treating vs. not treating for mites: opinion thread - Page 29
Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1927282930 LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 588
  1. #561
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,112

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

    ....wrong post.....
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #562
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,882

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

    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?
    sure thats why they re queened every hive in every group with sister queens from 7 year survivor stock..

    Rember they are testing management systems.
    They did what would be considered best management in the C and O groups.. Hit the brood-less packages with OA 3 days after install.

    But you don't test chemical free management by starting off with a chemical treatment as thats not what is done by its practitioners... And if they had taken large cell bees and put them on small cell foundation that would not likly be a good test either

  4. #563
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    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.
    Well not the smoke i use plenty of that, but otherwise your description sounds like me. . Why would i not want gentle bees?
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  5. #564
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    610

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

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    sure thats why they re queened every hive in every group with sister queens from 7 year survivor stock..

    Rember they are testing management systems.
    They did what would be considered best management in the C and O groups.. Hit the brood-less packages with OA 3 days after install.

    But you don't test chemical free management by starting off with a chemical treatment as thats not what is done by its practitioners... And if they had taken large cell bees and put them on small cell foundation that would not likly be a good test either
    Right MSL, But what If one package source has Learned behavior like biting and zero mites to start with, the other package source has not only has 100 Mites in the package with the bees the bees have no learned behavior. Sister queens do not matter , management really can only work if you blast the package for mites, up front, so the test is way over shadowed by the deviation in the starting points. And not really repeatable, So some "known, confirmed" starting point, is necessary.
    GG

  6. #565
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,067

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

    Based on the assumption that TF bees really do learn to bite mites by watching other bees.

    Probably the bees should have been homogenised prior to the experiment, which would also have homogenised the mites plus any assumed learned behavior, the experiment could then have started out with a clean and equal slate.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  7. #566
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,882

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

    management really can only work if you blast the package for mites, up front, so the test is way over shadowed by the deviation in the starting points. And not really repeatable, So some "known, confirmed" starting point, is necessary
    so the only way to test treatment free is to treat?

    Probably the bees should have been homogenised prior to the experiment, which would also have homogenised the mites plus any assumed learned behavior, the experiment could then have started out with a clean and equal slate.
    mixing large and small cell bees defeats the purpus

    rember we are talking about a advrage 0.5% mite load, on a package no less.... Its a very light infection rate that people are complaining about, and one that could have been skewed by a few of packages coming out of a heavy infected hive, we don't know as we don't have the full data. but a year later the advrage was 1% on the survivors
    Don't forget the resulstion on a wash is 0.33% you either find one mite or you don't at that level and there is some magin of error do to chance

  8. #567
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,112

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

    So some "known, confirmed" starting point, is necessary
    GG, +100.
    Maybe you and I sound TOO engineer-minded, but that is exactly I would do also.
    In my profession you live and die with the baselines.
    No baseline - there is nothing to talk about.

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    so the only way to test treatment free is to treat?
    Yes.
    One time as the proper test configuration.
    Treating the TF bees will not change anything (they will still bite the mites, etc), but it will setup the test baseline correctly.

    The baseline should be ~0 mites in ALL test targets by treating them ALL.
    Then inoculate ALL test targets with X mites consistently.
    That would be the goal baseline of the proper test.
    Else this test is... unsure what it is.
    Just a zillion of uncontrollable variables jumping up and down.

    PS: if anyone needs mites for experiments, I may just sell some next summer;
    pretty easy to run a mite-farm in your kitchen and sell them by a dozen, haha!
    Seriously, it is easy. I even had a pet mite by the name Vic for about a week.
    Last edited by GregV; 10-09-2019 at 07:47 PM.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  9. #568
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,882

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

    well I don't know of a single TF practitioner that treats their swarms and packages. Real world is bees show up with mites and this is a real world test.
    Treated packages are going to have less mites then untreated ones.. It realy didn't matter what the mite numbers were +- even 2.00-3.00% infection as 3 days after the 1st wash the hives were hit with OA while still brood less and would be knocked below the washes resolution.

    long and short is if being +- a 00.5% on the mite load makes or breaks TF, its all ready broken.

  10. #569
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,112

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

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    well I don't know of a single TF practitioner that treats their swarms and packages......
    The experiment setter should treat them ALL (TF and non-TF).
    The source status does not matter.
    Then infect back.
    Simple and consistent.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  11. #570
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    610

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

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    well I don't know of a single TF practitioner that treats their swarms and packages. Real world is bees show up with mites and this is a real world test.
    Treated packages are going to have less mites then untreated ones.. It realy didn't matter what the mite numbers were +- even 2.00-3.00% infection as 3 days after the 1st wash the hives were hit with OA while still brood less and would be knocked below the washes resolution.

    long and short is if being +- a 00.5% on the mite load makes or breaks TF, its all ready broken.
    Well really most of them do. I would think when the mite infested bees are pulled from the Almonds, they are treated, hauled some where and sold, shook into a box. "Most" of the folks selling bees want to not have them die before they can get 35 Bucks a pound for them. Real world is 1 world, doing a test you plan to write a paper on is not real world, it is a scientific experiment. Greg and My points are the "start" is an unmitigated disaster. Pooling all the bees per old timer suggestion would have helped. Total mite kill ,then introduce 12 per hive is another good idea. I know some "TF" types and they in their real world do not buy packages. they do splits make nucs etc. its their "own" stock , split up. so learned behavior is still there. BTW I am all to aware bees show up with Mites, I Lost 6 for 6, 2 winters ago from well know package bee place in CA. the only bees in this area were my new bees, the only place they could have come from was the packages.
    Bottom line IF you plan a test and write it up, taking the steps to level the playing field is incumbent on the tester. Interesting test, but do the results "really" tell the whole story. the % likely did not matter, how many virus they were vectoring maybe did. if one mite source have 3 virus per mite and the other has 13 virus per mite then that is not a level playing field. Ok start with packages, requeen as they did treat the first year. THEN randomly pick 1 for TF one for the Chem treatments, from 1st year survivors, eny meany miny moe. then offer a write up a year for 10 or 15 years. I get where you are coming from. But we see the "did you test for that" and what are the counts" this is science. so then play it that way. not sure it matters much in a few years the bees and the mites will be different, so we are debating a snapshot in time any way. And the test is not likely to sway any one any way. I do both by the way so I do treat packages and then maybe not treat the next year. Have to kill the junk off that shipped with the bees first IMO. Or they just die.
    GG

  12. #571
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,882

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

    it sounds like people are saying the chemical free hives died of mites because they didn't have chemicals used on them to kill mites

    your points are fine for comparing resistant stock head to head... just not so much for systems of management.

    You don't trial chemical free management using chemicals that will not be used in the management. Yes the other 2 systems get an advantage by being treated, that's why most people treat their bees.

    if they had treated the CF hives people would instead be saying they contaminated the hives and kill off the microbes and thats why they died.. Rember they went so far as to buy wax from Dee lusby to insure the chemical free hives didn't have contaminated wax painted on the SC foundation

    either way the 2019 mite counts are about 2x the 2018 ones so the bees aren't holding back the mites... They have cerntily slowed them, but they have not brought them back to the 2018 low, and if you cant bring the mites back to that starting number, you start with more mites (and hence end with more) year after year till you fail
    Last edited by msl; 10-09-2019 at 10:03 PM.

  13. #572
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    mixing large and small cell bees defeats the purpus
    Did think of that, but it's the comb that's important. When I was running small cell I could dump a package of LC bees into a box of SC comb, long as it was black comb that was too hard for them to alter they would just start using it.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  14. #573
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Deep Brook, NS, Canada
    Posts
    599

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

    Read a series of articles in American Bee Journal by a successful TF beek, and he didn't start off by not treating. Here are some takeaways:
    a) he didn't start off by denying treatment.
    b) he had enough colonies that he could make a meaningful selection
    c) he developed a stringent evaluation program for both queens and colonies that looked at other traits besides mite resistance.
    d) he selected his breeding stock based these evaluations.
    e) he treated the colonies that didn't measure up, and limited drone production to the best colonies
    f) the project took several years to develop TF stock, because the traits need to spread throughout the neighborhood.
    g) not treating doesn't mean not testing for mites.
    I want bees that make up for my mistakes.

  15. #574
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    610

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

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    it sounds like people are saying the chemical free hives died of mites because they didn't have chemicals used on them to kill mites

    your points are fine for comparing resistant stock head to head... just not so much for systems of management.

    You don't trial chemical free management using chemicals that will not be used in the management. Yes the other 2 systems get an advantage by being treated, that's why most people treat their bees.

    if they had treated the CF hives people would instead be saying they contaminated the hives and kill off the microbes and thats why they died.. Rember they went so far as to buy wax from Dee lusby to insure the chemical free hives didn't have contaminated wax painted on the SC foundation

    either way the 2019 mite counts are about 2x the 2018 ones so the bees aren't holding back the mites... They have cerntily slowed them, but they have not brought them back to the 2018 low, and if you cant bring the mites back to that starting number, you start with more mites (and hence end with more) year after year till you fail
    Hi MSL, I guess we have to agree to disagree. IMO the starting point of the packages was more relevant to the outcome than the "System of management" Again good test , did have some data. but to different folks it means different things. Yes if you have more mites year after year you fail.
    Have a great day.
    GG

  16. #575
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Wakefield, Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    52

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

    Well put! I have one hive, a mutt queen, that show serious signs of some form of resistance - very low mite counts; other 8 hives are typical. I may consider moving the hive in the Spring to an area with very few neighbors.

  17. #576
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Wakefield, Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    52

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

    Well put! I have one hive, a mutt queen, that show serious signs of some form of resistance - very low mite counts; other 8 hives are typical. I may consider moving the hive in the Spring to an area with very few neighbors.

  18. #577
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX, USA
    Posts
    2,087

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

    I'm treating. I see mite drop on the sticky, California queen in 1, mutt in another, 2 nucs with beeweaver queens. I may not treat the nucs, no mites on the sticky, but my big hives are getting oav tomorrow
    Stuck in Texas. Learning Permaculture in drought, flood and strange weather. The bees are still alive.

  19. #578
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,248

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

    The U of P bee lab posted a social media image of mites washed out of a "Chemical Free" hive in the COMB Project this autumn.

    This should make it patently obvious that the at least one of the "Chem Free" replicates is experiencing a mite explosion.

    As mite drift from affected to unaffected hives is now documented by the Peck and Seeley paper, I wonder how have these sources of sick hives will affect the other hives in the side-by-side design.

    Cite: https://twitter.com/mmlopezu/status/1182327729707986944

    Lopez-Uribe_Lab___lopezuribelab____Twitter.jpg

  20. #579
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Boaz, KY, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    The U of P bee lab posted a social media image of mites washed out of a "Chemical Free" hive in the COMB Project this autumn.

    This should make it patently obvious that the at least one of the "Chem Free" replicates is experiencing a mite explosion.
    Good information. Thank you for posting, JW.
    Ecclesiastes 11:4

  21. #580
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Wakefield, Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    52

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

    "As mite drift from affected to unaffected hives is now documented by the Peck and Seeley paper, " : I live in an suburban-ocean-farming area. Apparently the area contains no-treat or unknowing novice beekeepers like me once upon a time. Now I have stopped building Varroa Bombs (or lures). I have been able to build up a small apiary and have a stabilizing IPM program. The primary varroa issue I have is the Fall "Invasion" as I like to call it. I have seen it for three years in a row via post-treatment dead drop counts on a sticky board.

    This year 7 strong colonies plus one now grown up nuc and a resurgent intensive care colony produced greater than 13,337 Varroa mites, so far. I guesstimate 2500 were native borne. I estimate this via a forced brood-less and OAV test of one large hive in late September. 291 dead drop count for a 40 - 50,000 honey bee hive is a 0.6 to 0.7% total infection which seems like a low number. The result supports my winter treatment with OAV and drone brood monitoring and some removal approach all the way to mid-September. Early to mid-October I killed 9,000+ over a 15 day period - the invasion. The battle still goes on even after it has snowed and below freezing for a few days.

    Obviously my apiary has some strong robbers, one hive appears to not rob or fends off drifting or is a strong VSH queen (NWC) or all of these characteristics. A sample of one is not a strong data base but 3 years of repetitious robbing commencing with the Fall dearth suggest failing hives around me - year after year. There appear to be no feral hives around me, possibly failing unattended recent feral swarms but more likely poorly treated or no-treat hives around me. I know of one well intentioned no-treat beekeeper who buys packages year after year.

    I support the no-treat concept while I treat but I am really conflicted. There has to be a better way of introducing and managing the no-treat concept on a large scale. Keeping the pressure on genetic evolution via no-treaters, treaters and random chaos should work. I hope to live long enough to see it happen. ( yes I will breed "her" if I can. "One small step" ).

Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1927282930 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
  •