reproduction. Mites infesting in drone brood preferentially leaves the hive still capable of functioning effectively with a high mite load.

Drones can also be in large numbers from other hives which can throw in some further perplexing dynamics.
 
#89 ·
Isn't it?
Let me push on the idea that TF is a path and not a solution. It is a solution, but not a solution in the way that most treatments are solutions. They are a finite solution. There are these mite, kill them mites, mites are gone, bees go on. TF is not that sort of solution. TF is a continuing solution, like fuel injection is a solution for how to get gasoline into an engine in the correct ratio with air. It's a piece put in place but requires a little input and the rest is automatic operation, feedback and adjustment provided by the machine itself.

I see so often people claim they tried it and then resorted to treating. I don't know why if you kill mites with treatments would you expect that ceasing treatments would somehow result (in a similar timetable) that the mites would still get killed. This applies to all those newbees who buy their package in March and the hive is dead by Christmas. It's not the same sort of solution. However, when you get to the sustainable stage, the solution is there. The solution is already in place and the problem is solved. Now I worry about other things. As far as handling mites and disease, I'm at the end of the path and off down another path doing something else. Maybe TF is a destination, but if it is, it is one from which the journey may continue. Pushing the map analogy further, it's picking which state in which you want to live. Now I'm in the state, but there are a whole lot more places to go.
 
#96 ·
... I see so often people claim they tried it and then resorted to treating. I don't know why if you kill mites with treatments would you expect that ceasing treatments would somehow result (in a similar timetable) that the mites would still get killed...
That's the central reason behind my original post and the tread title. As one approaches the idea of being treatment free, they shouldn't approach it in the same way they might approach the use of oxalic acid or MAQS, or wintering nucs for that matter.

Running bees without treatments is not a solution or an answer the way specific treatments or management strategies are. Being treatment free only means not treating, and then choosing a combination of a number of methods and management techniques to find a balance where you can reach your goals with the bees.

I think for too many people, their decision-making process around mites reads something like this:

Essential Oils.
(and/or)
Drone brood removal
(and/or)
Sugar shake
(and/or)
Organic Acids
(and/or)
Small cell
(and/or)
Thymol
(and/or)
Treatment Free

Treatment free is not a method of dealing with mites. It a choice to not treat for mites. In that sense it a direction, or the beginning of a path. Once you are to the point where you are operating successfully without treating (reaching your own goals with your bees), then I guess you could say have reached a "destination" in that you've achieved something. But you could also say that you just remain on that treatment free path toward a variety of other goals; season after season. From there it's likely just things like getting them through winter, building up in spring, selling nucs, rearing queens and making honey - just like it is for most other beekeepers. You're just doing it without treating.

So in that sense I feel that the decision should begin with

Beekeeping with Treatments for mites
(and/or)
Treatment Free Beekeeping

Only after that decision is made does that first list of solutions come into play.

Adam
 
#90 ·
Solomon, I did read that, did not comment as a really had not and have not settled the implications to mine in my head. Not new info but a clear demonstration. Drone laying stops for the season and the mites go?
The need to locally adapt purchased survivor stock indicates that it is not only the local bees that need improving it is the local mites. Parasites shouild not kill the host. TF keepers should sell their mite stock, not just their queens.
I know I have read it before but the worst part of treating may be that it promotes the success of the fastest breeding mites.
 
#95 ·
Old timer: that is why the true live and let die method is what I am using. I don't care what mechanism(s) they ultimately come up with. Nature rarely comes up with a method in a methodical planned way. Nature comes up with solutions that we can't even predict. I wrote a blog piece last year about how Japanese honey bees overcome Asian hornets..... Who would have thought bees would have come up with a temperature dependent way to actively kill hornet scouts..... But ut did. It would be interesting to know how long ago Japanese honey bees came up with this defense and how long it took.

If you read langstroth you can see how much more severe the wax moth used to be as a pest. He called it the bee wolf. Today they are a pain in weak/dying hives, but back in his time they must have been more virulent or the genetic lines of bees who existed here in America had become so weak in the absence of moths for 80-100 years.
 
#97 ·
American foul brood used to be much more common and virulent as well. Ed Levi told us (at the Big Bee Buzz last year) about how it got imported from France into Egypt through the importation of queens. There, it destroyed entire apiaries, dozens of hives at once. Here in the US, where AFB hives have been burned for many years, it doesn't appear very often except in hives previously treated with antibiotics, giving it a foothold. Burning an AFB hive would be akin to the "Accelerated Bond Test" for AFB where the varroa version uses heavily infested frames to infect a hive.
 
#106 · (Edited)
Burning an AFB hive would be akin to the "Accelerated Bond Test" for AFB where the varroa version uses heavily infested frames to infect a hive.
Not at all. "The Accelerated Bond test", at least as I understand it is let it live or die on its own. Then in the process the hive sits how long before it is cleaned of the pathogen that killed it. In that time who knows how many robbers have come in to allow the pathogen to spread. With the burn test, it ends with the hive, before it dies and has the opportunity to spread pathogens via robbers etc. That is the entire purpose of burning. Do you burn your bond test failures before they die? Don't think so.
 
#101 · (Edited)
Good post LetMBee. The bond method works in accordance with evolutionary theory. So what cannot survive unaided dies. As per evolutionary theory there have been extinctions, and that's where the bond method can fail, as a method. As in my case, my losses were 100%. Which is quite in accordance with evolutionary theory and what has happened when two alien species encounter each other, historically, more species have become extinct than are currently alive. So it didn't advance my quest to produce a better bee at all. If a person gets some survivors though, he has a chance.

Even Solomon, after some years of doing the bond method, got wiped down at one time to only two hives. He could just as easily lost everything, like me. It happens.

Re the AFB thing, there is no evidence that bees are more resistant to it because infested hives have been burned. Those hives would have died anyway if they could not withstand the disease, as has been happening throughout the ages.
The real thing that got AFB kicked off was the beginning of widespread transportation of bees and equipment last century. AFB then became an epidemic both in my country, and parts of the US. Strong government policy has now brought the disease to small proportions in both countries. Solomon if you think your bees are resistant to it try infecting all your hives with it. The likelihood is that more than 1/2 of them will become symptomatic.

How do I know that? You would be amazed at the things I have seen, and the people I have met, during my work as an AFB inspector.

So hey just kidding don't REALLY do that LOL. :eek:
 
#105 ·
...The bond method works in accordance with evolutionary theory. So what cannot survive unaided dies. As per evolutionary theory there have been extinctions, and that's where the bond method can fail, as a method. As in my case, my losses were 100%...If a person gets some survivors though, he has a chance...
True, and in this case, we already have honeybees who have gone through this process - with varroa - and come through it successfully, by all accounts again thriving as they did before the mite.

We have isolated populations in France and Sweden, and then we have apis cerana who have evolved to a place that lives in balance with varroa. So in this case, we already have evidence that our bees can and will find that balance if allowed to do so.

Adam
 
#102 ·
Dear Friends
Green Chapel Farms has maintained an experimental hive for 3 years with no internal treatment for mites. We do use beetle traps filled with mineral oil. This spring, we added a second hive. Our answer to Varroa and other bee parasites has been Lavender and Mint plantings in front of the hive. A recent "Sugar Shake" reveled no presence of the Varroa mite. This is not to say that the hive is Varroa free, but the mite has been suppressed to the point that it is not visible or detectable through this testing method. The test was conducted by a Commercial Apiary not affiliated with our study.
Our goal is self-sustaining hives. While we have not attained this goal yet, this hive is entered only 4 times a year, and is thriving. It has split twice this year, and was honey bound when the mite test was conducted 2 weeks ago.
We are biologists and horticulturists, not professional beekeepers. This project was undertaken to test a theory about the antiseptic and insecticidal properties of certain plants.
 
#104 ·
... Our answer to Varroa and other bee parasites has been Lavender and Mint plantings in front of the hive....mite has been suppressed to the point that it is not visible or detectable through this testing method....This project was undertaken to test a theory about the antiseptic and insecticidal properties of certain plants.
Interesting. How big are the plantings? I must admit, I doubt the connection between the plants and mites, as I have these plants near my hives, (as many people likely do). However, I do wonder about the effects of vast amounts of plants such as lavender, peppermint, and thyme.

Do the french lavender apiaries have an absence of mites that could be attributed to the plants?

I did think of this when Tim Ives was touting the effectiveness of triple deeps, but on his facebook page, showed pictures of fields of peppermint, and I wondered if it was having an effect...

Adam
 
#103 ·
#110 ·
Oldtimer:

I have heard different projected dates as to how long honey bees have been on earth. I have seen 50 - 80 - 100 million years. I dont know how long they have been here, but it is a lot longer than humans. Something tells me this is not the most horrible thing they have dealt with as a species in that vast amount of time. I am thinking that the feral bees around here are already dealing with varroa. I catch swarms consistently year to year in the same locations where there is no active beekeeping.
 
#111 ·
Jbeshearse: if you look at how long humans have taken care of honeybees think about how long sugar has been cheaply available and treatments were even invented. There were times when beekeepers had terrible losses, but bees made it and they are still making honey. We are not the first beekeepers in history to be dealing with problems.

My bees require the use of protective clothing on hive manipulations, but they aren't mean. One more reason to leave them to their work. I have more faith in honeybees than to think that this is the end for them. I guess we will find out, but I have my money on the bees.
 
#112 ·
Dear beesource Friends
Many changes have taken place since our initial introduction here.
Our first research summary was published in the Solutions Journal. A copy of the summary can be read at LINK
Our study in its entirety has not received a warm welcome from the Dept of Agriculture or any of the government agencies to whom it was submitted.

Adam
Spanish Lavender is planted directly in front of the hive entrance, so that the bees are forced to fly through it in order to enter the hive. Mints are planted to the left, Right and rear of the hive.
 
#191 ·
Don't mind those "government agencies"... they don't work for us. They work for the poison companies, drug companies, etc. The USDA is nothing but Monsanto/Pfizer'als police fore to make you're you keep being the products the make the problems that require more of their products. Why else do you thing there been 17 years of research, countless sample taken "and analyzed", millions spent all in "investigating the CCD phenomenon" and there's not one report of anything and the official story is "we have no clue what's causing it". .. it's the treatments. If it was anything other than the treatments, if it was mites or mite vectored diseases, they'd make it international news to drive treatment sales. But not one single published report on the samples taken an analyzed? What's that tell ya.

So don't mind your finding being not well received. Just let's us who already know who they work for where they actually stand.
 
#114 ·
Addressing the hypothesis of evolution:

It is the opinion of our research team that queen building (supersedure) may be undertaken by the colony in order to address genetic deficits, Given time and opportunity (a comfortable environment)

I must say, our control group has taught us much about the survivability of different strains under difficult conditions. The control group is made up of 25 hives of different varieties. Buckfast, Italian and Russian. During the past 3 years of this trial, all varieties in the control group have suffered winter and early spring losses except for the Buckfast, with the Italians suffering the greatest losses.

A Buckfast Colony from the control group were our genetic predecessors.
 
#115 ·
...During the past 3 years of this trial, all varieties in the control group have suffered winter and early spring losses except for the Buckfast...
Interesting.

I brought in 5 Buckfast queens from Bill Ferguson last year, and two remain. So far, they are not stand-outs in any way. I realize, of course that it is a small sample, and the genetically diverse background of the Buckfast bee is desirable in principal, provided they are obtained from a quality breeder.

From what I gather, the Buckfast is not the Buckfast Brother Adam created, but if one can trace the stock back to his apiary, at least there's a heritage.

Adam
 
#120 ·
Zhive9:

More adaptive bees..... Less virulent varroa... I will take either so long as it means live colonies in the spring. There is a cup half full argument for allowing weak hives to die in the winter. The mites in those hives die too. Therefore it is the end of the genetic line for those varroa. When an untreated hive swarms less virulent varroa most likely tag along. Sounds plausible to me.
 
#121 ·
Zhive9:

More adaptive bees..... Less virulent varroa... I will take either so long as it means live colonies in the spring.

it will take both to reach a tolerable host/parasite equilibrium.


There is a cup half full argument for allowing weak hives to die in the winter. The mites in those hives die too. Therefore it is the end of the genetic line for those varroa.

not the case, the dying hive will be robbed out by nearby colonies thereby spreading the genetics of the colony crashing varroa.
jmho
 
#123 ·
First of all, it's the viruses transmitted by Varroa to Honeybees that do the killing. So, they need to bee virus resistant for the most part.

Secondly, investigators have now found that DWV can infect and replicate in Bombus impatiens, the common eastern bumblebee.

With a new, very large, environmental reservoir, and with the new horizontal pathway of virus transmission from Bombus impatiens, to pollen source, to Honeybee, to Varroa, and back again, I'd say that the 'Bond" hypothesis has a serious flaw.

You're better off getting resistant stock from feral trapouts/swarms or other known resistant stock.

One method can be justified as a form of conservation: removing exotic livestock from the environment.

The other one raises the question, "Why take risks with an invasive virus?" .
 
#124 ·
>There is no such thing as luck.

But there is. Survival of the lucky has always been around and the demise of the unlucky. Bees have to gamble to survive and if that gamble on when the flow will start fails miserably they die. A lot of success is timing.

>How do you determine that mites were the cause of the winter losses if you are not monitoring them?

It's not hard to count dead mites on the bottom board of a dead hive. Not hard at all to estimate if they are in the tens of thousands... or you have trouble finding them...

>This might be because VSH focusses on just one mechanism, to target mites. The bond method, in theory anyway, does not target one thing, it selects purely on the basis of weather a hive can survive in mite infested areas. That ability to survive might possibly include ability to resist mite related pathogens.

And I think this is essential. Survival may be a complex interaction or it may just be a combination of things that reach some critical mass. In other words if there are ten things that contribute to survival, and they have seven of them that might be what it takes, no matter which seven. Reality is I don't think we know what it takes exactly. But it is easy to measure survival.
 
#128 ·
This might be because VSH focusses on just one mechanism, to target mites. The bond method, in theory anyway, does not target one thing, it selects purely on the basis of weather a hive can survive in mite infested areas. That ability to survive might possibly include ability to resist mite related pathogens.

And I think this is essential. Survival may be a complex interaction or it may just be a combination of things that reach some critical mass. In other words if there are ten things that contribute to survival, and they have seven of them that might be what it takes, no matter which seven. Reality is I don't think we know what it takes exactly. But it is easy to measure survival.
Mike, this is the sticking point for me, and what caused me to make that decision to quit treating 15 months ago. I realized that we just don't know if anything we're doing is causing as much long term harm as it causes short term gain. I realized that through everything I could see through my research and experience, the bee is largely a mystery to us. So from my perspective, the best we can do is to employ a minimalist approach - mess with her and her ways as little as possible.

Adam
 
#125 ·
WLC: True it is the viruses, but the mites also parasitize the bees. You are correct though in that bees need to develop a defense against the the vector (mites) as well as the pathogenic viruses, but I do not doubt that they can do this. Varroa came from another parasite host relationship where both were able to coexist. Given time they will do the same with honeybees. The viral vector problem is not totally solved by hygienic stock. The idea of hygienic stock has been around for a little while. I don't think it is a magic bullet.

You make an interesting point... Is all of this shipping of bees across the world a good idea?
 
#126 ·
There is chance and skill. Chance is the number of questions on the test you know the answers to. Skill is the total number of answers you know.

Gambling is not luck. Gambling is skill and chance. The worst gambler has the chance of winning occasionally. The best gambler can win with the worst cards. Survival of the lucky is the same as survival of the treated. Once one stops getting treated, one returns to survival of the fittest. Luck is combination of things occasionally working out by chance and the human tendency to forget about it when it didn't work.

Is it harsh, are my methods cruel, am I a cold heartless so and so? Yes. But my bees are awesome. “The Bond Test keeps you very busy doing nothing” - John Kefuss
 
#133 ·
Dear Oldtimer

Mt Toler has kept an italian hive afloat, but he has had to feed these bees and monitor them quite a bit. Although I cannot state this with any surety, I would say the Italian hives are hybrids. I will inquire.
The Buckfast Queens in our control group were purchased from Canada. Ferguson Apiaries.
Mr Toler has had little success with Buckfast Queens purchased in the US. In fact, Both Buckfast queens he purchased from R Weaver this year, were destroyed by the colony within 30 days of their introduction and replaced with a custom queen.
 
#134 ·
Dear Adam Foster Collins

It is interesting to observe, that a strain or Queen, warmly received by one colony can be soundly rejected in another. Colonies are certainly aware of their own needs, and by our observations, waste no time in setting about exacting changes to fulfill those needs.

Dear Oldtimer

You have surmised the basis of an element of our rejection to be sure. We have learned that there will never be a "meeting of the minds" between Conservationists and Commercial beekeepers.

I'm sure you noticed that we disenfranchised the Naturalists as well, by using Bayer Chemicals within a close proximity of these hives. We are after the truth in these matters, and have not landed soundly in one Camp or the other. We will continue to publish our findings,....and buy a stainless steel umbrella.
 
#135 ·
Dear Adam Foster Collins

It is interesting to observe, that a strain or Queen, warmly received by one colony can be soundly rejected in another. Colonies are certainly aware of their own needs, and by our observations, waste no time in setting about exacting changes to fulfill those needs.
True. In our case, the Buckfasts were accepted readily enough, and they survived the winter. They just haven't yet been stand-outs in terms of health or performance, and some failed during our poor spring. Still too early to give a true assessment, and in truth, I'd like to import some more in order to make sure it wasn't "luck of the draw", or just my own failures that caused them to struggle.

Adam
 
#139 ·
That was a very interesting talk. One thing I took away from it is that perhaps a successful treatment free program should have as much variety in its genetic sources as possible. I think there's some evidence of that in the observation that many successful treatment free operations make a large portion of their increase from swarms.

Just by luck, I've sort of started out that way. Of the six colonies I presently have, the bees come from 5 different sources. I have Wolf Creek bees, New World Carniolans, Italians, a BeeWeaver queen, and a local nuc of mutts from a guy who raises a few every year. The local nuc has produced the best, and been the healthiest.

Of course, this wide variety may be of more benefit to my neighboring beekeepers than to me, but still...

Anyway, the main takeaway from the talk is that breeding bees is nothing like breeding cows or chickens. The unique breeding strategy of hymenoptera species makes it a lot more complicated.
 
#140 ·
...Anyway, the main takeaway from the talk is that breeding bees is nothing like breeding cows or chickens. The unique breeding strategy of hymenoptera species makes it a lot more complicated.
At least in the ones that are genetically predisposed to mate with multiple males. That's the crux of it - the seeming opposition between how we tend to get what we want (traditional selection - narrowing) and the bee's version of that (selecting through a wider selection).

The bee still selects, but she does so over the broadest range possible. So how do we foster that? If we just provide her with lots of males from a few sources, she may mate plenty of times, but she's not getting the depth of genetic material.

Is that something we want to foster? More depth? And if so, how?

Adam
 
#141 ·
good info adam, thanks.

the two operations i know of that are treatment free and sustaining well are my own (four years) and my bee supplier (16 years).

we are both in locations that are heavily wooded (over 2/3rds of the landscape) and we think there are plenty of feral colonies surviving in the area (which are contributing to the dca's).

i have been assuming that in addition to having favorable weather and abundant forage, the genetic contribution from the unmanaged survivors is helping to make being treatment free here possible.
 
#143 ·
One criticism I would make of Dr. Delaplane's talk was that he didn't mention what sort of treatment regimen he used on his breeding experiments, or if he did I didn't catch it.

One aspect of this subject that always strikes me as a little strange is that those who treat their bees seem reluctant to admit that the treatments themselves have negative effects on hive health. They will say that if they had not treated, then varroa and viruses carried by mites would have killed the hive, so the damage done by treatment is inconsequential in the big picture. The problem with that analysis is that something is killing treated hives at what seem at best uneconomic rates. I can't help but wonder if treatment is contributing to hive loss in ways not easily categorized.

For example, a lot of beeks who treat will attribute the loss of some hives to queen failure. Non-treaters, it appears from my research, have queens that live a significantly longer time than treated queens do. How much does treatment contribute to queens with higher mortality?

We all accept that pesticides can have sub-lethal effects. Why is it so hard to accept that treatments (some of which are in fact pesticides) may also have negative sub-lethal effects? Many folks treat with several different things for mites, for bacterial diseases, for Nosema. We know very little about the synergistic effects of this brew of chemicals. And we know even less about the cumulative effects of outside chemicals, of excessive feeding, etc.

Anyway, I guess my point is that even with the best breeding, treatment regimens may overwhelm the bee's natural mechanisms for surviving and adapting to new challenges.
 
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