Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update - Page 3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 132
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,271

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    The COMB study tested side by side management. The "untreated" hives died in huge numbers, the treated hives survived. Yet we have the TF folks hijacking the thread with all sorts of completely demonstrated "theories" why hives die.

    In the study in question: the untreated hives had foundationless frames and "pure" wax from Lusby hives and this did not contribute to survival. The pesticide "theory" is not supported by the observations. Why do we permit the TF advocates tell "stories", when the evidence contradicts them on every count.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    >Why do we permit the TF advocates tell "stories", when the evidence contradicts them on every count.

    Permit?! I've never suggested that anyone should not be permitted to give their experience. Apparently you do. I'm very glad you are not in charge or we would never get to hear much of anything from anyone.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,271

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Michael,
    Your business model is "talking story" to guillible newbees that lap up the triumphalist accounts.

    Perhaps this no where better illustrated than in the "COMB" study where the field researcher attended the Lusby conference, and appeared in several videos with you and Mr. "Let 'em die", as you influenced her decisions on the "CF" portion of the side-by-side trials. So you are an interested party in the success (not achieved) of the CF trial, and perhaps that explains why throwing out "wookies" to highjack the update report is so important to you.


    For years I have advocated doing side-by-side trials to "proof" the. claims. You have resisted this at every step, while providing evasive and incomplete answers on the "Triumphalist" success. What is it 200 colonies (as was the tag line in the 2014 period, or 40 when someone pointed out that wasn't true, or 14 (which were the overwinter number in 2017 by your own post.

    Bees are easy to breed in the spring, and you can rapidly expand numbers. Where "TF" falls apart is the devastating autumn mortality. You by being evasize and incomplete has forfeited your credibility.

    The COMB trial (the CF portion) is. largely your "intellectual" design. The CF cohort died in the fall and winter. Deal with it === honestly.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    2,071

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    How exactly do you select the 80% of the survivors to be pinched (which ones are the "better ones")?

    Mite counts?
    Well, John Kefuss indicated that the mite counts are not a parameter to base on your decisions on (the ultimate survival is).
    Not the case at ALL and is an out right internet falsehood perpetuated by TF partisans!
    the Kefuss bees were highly selected post survival .. Mite washes, Freeze killed brood hygienic assy, brood mite counts etc. less then 1% of the survivors became breeder queens on a yearly bases
    Genetic material was exchanged back and forth between these two independent test populations on an irregular basis by requeening with queen cells and virgin queens from the best 1–5 colonies in each group throughout the field test. Low mite levels and general colony performance such as the ability to rear high-quality queens and honey production determined selection of the breeding material.
    Selection for resistance to Varroa destructor under commercial beekeeping conditions

    John Kefuss, Jacques Vanpoucke, Maria Bolt & Cyril Kefuss

    Journal of Apicultural Research

    Volume 54, 2015 - Issue 5
    Received 08 Jun 2015, Accepted 24 Feb 2016, Published online: 02 Jun 2016
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...9.2016.1160709

    What I am suggesting is strait out of the Kefuss play book!
    I just wish more would read it, they read "let them die" and put the book down and walk away, missing all the hard work, selection, grafting, re queening, etc that enacted change . Then they will turn around and say "Well, John Kefuss indicated that " it cracks me up... but it is also sad, very sad indeed

    IF I ONLY have two promising survivor queens, how exactly do I implement the proposed 80% elimination out of the two?
    pick the best and make 75% of your increase form her well as I said in my last post
    It just takes the understanding that for most of us, we can buy much better bees then we can select for given our small size
    What do you mean by "survivor"... one winter isn't a survivor, chances are its just lucky, 2 years is better..Meghan Milbrath's breeders are all 2 queens that have spent 2 years TF , but her stock still needs treatments...
    in your case you haven't had a hive overwinter 2x so its going to be a crap shoot..
    on top of that your not going to cell build so 40% of your queens will be of "cryptic" lines and not resistant
    Your going pull a queen and then cut/ split cells in to nucs leaving leaving you with 70-80% poor queens (based on Sam Comforts Tarpy lab results)
    At that point its going to be very hard to sort anything.
    you can't change the genetics at your scale, but maby you could change the conditions

    I relay think that's the subtle under current in Darwinian beekeeping, Change the hive type and you don't have to shift the genetics very much, maybe not at all. If you cant change the gentnices to suit your beekeeping, Maby its time to change the equipment

    Alpines or nuc triple stacks, maby fitted with a polish style swarm keeper

    Now your making your increase from swarms and swarm cells... this removes the problem of E cell splits + give the hives a brood break+ removes mites away in the swam. Your selection has been simplified as the strongest (as in the ones to reach swarm strength 1st) get propagated, the middle provide a frame or 2 of brood for a queen cell, and the weak are requened. This way you make the most out of your best, then your 2nd best etc till you run out of equipment and the outhers don't get splits made of them and or ar requened
    this is very much what happens in nature were the carying copaisty is limited by nest sites, 1st to swarm, 1st to find a home
    It would take a good number of hives, but is doable, it feels up your ally should be a little better then split what lives

    In the study in question: the untreated hives had foundationless frames and "pure" wax from Lusby hives and this did not contribute to survival
    hun? why would fondationless frames need lusby wax?

    . Why do we permit the TF advocates tell "stories", when the evidence contradicts them on every count.
    you have become as partisan as those you challenge, and it makes me sad... bring back the cold calculating JW, anger/frustration doesn't look good on you and is causeing you to make mistakes

    IIRR it was small cell foundation, but the only way they could get it was in single piece plastic frames.. but you cant have plastic in CF hives so they cut out the foundation and mounted it in wood frames and coated that in lusby wax. The CF study group felt (based on robins early work, she had found foundationles IS slower then foundation ) that foundation less would be be too much of a set back in honey production and "they" might "lose" because of it.
    as you note She jumped threw a great many hoops to sastifie the "stake holders"
    Last edited by msl; 12-10-2019 at 01:42 PM.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,496

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    Not the case at ALL and is an out right internet falsehood perpetuated by TF partisans!
    the Kefuss bees were highly selected post survival .. Mite washes, Freeze killed brood hygienic assy, brood mite counts etc. less then 1% of the survivors became breeder queens on a yearly bases
    ..........
    you can't change the genetics at your scale, but maby you could change the conditions

    I relay think that's the subtle under current in Darwinian beekeeping, Change the hive type and you don't have to shift the genetics very much, maybe not at all. If you cant change the gentnices to suit your beekeeping, Maby its time to change the equipment

    Alpines or nuc triple stacks...........
    OK, I will not argue who said what (Kefuss, etc).
    I am not capable or willing go into the "breeding" business anyway.

    However, the proper hive ergonomy for the bees (which improves viability of small bee colonies) combined with pseudo-natural management - should provide enough sustainability for a small-scale operator (different from "save-them-at-all-cost" - an unsustainable approach).
    This general solution should really be agnostic to treat/no-treat arguments.
    At that rate, save the extra hassle/costs of treating as mostly irrelevant.
    (costs of treating - in wider scope, not just trivial $$$ spent).
    Last edited by GregV; 12-10-2019 at 02:12 PM.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,496

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    ......
    Now your making your increase from swarms and swarm cells... this removes the problem of E cell splits + give the hives a brood break+ removes mites away in the swam. Your selection has been simplified as the strongest (as in the ones to reach swarm strength 1st) get propagated, the middle provide a frame or 2 of brood for a queen cell, and the weak are requened. This way you make the most out of your best, then your 2nd best etc till you run out of equipment and the outhers don't get splits made of them and or ar requened
    this is very much what happens in nature were the carying copaisty is limited by nest sites, 1st to swarm, 1st to find a home
    It would take a good number of hives, but is doable, it feels up your ally should be a little better then split what lives....
    And what do you know?
    That is exactly what I did from those units that did live.
    The current proportions in my holdings are (from the best to the worst/unknown) are:
    7 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1

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

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    >Your business model is "talking story" to guillible newbees that lap up the triumphalist accounts.

    My business model is to go to work everyday and program computers which makes a lot more money than beekeeping.

    >Perhaps this no where better illustrated than in the "COMB" study where the field researcher attended the Lusby conference, and appeared in several videos with you and Mr. "Let 'em die", as you influenced her decisions on the "CF" portion of the side-by-side trials. So you are an interested party in the success (not achieved) of the CF trial, and perhaps that explains why throwing out "wookies" to highjack the update report is so important to you.

    I'm afraid you'll have to define your terms. I don't know what a "wookie" is. It's not important to me to hijack anything. Whatever results anyone has is what they have. I get emails and reports from hundreds of people every year who are doing treatment free and small cell with great success. You apparently have the opposite experience. Probably people tend to tell their stories to people who will commiserate so you hear the opposite of what I do. Because I never hear those opposite stories.

    >For years I have advocated doing side-by-side trials to "proof" the. claims. You have resisted this at every step

    I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't have time nor the bees to lose to bees to prove something you won't believe anyway.

    >..while providing evasive and incomplete answers on the "Triumphalist" success.

    Perhaps you can show some examples of "evasive". I simple say what I've experienced and what I have had time to observe. My beekeeping doesn't' center around providing you with evidence or testimony.

    > What is it 200 colonies (as was the tag line in the 2014 period, or 40 when someone pointed out that wasn't true, or 14 (which were the overwinter number in 2017 by your own post.

    Numbers change all the time.

    >The COMB trial (the CF portion) is. largely your "intellectual" design. The CF cohort died in the fall and winter. Deal with it === honestly.

    I have no serious complaints about their method. I did not come up with it but it is mostly modeled off of Dee Lusby's methods. We discussed some of the issues that you can't really even out. For instance having all of them have the same genetics was an attempt to isolate cultural methods from genetics, but it also lent advantages to the treatment groups. There is no perfect experiment with something as complex as a superorganism that is interacting with other colonies as well as the 8,000 acres around them.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    2,071

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    And what do you know?
    As it operation specific I will place my response in your thread

    I realy wish I could respond to antagonists in MB's calm metered tone... Its a skill I lack lol

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Co, NY, USA
    Posts
    3,674

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post

    I realy wish I could respond to antagonists in MB's calm metered tone... Its a skill I lack lol
    Ha, that's interesting.
    You view the responses as calm & metered, and from my view they scream passive aggressiveness.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Alabama
    Posts
    3,059

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    It is almost funny to read threads like this one and see the interplay between different philosophies. JWC started the thread as a way to pooh-pooh treatment free methods. Posts then accumulate dissecting the methods used in the referenced study. JWC comes back complaining about lack of proof that TF works or can ever work. Claims beget counterclaims and in the end nobody learns anything new. Sometimes it is not worth the time expended reading and responding.


    My experience with not treating bees is that sometimes it is better to treat. That said, I have not treated my bees in 15 years and they are clearly expressing mite resistance traits in some colonies. The trope about pesticides being a major problem for beekeepers and particularly that wax contaminated with pesticides causes issues is IMO the second largest threat beekeeping faces today.
    NW Alabama, 50 years, 20 colonies and growing, sideliner, treatment free since 2005, 14 frame square Dadant broodnest

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,271

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion_power View Post
    pesticides being a major problem for beekeepers and particularly that wax contaminated with pesticides causes issues is IMO the second largest threat beekeeping faces today.
    Yes, bees have 99 problems, but in this one study, that ain't one of them. 12 hives were set up side by side in about two dozen apiaries. 4 hives in each set were treated with "Apivar and Organics", four were treated with Organics, and four were left to dwindle and die using the "Bush" protocol.

    Guess what, the cohorts of 8 that were treated survived well. The cohorts of four that were blessed with "good thoughts" died wholesale.

    Same foraging zone, with all the same insults. The untreated hives were given magic wax from Arizona, because despite the fact that Amitraz vanishes from the hive in six hours, the charlatans have stampeded people into believing that Amitraz must contaminate wax.

    This study does not have the problem that the study size is too small, or location specific. The survival differences between the two treated protocols and the "untreated" one is multiple standard deviations apart. The confidence in the result is "medical grade".

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,922

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    >... and four were left to dwindle and die using the "Bush" protocol.

    I did not write the protocol nor was it identical to what I'm doing. Yes, it's close. I merely gave my opinion of the protocol that had already been put together.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  14. #53

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion_power View Post

    Here is one that is worth a few minutes to read. It covers almost all of the mite resistance traits identified so far. https://aristabeeresearch.org/varroa-resistance/
    Lunden Apiaries mentioned.

  15. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    6,642

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Apivar used according to label does not contaminate beeswax. Oddly enough, that seems to bother some people, probably the same folks that have been impatiently waiting for 2 decades or so for varroa to begin showing an amitraz resistance.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  16. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Menomonee Falls, Wis.
    Posts
    4,178

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Fusion Power wrote:

    The trope about pesticides being a major problem for beekeepers and particularly that wax contaminated with pesticides causes issues is IMO the second largest threat beekeeping faces today.

    C'mon guys(and Gals), Mites are not that hard to control with NON CHEMICAL methods, of which there are many. If it where hard , yes they would be the biggest threat.

    It has been 30 years since they where first found. Thirty years and you have not learned how to think like a mite yet to beat them?


    Crazy Roland

  17. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Bath, Maine, United States
    Posts
    2,491

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    Sometimes reading TF debates is like listening to the impeachment debates. Every bodies talking, nobodies listening.

    "Ain't no good guys, ain't no bad guys, there's just just you and me and we just disagree."

    Hows my rusty memory on the lyrics?
    It is not true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
    They can learn them, they just can't do them.

  18. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,218

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    The TF debate is actually an interesting study of human nature.

    A person will only accept the facts, if it fits their world view.

    The results of every study done on the subject have been the same. Yet they all get debunked.

    Just a few days ago I watched a video by a famous TF practitioner and was stunned when he said outright, that his losses are 5 to 10 percent per annum. He said this with absolute belief. Yet the facts are that he has been making splits by his "expansion model beekeeping", and collecting swarms in good numbers, but has less hives than he did 10 years ago. The maths doesn't work. If his losses were truly 5 or 10 percent, his hive numbers would have grown exponentially.

    We believe what we want, i guess.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  19. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Alabama
    Posts
    3,059

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    There is a study on pesticides in beeswax that is worth reading. It is hard to argue with chemicals proven by gas chromatography. The focus in this thread seems to be on miticides in beeswax, not on the broader statement regarding pesticides. When the Bell operation was sold a few years ago, they had a real problem with contaminated combs. Bees pick up pesticides in the environment which wind up incorporated into comb. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69749118310893 It is worth paying attention to the role of contaminated beeswax and the particular contaminants found.

    Oldtimer, we humans are a strange bunch. We rarely let facts get in the way of what we believe. Heaven forbid that we actually dig around on the net to find something that counters our belief.
    NW Alabama, 50 years, 20 colonies and growing, sideliner, treatment free since 2005, 14 frame square Dadant broodnest

  20. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    10,218

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    True enough FP.

    Re the insecticides, I don't think anyone is in denial that they can harm bees. They do after all kill insects, and bees are insects.

    But the point was made by JWC that in relation to the study, the effect of any possible insecticides is factored in. By virtue that all hives are exposed in equal measure.
    "Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker

  21. #60
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    Posts
    5,486

    Default Re: Penn State "COMB" project posts Dec 2019 update

    I think this discussion is quite interesting. I think this study has some decent merits but it's also flawed in a few areas. Starting with a single stock was an interesting choice. When you think about it statistically, it makes sense, but practically I don't think it's the best choice. On the comb issue, I think there's something, but whether or not it's pesticide residue etc... I can't really say. I will say this, one thing I've noticed since starting to do removals... the prevalence of EFB was much higher in older comb, even in the same hive, where new comb probably showed a 20-30% reduction in occurrence.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •