Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
According to the Bee Informed Partnership, from the years ranging 2008 to 2020 (12 years of data), respondents to the survey in the great state of Michigan report similar colony losses in "Backyard" populations. A backyarder is often considered someone tending less than 50 colonies.

For 2020/2021 the tool is still undergoing maintenance, but preliminary data indicates Michigan Winter Loss to be 49.78%. With no ability to pare the use of treatments or non use of treatments the percentage of loss between the two is undetermined and the number is a combination of both variables. But - it remains within average of the previous findings from 08-20 in my last survey of the information.

Average loss of colonies for "treated" was 53.2% and Average loss of colonies for "untreated" was 54.4%

Full Disclosure: The moniker of Treatment Free in this evaluation is not the far-right extremist do-nothing approach as defined in typical discussion. Bio-mechanical interventions are considered to be beekeeping practices as opposed to treatments in this evaluation.

The survey includes "those who used some sort of treatment product" and "those who did not use some sort of treatment product."

My argument is this: If there is no difference, what is the difference?

Azure Rectangle Material property Font Parallel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,541 Posts
So TGIG, if you search the Beesource using exact match on "Bee Informed" you should find this very useful discussion (pretty close to the top).

Basically, you should see that most any question you have most likely have been discussed and rather in detail.

Take a look:
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
So TGIG, if you search the Beesource using exact match on "Bee Informed" you should find this very useful discussion (pretty close to the top).

Basically, you should see that most any question you have most likely have been discussed and rather in detail.

Take a look:
Thanks for the reference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,888 Posts
the survey needs to correct the questions, should be used selected products correctly.
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
the survey needs to correct the questions, should be used selected products correctly.
So what you are saying is that the disparity data is skewed due to potential incorrect usage? It's a valid point, but I would be concerned considering the longevity of the data, and the likelihood of individuals who actually don't treat with chems (a small minority) are less likely to respond anyway, so there is that component too. The average number of hives in the reporting respondents borderlines sideline operations, but remains classified as "backyard".
 

·
Premium Member
Overwintering 6-frame Nucs
Joined
·
711 Posts
So what you are saying is that the disparity data is skewed due to potential incorrect usage?
That's my initial critical view. Of course, it's easier for me to tear down than to build - I applaud people who work to collect, interpret and share data. It's always hindsight that kicks in. As others have pointed out, the sampling is flawed, and the questions are not appropriate for normalizing the data effectively. It's something, but it's not the answer to it all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,888 Posts
So what you are saying is that the disparity data is skewed due to potential incorrect usage?
there was a thread on here shortly after BIP started their data collection. There were many people, me included, that entered data into their survey. Since there were few people taking the survey and they broke it down by region it was fairly easy see if your data ended up in the survey. Most of the people in the thread found that their data wasn't included and all of the people that were not included used multiple treatments and had low losses. We all stopped entering data. Can't find the thread as I can't remember what it was called. So I ignore most of the BIP stuff.
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
That's my initial critical view. Of course, it's easier for me to tear down than to build - I applaud people who work to collect, interpret and share data. It's always hindsight that kicks in. As others have pointed out, the sampling is flawed, and the questions are not appropriate for normalizing the data effectively. It's something, but it's not the answer to it all.
Thanks Lee - all surveys are flawed and all research has bias. But statistical error is often minimal at least in the survey sample. The error proposed regarding correct use would invalidate the entire survey in both hypotheses - treat/don't treat.

What we have here is a median that is extremely similar year over year. 13 Years of data having similitude seems difficult to debunk based on a marginal error such as correct/incorrect use. I'll also hearken back to the sample is relative to Winter losses. If I remember, the annual loss numbers were just slightly different with a higher percent in the non-treated camp - which may validate the premise regarding proper use/improper use more.
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
there was a thread on here shortly after BIP started their data collection. There were many people, me included, that entered data into their survey. Since there were few people taking the survey and they broke it down by region it was fairly easy see if your data ended up in the survey. Most of the people in the thread found that their data wasn't included and all of the people that were not included used multiple treatments and had low losses. We all stopped entering data. Can't find the thread as I can't remember what it was called. So I ignore most of the BIP stuff.
Question - how does lack of participation invalidate the inquiry in the similarities of loss? You've now posed two potential nullifying data points, but in large seem anecdotal to me? This is something TF/CF/Sustainable is often accused of doing - now that data is being presented, the argument remains?
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
That's my initial critical view. Of course, it's easier for me to tear down than to build - I applaud people who work to collect, interpret and share data. It's always hindsight that kicks in. As others have pointed out, the sampling is flawed, and the questions are not appropriate for normalizing the data effectively. It's something, but it's not the answer to it all.
Not the answer - but a valid question for sure.
 

·
Premium Member
Overwintering 6-frame Nucs
Joined
·
711 Posts
This is something TF/CF/Sustainable is often accused of doing - now that data is being presented, the argument remains?
There's a thread on BEE-L that sort of parallels this. HUGELY paraphrased, it's only by (appropriately) criticizing and re-proving data can the "science" be eventually accepted. So, yes, we're going to criticise things that don't fit our version of "truth" and that gives the opportunity to re-frame testing and research to disprove the non-believers.

We're actually doing TF beeks a favor by throwing stones. :)
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
We're actually doing TF beeks a favor by throwing stones. :)
Fine -I'm okay with that.

My short BeeSource experience is proving that the opposing view keeps inventory of cast stones and rehashes and rebashes frequently however.. Goose - Gander....Potato - PotAHto...? 😆
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
The survey includes "those who used some sort of treatment product" and "those who did not use some sort of treatment product."
to get to your answer, your going to need the tool back on line, and then clear threw the chaff as the above survey question includes people who did a single powdered sugar dusting late fall as a treatment on a dead hive walking

You have to look at what efective treating does.... ie not treating effectively is about the same as no treatment the "Losses by number of products used" tab will be very helpfull
you also have to look as the resent data... not the old stuff, TF (and beekeeping in gen)used to be much easer and both losses have been climbing..

the other thing you need to pay attention to is the number of respondents, the people who get wiped out and quit often don't fill out a survey then you need to look at the total hives in each.

opens last years power point *

"BIP 4 year averages(2016-2020) for a Colorado BYBK

42.2% losses for those who “looked for mites on the Bees” AKA I didn’t see any mites, what happened?
38.4% losses for those running sticky boards
37.9% losses for those doing sugar shakes
33.3%-losses for those who Alcohol Wash

Colorado losses by mite treatment type
•40% screened bottom board
•39.3% Amitraz
•35.7% drone culling
•31.3 % Formic
•27.1% Oxalic
•26.7% Thymol
amitraz used to be like 25% here... we should have seen the resticance coming

Losses by number of products used
•61.2% loses chemical free
•39.2% Losses One product
•24.3% losses Two products
•15.1% losses Three + products
Point taken, rotate treatments and use the proper treatment for the time of year and temperature

Losses by Queen Replacement
•45.3% losses not replacing queens
•33.8% losses with yearly replaced queen
•33.1% losses Introduced mated queens
28.5% Replaced Queen Naturally"

when you look at "Losses by number of products used" you can clearly see the effect of effective treatment
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
to get to your answer, your going to need the tool back on line, and then clear threw the chaff as the above survey question includes people who did a single powdered sugar dusting late fall as a treatment on a dead hive walking

You have to look at what efective treating does.... ie not treating effectively is about the same as no treatment the "Losses by number of products used" tab will be very helpfull
you also have to look as the resent data... not the old stuff, TF (and beekeeping in gen)used to be much easer and both losses have been climbing..

the other thing you need to pay attention to is the number of respondents, the people who get wiped out and quit often don't fill out a survey then you need to look at the total hives in each.

opens last years power point *

"BIP 4 year averages(2016-2020) for a Colorado BYBK

42.2% losses for those who “looked for mites on the Bees” AKA I didn’t see any mites, what happened?
38.4% losses for those running sticky boards
37.9% losses for those doing sugar shakes
33.3%-losses for those who Alcohol Wash

Colorado losses by mite treatment type
•40% screened bottom board
•39.3% Amitraz
•35.7% drone culling
•31.3 % Formic
•27.1% Oxalic
•26.7% Thymol
amitraz used to be like 25% here... we should have seen the resticance coming

Losses by number of products used
•61.2% loses chemical free
•39.2% Losses One product
•24.3% losses Two products
•15.1% losses Three + products
Point taken, rotate treatments and use the proper treatment for the time of year and temperature

Losses by Queen Replacement
•45.3% losses not replacing queens
•33.8% losses with yearly replaced queen
•33.1% losses Introduced mated queens
28.5% Replaced Queen Naturally"

when you look at "Losses by number of products used" you can clearly see the effect of effective treatment
Agreed, when the tool gets back online. I believe the data I reference was specifically targeted toward chemical treatments - specifically Amitraz,OAV, and the like.
 

·
Registered
35
Joined
·
2,218 Posts
My short BeeSource experience is proving that the opposing view keeps inventory of cast stones and rehashes and rebashes frequently however.. Goose - Gander....Potato - PotAHto...? 😆
My long tenure of over a decade on Beesource has shown we often get new charlatans showing up promising magic bees and it'll make all the problems disappear. Some of them stay until the audience is no longer spending on overprices speaking engagements and/or self published books about garbage beekeeping.

You have found a pinnacle of the 'passive aggressive' approach by asking questions in such a way that they will only find answers in total agreement, or else folks are 'tossing stones'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,888 Posts
Question - how does lack of participation invalidate the inquiry in the similarities of loss? You've now posed two potential nullifying data points, but in large seem anecdotal to me? This is something TF/CF/Sustainable is often accused of doing - now that data is being presented, the argument remains?
it wasn't lack of participation it was making the numbers fit the agenda.
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
it wasn't lack of participation it was making the numbers fit the agenda.
So you feel the data is contrived. That's interesting - In my naivete I had no assumption that there is an agenda for the survey other that what it purports itself to be as it relates to Varroa and Disease and Colony Loss.

What is the agenda?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
From the rules of this sub-forum (shortened for applicability to this particular thread and emphasis mine):

This forum is for those who wish to discuss Treatment-Free Beekeeping, not for them to be required to defend it. There is no need to discuss commercial or other methods of beekeeping. There are multiple forums to address any and all subjects.

Posts or portions of posts judged to be uncivil may be edited or deleted by a moderator. Please avoid making any kind of accusation toward another forum user. Do not impugn their motives, do not question their skills, and do not use pejoratives. Be responsible and do not post offering advice about things you have not experienced and methods you have not used. To avoid misunderstandings, statements intended to be interpreted humorously should be marked with a smilie.

Please enjoy this forum. There is a wealth of information available from long time beekeepers with real world experience in these subjects. Feel free to ask any and all serious questions and engage in spirited discussion and learning.
 

·
Premium Member
Overwintering 6-frame Nucs
Joined
·
711 Posts
From the rules of this sub-forum
I find it exceedingly ironic that the forum rules were written by a now-banned moderator, and himself the subject of another thread regarding his flameout in a self-constructed nirvana.

Why does this forum need special rules telling people to be nice do you think? Asking for a friend. :)
 

·
Registered
26, Medium Frames, Mostly 5/5's
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I find it exceedingly ironic that the forum rules were written by a now-banned moderator, and himself the subject of another thread regarding his flameout in a self-constructed nirvana.

Why does this forum need special rules telling people to be nice do you think? Asking for a friend. :)
I find it exceedingly ironic that the forum rules were written by a now-banned moderator, and himself the subject of another thread regarding his flameout in a self-constructed nirvana.

Why does this forum need special rules telling people to be nice do you think? Asking for a friend. :)
Wow! Is it really going to be this way with every post! Haha...Even if he wrote the rules, are they too much too ask for this corner of the forum?
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top