3 season old feral colony.

[Fatbee]

Just because a feral colony dies out doesn't necessarily mean varroa. Poorly mated queen leading to dwindling bees or Virgin never returned from mating flight. Difference is they don't have a beekeeper to unite colony or put some fresh eggs in

 

[dexter's shed]

it suggests that feral bees die out if not treated, just the same as hived colonies.
CVB

no, it suggests that feral bees die the same as colonised bees do, what about overwintered bees that are treated yet still die

 

[pargyle]

I don't think there is any single answer to this discussion ... IMO and from what I see and hear there are numerous colonies that survive, long term, without treatment (I know of one beekeeper in my area that has been treatment free for over 8 years - he has over 20 hives and experiences no greater losses than those locally who treat). Equally, I know of beekeepers who treat with a variety of conventional (and recognised) treatment regimes who have lost high percentages of their colonies. There are just as many who treat and do not lose colonies ...

What can be deduced from this ... I really don't know .. as I said earlier I don't believe there is a 'magic bullet' that can be applied - be it with NO treatment, SOME treatment or a LOT of treatment. I remain unconvinced that colonies that survive without treatment are successful JUST because of the bees .. There simply must be other factors or we would all be throwing the treatments in the bin.

I don't accept Finman and other's premise that insulated hives do not keep bees warmer - I measure temperature and humidity in my highly insulated long hive on a daily basis and the bees consistently produce hive temperatures that, even in the winter, are consistently well above the external temperatures .. my bees do not cluster as the insulated hives give them the opportunity to maintain a warmer environment throughout the hive .. not just in the middle of the cluster.

So .. all we have is lots of observations from all points of view but very little that correlates sufficiently to be able to draw any firm conclusions. For my money ... my bees in my location are doing well without treatment .. and I intend to continue in this way until such time as I see any evidence that they are not healthy. If it works, don't fix it, is my standpoint. I don't advocate that everyone should do it this way with all their hives - but, if you have a strong colony, with a low varroa load, it might just be worth trying ...

 

[jd101k2000]

There have been some colonies that have survived for a long period in woods. It was thought that these colonies had learned to deal with varroa. However, when the colonies were moved they quickly died out.

One conclusion was the the varroa in the woods had locally adapted - it is not in the long-term interest of a parasite to kill the bees. When they were moved they came in contact with 'normal' varroa that then wiped out the bees. At the WBKA conference it was also suggested that DWV may have a negative effect on varroa (as in it harms them).

 

[Thymallus]

Varroa tolerant Apis melifera do exist, these are the Russian bees which have been exposed to varroa for over 150 years. Lots of work currently being done with them in the USA.
Varroa is a parasite and on it's natural host A.Cerana does not kill them as they have co-evolved together. It's more serious on our A.MM as they have no natural defense against it and despite it not wanting to kill it's hosts (it would mean killing itself) it usually severely weakens untreated colonies and does kill many. Hence one reason why nearly all feral colonies die. Several bee inspectors I've talked to have said they come across quite a few non-treated colonies in the course of their work. Invariably sickly small colonies and not very strong.
If you had a sick cat/dog etc you'd try to cure it, not maintain it's state of disease and suffering. If bees were mammals you'd probablybe prosecuted by the RSPCA for cruelty to animals.

 

[user 6228]

There have been some colonies that have survived for a long period in woods. It was thought that these colonies had learned to deal with varroa. However, when the colonies were moved they quickly died out.

One conclusion was the the varroa in the woods had locally adapted - it is not in the long-term interest of a parasite to kill the bees. When they were moved they came in contact with 'normal' varroa that then wiped out the bees. At the WBKA conference it was also suggested that DWV may have a negative effect on varroa (as in it harms them).

Trees are a vastly different habitat in both heat loss and humidity. The difference is so large that there could be numerous reasons why the move proved fatal.

 

[pargyle]

Several bee inspectors I've talked to have said they come across quite a few non-treated colonies in the course of their work. Invariably sickly small colonies and not very strong.
If you had a sick cat/dog etc you'd try to cure it, not maintain it's state of disease and suffering. If bees were mammals you'd probablybe prosecuted by the RSPCA for cruelty to animals.

Are you tellling us that the Bee Inspectors you have talked to have NEVER seen healthy untreated colonies ? If so, send them down to my area and I'll show them a few that are doing very well ... and not just mine.

You are clearly one of those people who, when I first started beekeeping, told me I would be a danger to other beekeepers in my locality and my bees would be dead in three years ... well, guess what, they were wrong !

I'm not averse to treating either my bees or my pets ... but I work on the basis that 'as and when and if needed' and after thorough checking - not just because 'people say I should' without any thought behind it.

I stopped getting my dogs vaccinated annually with their 'booster' injections years ago when it became clear to me that the injections were just making the dogs ill, one was getting eczema immediately after the booster injection every year and another just looked really under the weather ... my current vet tells me that he doesn't give his dogs annual boosters either - But still continues to let people pay for their dogs 'boosters' every year !

I have a friend who insisted on putting a flea collar she got from her vet on her 8 year old cat when she found ONE flea last year. The cat almost immediately developed a major skin irritation around her neck and the vet said it 'might' be irritation from wearing a collar so swapped over to a spot treatment (another £30). Ever since the cat has been backwards and forwards to the vet with skin problems erupting all over and fur loss - but no fleas. I asked my friend if her cat had ever had fleas in the past and she said - NO ! I suggested she was treating a condition that possibly didn't exist and that could be causing the skin problems - the answer - well that's what the vet recommended ! I suggested she change her vet but apparently the cat likes the vet ... I'll bet the vet loves this cat as well !!

Yeh .... this is not directed as a criticism of vets in general - but at the mindset that says 'treat just in case'. I think it's wrong .... do you take an aspirin four times a day in case you get a headache or Lemsip in case you get a cold ?

 

[einsteinagogo]

Are you tellling us that the Bee Inspectors you have talked to have NEVER seen healthy untreated colonies ? If so, send them down to my area and I'll show them a few that are doing very well ... and not just mine.

You are clearly one of those people who, when I first started beekeeping, told me I would be a danger to other beekeepers in my locality and my bees would be dead in three years ... well, guess what, they were wrong !

I'm not averse to treating either my bees or my pets ... but I work on the basis that 'as and when and if needed' and after thorough checking - not just because 'people say I should' without any thought behind it.

I stopped getting my dogs vaccinated annually with their 'booster' injections years ago when it became clear to me that the injections were just making the dogs ill, one was getting eczema immediately after the booster injection every year and another just looked really under the weather ... my current vet tells me that he doesn't give his dogs annual boosters either - But still continues to let people pay for their dogs 'boosters' every year !

I have a friend who insisted on putting a flea collar she got from her vet on her 8 year old cat when she found ONE flea last year. The cat almost immediately developed a major skin irritation around her neck and the vet said it 'might' be irritation from wearing a collar so swapped over to a spot treatment (another £30). Ever since the cat has been backwards and forwards to the vet with skin problems erupting all over and fur loss - but no fleas. I asked my friend if her cat had ever had fleas in the past and she said - NO ! I suggested she was treating a condition that possibly didn't exist and that could be causing the skin problems - the answer - well that's what the vet recommended ! I suggested she change her vet but apparently the cat likes the vet ... I'll bet the vet loves this cat as well !!

Yeh .... this is not directed as a criticism of vets in general - but at the mindset that says 'treat just in case'. I think it's wrong .... do you take an aspirin four times a day in case you get a headache or Lemsip in case you get a cold ?

We had a cat unfortunately. no longer with us, she had an immune issue, later we found out, and we stopped using SpotOn for Fleas, when she we get nose bleeds, after applying it..... the Vet stated they had never heard of it.

Since that day, we have never treated any of our cats for fleas, and we stopped with her. (and that was over 15 years ago!).

None of our cats have fleas since (and we do check them, with a flea comb, and they have excellent fir!), and even the vets are surprised, they have no fleas, no treatments, and they also quote, they have excellent fir.....

in fact the only time, I remember any of our cats having fleas, when we had some kittens, and at six weeks old, they had fleas, from their mother!

and we combed them, because they were too young for any treatments...

 

[user 6228]

Consensus of opinions. Here?

That is populism.

no it means we agree with research by Prof Seeley.

 

[user 6228]

This is not a simple issue of just varroa and a bee. or a bee and a disease

There are multiple clans of bees in a Hive from different males with varying genetics

There are the varroa

there are multiple viruses and mutations/subtypes.The viruses are present even without the varroa.

in fact its very complex

One thing I do know to be valid is that "mass and energy are conserved"

 

[Finman]

.
Varroa is dangerous animal. When you think that it is under control, it hits behind the corner.

I have had mites 35 years. I have seen what it can do. Nothing worth to "try".

 

[Dishmop]

no it means we agree with research by Prof Seeley.

why?

 

[user 6228]

why?

see http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/m6063.html
Apidologie 38 (2007) 19-29
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2006055
Honey bees of the Arnot Forest: a population of feral colonies persisting with Varroa destructor in the northeastern United States
Thomas D. Seeley

 

[Finman]

see http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/m6063.html
Apidologie 38 (2007) 19-29
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2006055
Honey bees of the Arnot Forest: a population of feral colonies persisting with Varroa destructor in the northeastern United States
Thomas D. Seeley

That fairytale. I wonder what it is. The reaseach data is 10 y old. What has happened then?

Most beekeepers in USA does not treat varroa, and they have huge losses. And losses in summer are almost as big as in winter.
Look last reports on winter losses.
.

 

[Thymallus]

You are clearly one of those people who, when I first started beekeeping, told me I would be a danger to other beekeepers in my locality and my bees would be dead in three years ... well, guess what, they were wrong !

I see we are back to the insult the poster rationale because he has a viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours. If you wish to keep untreated bees with heavy parasite loads that is your decision.
But please define healthy untreated colonies, as in for instance type of hive and average max no of frames of bees per hive?

 

[Dishmop]

I see we are back to the insult the poster rationale because he has a viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours. If you wish to keep untreated bees with heavy parasite loads that is your decision.
But please define healthy untreated colonies, as in for instance type of hive and average max no of frames of bees per hive?

The point here is that there is a viewpoint that if you dont treat your bees they will die...When asked why they will die, there is no answer....Some beekeepers have found that thier bees havent died when not treated. They are accused of being irresponsible by those who have been told or have read that bees MUST be treated.
The statement of "If you wish to keep untreated bees with heavy parasite loads that is your decision." has been made without you having the slightest knowledge of the condition of any untreated bees being kept by anybody here.

 

[BrianO]

What have I started !!!

To reiterate, 3 years present, hugely strong ( last year I watch bees coming and going in huge numbers , masses of pollen coming in !!

As it happens will be there Sunday to put in a bait hive, will do a visual recipe on strength

Some good debate here !

 

[BrianO]

Somebody, can't remember suggested that they were swarms arriving year on year, think Finman tour good self

No, as they were active this week too early for swarms ( ok ... Know someone is going to contradict , but no swarming here yet in cold Ireland ) So overwintered

I would agree with Pargyle, would say the lack of interference, natural unbroken rhythms of bee life, honey diet overwinter, probably gives them an edge

 

[Thymallus]

Frames with brood?

No idea, havent looked for a week.

Just a slight correction regarding supers.......one of the boxes is actually a brood box with 11 frames full of capped honey.

Yes I had lots of left over stores from the winter too. But I've taken mine off now.
The question non treatment bee keepers simply will not answer is the strength of their hives measured simply as frames containing brood. Surely you have records from previous years?

Well seeing as admin is probably going to remove most of this tedious squabble. Lets make sure we have a few things right.
You state you are told that if you don't treat for varroa all bees WILL die, yet your only source is hearsay and previous posts. More fool you for not listening to parasite host arguments. You would see that you are believing a pile of shiiite. Despite Jenkins fleabite assertions a simple google search might have provided you with an answer that would have provide some credibility to your assertions. You do know how use google don't you?
Really?
I'm shocked to hear that.
You are reluctant to give number of brood frames for fear it might provide ammunition that not treating bees for varroa is detrimental to their overall health.
You are responsible for your bees and are keeping them in a dilapidated diseased state. They fly ergo therefore they are alive and are okay. It's a total disgrace and shows a total lack of respect towards the health of your bees.
That is all I need to know about you and the type of beekeeper you are and that is also all I intend to say on this matter on this thread.

 

[user 6228]

Yes I had lots of left over stores from the winter too. But I've taken mine off now.
The question non treatment bee keepers simply will not answer is the strength of their hives measured simply as frames containing brood. Surely you have records from previous years?

Well seeing as admin is probably going to remove most of this tedious squabble. Lets make sure we have a few things right.
You state you are told that if you don't treat for varroa all bees WILL die, yet your only source is hearsay and previous posts. More fool you for not listening to parasite host arguments. You would see that you are believing a pile of shiiite. Despite Jenkins fleabite assertions a simple google search might have provided you with an answer that would have provide some credibility to your assertions. You do know how use google don't you?
Really?
I'm shocked to hear that.
You are reluctant to give number of brood frames for fear it might provide ammunition that not treating bees for varroa is detrimental to their overall health.
You are responsible for your bees and are keeping them in a dilapidated diseased state. They fly ergo therefore they are alive and are okay. It's a total disgrace and shows a total lack of respect towards the health of your bees.
That is all I need to know about you and the type of beekeeper you are and that is also all I intend to say on this matter on this thread.

This is full of logical fallacies...for example you are using your assertion as proof of the assertion, then compound it asserting that a lack of proof of the negative confirms your argument.

Your argument is summarised as this:

g
Given:
some healthy bees are treated
and some untreated bees are unhealthy,

therefore:

only treated bees are healthy
all untreated bees are unhealthy.

you then go on

because people who care treat their bees, therefore all who do not treat their bees are uncaring.

and then assert that a failure to supply immediate refuting evidence as proof of your argument.

Regardless of the merits of treating or not treating this form of argument is not valid.

In addition you fail to address:

unhealthy bees that are treated, or bees that are healthy regardless of abscence or presence of treatment .