Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42
  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    Why then has the horrid Englishman deemed it necessary to mention he might have to treat them?
    So we're back to disruptive nonsense conversations.

    The reasons are given, quite adequately, in posts #11 and #14
    http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...60#post1078960
    http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...76#post1078976

    When my kids were little and forgot to ask with a 'please' I used to say: 'wait 5 minutes then ask again properly'.

    OT: I won't be opening your posts for 3 weeks. I make that 17th April.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by tommysnare View Post
    It's ok ..... I remember how much I dreamed when I got my FIRST hive too
    Tommy, I've been beekeeping on and off, learning hard about resistance issues for 20 years, and started an effort to breed up ferals 4 years ago. I currently have 28 hives. I'm completely open about my methods, rationales and results. I do pretty much what all the successful resistance raisers have done and do.

    Oldtimer raises lots of treatment-dependent bees for sale and dabbles in resistance raising in a minor half-hearted side operation. He won't tell us anything about it, except it doesn't work.

    You follow who you like. But don't mistake me for a first hive man.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,178

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    I don't really care if either of you ever get along but I am sick of listening to your personal bickering with each other. take it private.

    As for the subject. Mike sounds like he is doing a lot of what I am doing. I am interested in what the learning curve is supposedly going to be. I could write out in very long detail exactly what I plan to do. ti is based upon what I have done int eh past what the bees had shown me they are capable of. In fact I see it more a more of my ability to keep up with the bees rather one of if the bees are capable of such production.

    From swarm cell to mating nuc to nuc to full size colony.

    I agree there is a problem with numbers of bees at the swarm cell to mating nuc junction. What is missing for me is that most simple comments treat it as if bee numbers are a static figure.

    You have 1 colony with one queen with 100,000 built up strong for the flow. But first they will attempt to swarm. This population is then broken down and each swarm cell is given enough bees to populate a mating nuc. The numbers I have been working with are 19 cells and one original queen for a total of 20 compartments to keep queens in. Real numbers from my hives last year.

    In two frame mating compartments this requires 40 frames from each hive to populate the compartments. I am not saying that it is easy or 100% reliable but a colony can be built up to 40 frames prior to swarm season. I have 2 that are 50 frames as of now. 4 that are 40 frames and will likely to be 50 before swarming commences. 6 that are 20 frames and less likely to attempt to swarm. Two of those 20 frame hives tarted this season as 5 over 5 nucs. In addition I have 7 5 over 5 or 5 frame three boxes tall nucs. Notice my building up of this plan and it's necessary support began nearly a year ago. It is not accident I have what I have by any means.

    Anyway so I have 12 colonies that are likely to swarm for a total of 240 cells. This requires 480 frames of bees cells pollen honey etc to house these queens or cells in. My apiary currently have over 500 drawn frames in it.

    So here I set with 13 4 compartment queen castles. 515 fraems to search through for queen cells waiting for it all to begin.

    1. I wish I had double the queen castles as of right now. I have a plan to get them made but it is a very nip and tuck plan.

    2. What I have come to call the cell watch is far to time consuming and labor intensive to be considered anything standard by anyone. Way to much work but I want to see if my idea works.

    Due to number two above I have also started a cell builder per Micheal Palmer's method and in the process of making my first 45 grafts for the season. By simple chance encounters with other beekeepers I have nearly all of them sold and the larva have not even been grafted yet. This will account for the combined total of cells expected from two full size colonies. It is far more controllable and eliminates the time needed to search for swarm cells. It will break down the colony to a level there is no chance they will swarm but increases the chance they will abscond.

    Up to this point these are things that are in fact a reality they have been done. So at this point it is about speculation and anticipated results. Numbers are based upon actual results from last year.

    Only half of all swarm cells will result in a mated queen. this means as soon as any queen is confirmed mated (21 days after emergence) The fraems will be available to transfer her to a 5 frame nuc with 4 fully drawn fraems and one empty frame. These bees will act very much like a swarm. and this is where I have a problem with the static anticipation. In short I now have 1o queen in 10 colonies producing increase. Not only that but in the hyper state of growth commonly mentioned by almost any beekeeper. These nucs can and do (again reality as my nucs have done it) double in size in less than 30 days. Due to this expansion from 4 to 8 drawn fraems all of these nucs will be capable of returning the full number of fraems to there parent colonies.

    Now I agree there is some huge questions as to how this restoration of parent colonies will actually work out. But to me it has never been a question of loosing anything. what do you loose if you move two frames of bees to a mating nuc? you still have the bees. you still have the frames. you are adding a queen. You just gave bees that are setting around waiting to swarm sometime else to do. And in 3 weeks you will have another producing queen in the mix.

    If started just prior to the natural swarming of the colonies this 4 week window falls right during swarm season.

    I realize there are questions about the productivity of the nucs. the issue of lost queens to mating flights. the danger of loosing bees and queens to absconding. and many many unforeseeable reasons that even mated queens in nucs will simply not produce enough to return anything to a parent colony. This at most puts at risk an estimated 1000 lb honey harvest. But produces a possible 120 or more colonies.

    As for the success rate at starting and keeping nucs this way. I have done it. 10 over wintered nucs from last summer. The nucs work even at the worst of times. I have little concern they will do as expected to a high percentage of success.

    What I am interested in is the details that would be concealed in a simple statement such as "a big learning curve is in order" Mainly I am interested in exact details of actual results from anyone that has actually done something like this.

    I find such a plan is actually consistent with methods of increase as old as the 1800's. I have not found the details that restores the parent colony and this is what concerns me the most. This is how I see the entire plan fits hand in glove with the events that bees will be engaged in naturally.

    1. Swarm period. 4 to 6 week period that bees woudl bee reducing their numbers in an attempt at increase. This involves increasing anywhere form one to multiple new colonies.

    My idea does nothing more than what the bees would do on their own. the only difference is in the degree of numbers of increase. If a colony is made quenless cell production can be controlled to some degree and anticipated. This doubling the impulse under which cells are produced. Swarming and Emegency impulse.

    Control of when cells are produced is advantageous in that it should be early in the swarm period if not Just prior to it. This giving all virgin queens the entire 4 to 6 week period to mate and start producing brood.

    It takes 3 weeks for a virgin to mate and be laying at most. this requires 3 of the minimum 4 weeks of the swarm period.

    Post swarming there is a well known lull in activity before bees start foraging and making honey. This provides the newly mated queen 3 full weeks minimum to produce 4 frames of brood to return to her parent colony. It is estimated it will take this queen 4 weeks to accomplish that. this means that if the swarm period is in fact only 4 weeks she will be a week late in restoring her share of the parent colony. If the swarm period is 6 weeks she will have an additional week to accomplish this task.

    In short where do the bees come from to make increase? from the increased queens ultimately.

    This does not take into account that the original queen has been in her own nuc restoring her own population for the entire duration of the swarm period. Acting as a swarm in doing so increasing at an accelerated rate she may very well be superseded during this time.

    Swarm impulse is not prevented it is satisfied.

    The task of producing the population that is expected to make a honey harvest no longer falls on one queen but is shared by 10.

    According to Michael Palmer with a bit of alteration to his numbers. a single parent colony supported by 10 nucleus colonies is how you make what I have come to call Super colonies that not only are used as cell builders but produce honey crops in the process. I have little doubt that what Micheal teaches is reliable. I may simply see a slightly different way to use it. I am not looking to make cell builders. I am looking to make honey producers. Not much more than a multiple queen hive idea just far more queens per hive than is typically considered. As for build up of the nucs. that is what next spring is for.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    longton, kansas USA
    Posts
    606

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    I mistake for nothing more than how you express urself here on beesource. I enjoy the company of gentle and non judge mental souls. Shalom.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,145

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    OT: I won't be opening your posts for 3 weeks. I make that 17th April.
    I've heard that before LOL.

    Mike the reasons you referenced are here, in this thread. After you changed your tune.

    My surprise is that after all this time of treatment bashing, and attacks on my methods, you have switched to a method that is pretty much what I explained to you here, post #130
    http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...the-task/page7

    I'm just surprised that after all that's gone down, all the crap, just like that, suddenly you are pro treatment if need be. Same as me. There never needed to be a problem.

    How's the trawling going?
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    Mike sounds like he is doing a lot of what I am doing.
    I agree with most of what you say there Daniel, but you haven't addressed the topic of the thread. How much do you calculate your methods will tend to aid the bees by making it harder for mites to bloom?

    To whatever extent; that will tend to obscure the key data you need to make selection decisions.

    Or maybe you are grafting from a few hives that you are very confident are your most resistant - or resistant enough?

    Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

    Mike (UK)
    Last edited by mike bispham; 03-27-2014 at 01:08 PM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Crestview, Florida
    Posts
    82

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Well... that was a waist of time.... I don't understand how one can say he wants to get to a non-treatment world with resistant bees and consider treatment as a viable way to combat losses...

    But, then again I probably got lost in the context...

    Have a Nice Day!!!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Manning, SC
    Posts
    2,493

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    All y'all (that's Southern for "all you all") need to read Randy Oliver's piece in ABJ from the March issue...... he has a great rant that addresses much of this...
    http://OxaVap.com Your source for the Varrox Mite Killing
    OA Vaporizer "One of the highest ranked" by R. Oliver

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,145

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Don't get ABJ. Any way to access the article or I just have to subscribe?
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by snl View Post
    All y'all (that's Southern for "all you all") need to read Randy Oliver's piece in ABJ from the March issue...... he has a great rant that addresses much of this...
    I've seen the first part but haven't been able to access the queen-raising second section. Does it address the specific issue of making increase without clouding resistance evaluation?

    Mike
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  11. #31
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by USMCEOD View Post
    I don't understand....
    .. being the key part.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Manning, SC
    Posts
    2,493

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    Don't get ABJ. Any way to access the article or I just have to subscribe?
    I believe you have to subscribe...... but there is a cheap, digital version they put out.........
    http://OxaVap.com Your source for the Varrox Mite Killing
    OA Vaporizer "One of the highest ranked" by R. Oliver

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Manning, SC
    Posts
    2,493

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    I've seen the first part but haven't been able to access the queen-raising second section. Does it address the specific issue of making increase without clouding resistance evaluation? Mike
    No Mike, it does not... he just strongly suggests making increases from local, resistant stock and then describes (both written and pictorial) a method of rearing them...
    http://OxaVap.com Your source for the Varrox Mite Killing
    OA Vaporizer "One of the highest ranked" by R. Oliver

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Stillwell, KS
    Posts
    649

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    Don't get ABJ. Any way to access the article or I just have to subscribe?
    Randy eventually posts his articles to his website, but there is often a delay of several months.

    http://scientificbeekeeping.com/


    Mike, sorry to see that reality has already bitten your idealism in the butt, such promise wasted


    (and I lost the committee wager to boot).


    Don

  15. #35
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by D Semple View Post
    Mike, sorry to see that reality has already bitten your idealism in the butt
    Don, do you really think that or are you too pulling cheap shots?

    Its always been sensible to not waste bees, and so requeen. Since when did it become illegal to clean the mites off the bees first?

    Perhaps _you_ can show us where I've ever written otherwise? Even alluded to that position.

    Of course plenty of people have attributed all sorts of silly practices to me. Perhaps you're muddling up my words with those spoken on my behalf?

    I can think of a number of occasions when I've written that (in the context of raising resistance) treatments should only be used where requeening from (hopefully) better stock is to follow.

    I don't think I've ever spoken about 'cleaning' bees before re-use before. But then there are probably lots of things I'd do but haven't found occasion to mention.

    What I'm not doing is treating and then not requeening. Or trying to treat lightly and then read resistance in the results.

    What matters is what the next generation is made from. Period. The rest is just detail.

    If you're trying to raise numbers hard, while preserving the capability to evaluate for resistance, it makes sense to use all the tools at your disposal. I've never said otherwise.

    Sorry guys. This is either an assumption on your part, or you're reading someone else's interpretation of my thinking.

    I've made 1250 posts over 5 years, 95% on the same topic. If I'd said _anything_ of that sort do you think Rader wouldn't have dredged it up by now? Nilch. (I bet the fire brigade is working overtime on the job)

    Every one of those posts has had "Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness" under it.

    Read it carefully. Think about it. Try not to jump to conclusions.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    6,145

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Mike we have read what you have written and we are not completely stupid.

    Just saying that you have actually been pro treatment if needed all along is not what you have been saying, and saying it now is not fooling anyone.

    It's a major change in position and the likely reason is obvious. Your hardy, mite resistant, feral, bees, have turned out to be not as hardy, mite resistant, and feral, as you had imagined.

    But hey, that happens, no criticisms about that. Just, to switch positions without even a hint of an apology to all those you have been so nasty to when they were right all along, surprises me (or maybe not).
    Last edited by Oldtimer; 03-27-2014 at 02:24 PM.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,714

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    > If I'd said _anything_ of that sort do you think Rader wouldn't have dredged it up by now?

    Sorry I don't work on your timetable, Mike.


    It isn't difficult to understand your past comments on treatments. For instance, post #163 of this thread:

    http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...lic#post503072

    I invite everyone to read the entire post, but here is one of your paragraphs from that post ...
    So it doesn't matter whether we are talking about mites or fungi or bacteria or viruses. Its all the same process, and treatments is always the core of the problem.
    You said, "Treatments is always the core of the problem." And now you are advocating treating, and yet you claim that is not a change of your position!

    Here are a couple more from your same post ...
    The main difficulty lies in convincing treaters of the destructive effects of practices they have been taught from the start, and are still advised to do by experence beekeepers and by official government advice.
    We can note that the organic small cell types stop treating for everything, period. This is the management regime that works, because it stops interfering with the bees own health-mainenance system in the kinds of ways we've discussed.

    Mike, you still haven't responded to Barry's question as to why your views could not be accommodated in existing forums. Weren't you planning that your new forum was going to be a Treatment-Free forum?


    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  18. #38
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by Rader Sidetrack View Post
    It isn't difficult to understand your past comments on treatments. For instance, post #163 of this thread: [/COLOR]
    And so on. I've replied to these points on the thread: 'Treating within a selective breeding system' http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...64#post1079364
    Last edited by mike bispham; 03-28-2014 at 03:24 AM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,178

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    How much do you calculate your methods will tend to aid the bees by making it harder for mites to bloom?

    To whatever extent; that will tend to obscure the key data you need to make selection decisions.

    Or maybe you are grafting from a few hives that you are very confident are your most resistant - or resistant enough?

    Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

    Mike (UK)
    I see what you are getting at and I believe beekeepers are a long way form understanding those issues. Discussion is a good thing.

    I am increasing from my best. mite free is not necessarily evaluated as best. In truth I have had very little issue with mites in two years. Going into my third season and so far still do not see them. It is hard to tell how my management methods effect mites that way.

    About the only thing I can say about calculating is that I consider losses of bees not necessarily colonies to mites the same as loosing bee production due to brood breaks. It is still lost production and the why then becomes insignificant. I can call it losses due to mites because I had to make a brood break or I can consider it losses to mites because the mites weaken the bees.

    My observations so far lead me to believe that a strong hive is the best resistance to mites. I cannot give you any calculations to support that it is just an overall impression I get.

    I wrote my post mostly in response to comments that had already lead the conversation off the topic specifically. I do not agree that some of your ideas ar unachievable or that they are not even reliable. I have found myself that much of it is doable and not even that difficult to achieve.

    I suppose in all I tend toward the out produce mites line of thinking. but then that is a fairly standard approach in husbandry. I would tend toward it as a default response.

    I have also had some thoughts of keeping methods that treat bees as what I have termed Annuals. Like in gardening you simply have certain varieties that you do not expect to survive for more than one season. so just accept bees cannot survive in the long term and don't manage them to do so. I suppose that could be labeled a realists point of view as much as it could be called defeatist.

    I have some thoughts that if mites are allowed to kill off the colonies they infest. they to a large degree destroy themselves. So let them. just outproduce the losses in colonies with increase. A broad vague idea that is not well supported by actual experiences of many.

    In general no predator or parasite in the case of mites is capable of hunting it's prey into extinction. As the population of prey decreases the predator is far more likely to starve than to make a successful kill for example. While the reduced population is actually an advantage to the prey species because they have more food per individual and more opportunity per individual. Beekeeping keeps the prey population artificially increased. Never allowing the prey species population to decrease to levels that would be devastating to the parasite. We maintain levels that keep the equation in favor of the parasite.

    Anyway I have had many thoughts on the mite and how it is effected by management of bees. But so far nothing that leads me in any one direction. I have simply not seen enough mites to see for myself what effects them and what does not.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,797

    Default Re: Making Increase Without False Readings of Resistance

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    I am increasing from my best. mite free is not necessarily evaluated as best. In truth I have had very little issue with mites in two years. Going into my third season and so far still do not see them. It is hard to tell how my management methods effect mites that way.

    [...] Anyway I have had many thoughts on the mite and how it is effected by management of bees. But so far nothing that leads me in any one direction.
    I think part of what is driving me to think about these things now is where I'd like to be summer 2015 and on. The thing I really want, which I don't have now, is a set of hives having thrived pretty much untouched for 2 and 2 years, all the same age and having always been managed in exactly the same way, and on the same spot. That'll give me a clear idea of which really do thrive and produce best - on their own.

    Nothing else will substitute for this. The sooner I start setting it up the better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    I have simply not seen enough mites to see for myself what effects them and what does not.
    I'd take care to ensure that not selecting them well doesn't have the effect of reducing their resistance!

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads