treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread - Page 28
Page 28 of 32 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 627
  1. #541
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,981

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    The conventional and organic groups got the benefit of bees that were selected by using no treatments. That's a nice head start.
    a head start over what?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #542
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,269

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    The COMB presentation at Apimondia updated the status of the remaining Treatment Free hives in 2019. After suffering the 80% loss overwinter, the participants were unable to rebuild the TF cohort fully, and are running at 50% of the original design ( the conventional and organic treatments are fully stocked).

    The source of the August 2018 queens was documented in the presentation -- all daughters of a local (Jim Thorpe, PA) survivor colony with 7 years of TF history.

    Mite counts were updated, and the 2019 counts in the TF "Death Cult" hives are running significantly above the 2018 counts. This predicts an autumn mite crash in the remaining TF hives greater in severity than the 2018 80% wipeout.


    Dr. Underwood did not present the 2018 and 2019 data simultaneously, but I mashed up the two charts to create the attached graph.

    2018-19_comparison.jpg

  4. #543
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    748

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    The COMB presentation at Apimondia updated the status of the remaining Treatment Free hives in 2019. After suffering the 80% loss overwinter, the participants were unable to rebuild the TF cohort fully, and are running at 50% of the original design ( the conventional and organic treatments are fully stocked).

    The source of the August 2018 queens was documented in the presentation -- all daughters of a local (Jim Thorpe, PA) survivor colony with 7 years of TF history.

    Mite counts were updated, and the 2019 counts in the TF "Death Cult" hives are running significantly above the 2018 counts. This predicts an autumn mite crash in the remaining TF hives greater in severity than the 2018 80% wipeout.


    Dr. Underwood did not present the 2018 and 2019 data simultaneously, but I mashed up the two charts to create the attached graph.

    2018-19_comparison.jpg
    Ok trying to understand this.
    Is this suggesting that the Daughters did not mate with TF Drones? Assuming the 7year "survivor" was in fact true. Or what is the "consensus" of this data?
    GG

  5. #544
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    >a head start over what?

    Typical commercial queens.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  6. #545
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,269

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    Ok trying to understand this.
    Is this suggesting that the Daughters did not mate with TF Drones? Assuming the 7year "survivor" was in fact true. Or what is the "consensus" of this data?
    GG
    Are you desperate to find a reason to dismiss the utter failure of the TF cohort or what ???

    The researcher, Dr. Underwood, desperately wishes the TF cohort will succeed. It is not from lack or her trying to meet every step the TF partisans are requiring.

    Mated TF queens were provided by Devon Paderewski of Greenway Apiary for all hives in all treatments. I believe the video (linked above) says they were living in a soffit of a house for 4 years and moved out to hives for three.

    You could have watched the linked video and know this already.

    Source of bees.jpg

  7. #546
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,269

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    >a head start over what?

    Typical commercial queens.
    Research in Canada indicates this blithely dismissed "typical commercial queens" have greater genetic resilience than "feral" bees, which by in large (in the Canadian data) are compromised and depauperate.


    In the bozo TF religion world, up is down and sick is health.

  8. #547
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    748

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    Are you desperate to find a reason to dismiss the utter failure of the TF cohort or what ???

    The researcher, Dr. Underwood, desperately wishes the TF cohort will succeed. It is not from lack or her trying to meet every step the TF partisans are requiring.

    Mated TF queens were provided by Devon Paderewski of Greenway Apiary for all hives in all treatments. I believe the video (linked above) says they were living in a soffit of a house for 4 years and moved out to hives for three.

    You could have watched the linked video and know this already.

    Source of bees.jpg
    JWC So where does the attack come from, Are you desperate to avoid common sense questions? So it was stated TF for 7 years, Tf Daughters, 80% fail in the second year suspect 80% more this year. To the point of not having enough hives to keep the test going. this statement "The source of the August 2018 queens was documented in the presentation -- all daughters of a local (Jim Thorpe, PA) survivor colony with 7 years of TF history.

    Mite counts were updated, and the 2019 counts in the TF "Death Cult" hives are running significantly above the 2018 counts. This predicts an autumn mite crash in the remaining TF hives greater in severity than the 2018 80% wipeout.

    So intuitively the Daughters do not have the same "TF" stuff as did the moma. Or some other explanation . I am SURE some folks in the TF area of BeeSource will order TF queens to reQueen their "package" I did,, so it cannot be to far from an option, for others as well. One area I wondered was the Drones mating the TF Daughters, obvious also cannot be the same drones as the Momas baby daddys are dead. So In an attempt to understand I asked the question. Sorry I I got under you skin, It seems to have some thin spots. I tried the link it did not work for me, Another reason I asked.
    I'll try not to be too inquisitive, if it offends folks
    GG

  9. #548
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    2,571

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    randy oliver makes the case very well that our practices are contributing as much or more to the problem than anything in nature.

    selection for traits on the broad scale is geared toward fecundity and production, which favors the varroa/virus complex. this along with very high hive densities makes it almost impossible to let adaption for resistance play out in the managed bee population.
    I really don’t think that my practices are contributing to the problem. The limiting factor in our operation is the amount of honey that my buddy, our two wives, and I can comfortably extract and bottle on two days a year (one around Memorial Day and the other around Labor Day) using our backs and very good Maxant equipment. That amounts to twelve or so relatively small production hives that produce around sixty-five pounds of honey each per year. If we wanted more honey, we’d add more hives. Our hives are divided among four conveniently located and relatively thinly populated beeyards. We don’t requeen. We trap a few likely feral or untreated managed swarms, sell some nucs, and keep a few building hives to cover any losses. From about the Ides of March until All Hallows’ Eve, we keep queen excluders over the third eight frame medium box and do not harvest honey from those bottom three boxes.

    We tend to use foundationless frames below the excluder and don’t argue with our feral mutts about what size cells they should build in those three boxes. In the honey supers above those bottom three boxes, we mostly keep standard large cell plastic foundation because it extracts better than foundationless or small cell.

    We don’t treat or feed, and we do very little work other than adding empty supers during flows and pulling honey.

    To convince me that treatment free doesn’t work in our location, you will first need to convince the bees that live in my hives.
    David Matlock

  10. #549
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    >Research in Canada indicates this blithely dismissed "typical commercial queens" have greater genetic resilience than "feral" bees, which by in large (in the Canadian data) are compromised and depauperate.

    Funny, since most of the beekeeping world is having trouble with the quality of queens. Articles in the bee magazines adress the issue from time to time because it's an issue. One I haven't had so much since going to feral survivors. I'm not sure what the measure of "greater genetic resilence" is, but Dr. Steve Sheppard's research shows a decided lack of genetic diversity in commercial queens.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...84621639a9.pdf

    http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/News/I...ublished_Book/
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/canpolin/Publ...ne%20Oct09.pdf
    https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/8/2/48
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  11. #550
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    2,571

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    >Research in Canada indicates this blithely dismissed "typical commercial queens" have greater genetic resilience than "feral" bees, which by in large (in the Canadian data) are compromised and depauperate.

    Funny, since most of the beekeeping world is having trouble with the quality of queens. Articles in the bee magazines adress the issue from time to time because it's an issue. One I haven't had so much since going to feral survivors. I'm not sure what the measure of "greater genetic resilence" is, but Dr. Steve Sheppard's research shows a decided lack of genetic diversity in commercial queens.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...84621639a9.pdf

    http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/News/I...ublished_Book/
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/canpolin/Publ...ne%20Oct09.pdf
    https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/8/2/48
    That there are unmanaged and untreated honeybees in Canada that are genetically distinct from commercial bees is fascinating to me. Local adaptation tends to cause the gene pool to congregate toward alleles that contribute to survival with a few wonderful residual crickets that don’t chirp.
    David Matlock

  12. #551
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,269

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Nothing illustrates the "Have your cake and eat it too" contradictory nature of so-called Treatment Free theory, than the mutually exclusive and competing claims that 1) Feral bees are better because they are undergoing rapid positive and negative selection of alleles, or 2) Feral bees are better because they represent enormous genetic variance in a single population. You can have one, but you cannot have both.

    The contradictory simultaneous claims indicate the "theory" is not based on science, but is based on wishful thinking.

  13. #552
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Both feral and commercial bees are being selected. It's a question of what they are selected for. And all those pockets of surviving ferals represent gene pools scattered all over that are additional to the commercial lines of genes. That is more diversity than just commercial genetics.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  14. #553
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,188

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    Funny, since most of the beekeeping world is having trouble with the quality of queens.
    Best i can tell this issue is confined to two countries, being the USA, and Canada.

    When we see people on Beesource complaining about the quality of their queens, typically they are saying their package came with a drone layer, the queen failed after 3 weeks, that type of thing.

    The issue is the customer expecting to buy queens for 15 or 20 bucks. To me, a good queen can only be guaranteed if she is hatched into a reasonably strong 4 frame nuc and allowed to lay for at least 3 weeks so laying pattern can be assessed. Can that be done for 20 bucks? No. Not even close.

    Instead, they are hatched into mini nucs with 250 grams of bees, and caged as soon as they are laying. Many of them will be good queens, but the poor ones slip through undetected. That is the issue. Not the breeder selection process.

    The selection process is actually done rather well, with breeders being selected, or artificially constructed via II, for the qualities commercial beekeepers want. This can be demonstrated by the fact that despite all the supposed quality issues, commercial beekeepers routinely install packages with commercially produced queens, and go on to produce enormous honey crops the same season.

    TF beekeepers need to buy TF queens, but supply is sketchy at best. I believe they can be bought from Weavers with reasonable reliability, but those bees have attributes that some beekeepers just don't want to deal with.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  15. #554
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    2,571

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    TF beekeepers need to buy TF queens, but supply is sketchy at best. I believe they can be bought from Weavers with reasonable reliability, but those bees have attributes that some beekeepers just don't want to deal with.
    https://www.beesource.com/forums/show...3-Frost-Apiary
    David Matlock

  16. #555

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    COMB presentation at Apimondia
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW3-xL7ZG_Y
    Couple remarks:
    - 7 years TF bees used in the experiment is obviously not good enough, it seems 10 years is needed for adaptation
    - the unsuitability of the TF bee material is seen in the rapid increase of mites during summer, for instance in Terje Reinertsen TF material the levels of mites go up to sometimes even near 10% and then come naturally down in the end of summer (personal information from Terje, there are actually two "shakedowns" in the end of June and August)
    - 3-4 % infestation is not very much and should not cause problems if the bee material is truly adapted

    I had difficulties hearing what Dr Underwood said. Was there an explanation why the TF group had initial higher infestation?

  17. #556
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,460

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    ....
    TF beekeepers need to buy TF queens, but supply is sketchy at best. I believe they can be bought from Weavers with reasonable reliability, but those bees have attributes that some beekeepers just don't want to deal with.
    Beekeepers have been spoiled rotten by the pop-culture beekeeping images.
    People are even too lazy to throw on a jacket anymore (forget the smoke - a common rehash on the BS).
    People want to work the bees in the flops and with open belly.
    Then the complaints.

    Really, the Weavers are not that bad (the real issue are the people - using the Weavers queens for production-size hives and such - then the complaints).

    You get your Weavers queen and you DON'T create a mega-hive with her (with ALL the potential issues).
    The Weavers queen is to be run in a manageable resource nuc and used for immediate new-queen generation (which in turn also need be managed accordingly for your apiary re-stocking, not honey production).
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  18. #557
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Deep Brook, NS, Canada
    Posts
    605

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mdohertyjr View Post
    In my first year, we did not treat. In our second year, we were able to split to 11 hives. Those 11 hives were not treated. Before Thanksgiving all 11 hives crashed and died.

    Crawling bee's, mite droppings, deformed wings, prove that mites killed all 11 hives.

    We now treat.
    The key for me right now is an Integrated Pest Management program where I have graduated treatment options. I haven't had to use it yet, but I save my Sunday punch for when I really need it. For me the key is to test, test, test, and treat when you need it. Even if the bees are fine, mites can boil up out of nowhere and decimate a colony. (Disclaimer: I lost all 4 hives a couple of years ago because I got cocky)
    For me, there are traits I want first, before I select for Varroa resistance. I need bees that can over Winter 5-6 months without flowers. I need gentle bees. I like 90-100 lb of honey/hive. I need bees that will build up fast in Spring to take advantage of our best flow. In return, I can help them manage Varroa until I get there.
    I want bees that make up for my mistakes.

  19. #558
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    748

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by gnor View Post
    The key for me right now is an Integrated Pest Management program where I have graduated treatment options. I haven't had to use it yet, but I save my Sunday punch for when I really need it. For me the key is to test, test, test, and treat when you need it. Even if the bees are fine, mites can boil up out of nowhere and decimate a colony. (Disclaimer: I lost all 4 hives a couple of years ago because I got cocky)
    For me, there are traits I want first, before I select for Varroa resistance. I need bees that can over Winter 5-6 months without flowers. I need gentle bees. I like 90-100 lb of honey/hive. I need bees that will build up fast in Spring to take advantage of our best flow. In return, I can help them manage Varroa until I get there.
    Not to get in the weeds here , but what Hive type do you have? any wrappings or shelter for the Hives over winter?
    GG

  20. #559
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,981

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Juhani Lunden View Post
    Was there an explanation why the TF group had initial higher infestation?
    The packages for the TF group were small cell bees from a different source

  21. #560
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    748

    Default Re: treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    The packages for the TF group were small cell bees from a different source
    Hmm If the source of the bees can swing the study/test that far, then would the test even be repeatable, with different bee sources?
    MSL do you know if the suspicion was "Mites" in the packages or the "local mites were more virulent" or the bees less tolerant to the mites?
    Also there is the "learned" behavior, Biting etc. the package contained learned traits "could" have more influence that we originally thought.
    GG

Page 28 of 32 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... 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
  •