How long does a bee colony last?

[user 20297]

A recent thread hit on the subject of natural colony life and as a result of this, the definition of how you define the continuous existence of a colony was called into question. I would definitely agree with the proposal that if a beekeeper re-queens from other than the progeny of the existing queen, you have a new colony.

If the bees supersede their queen, you have a continuing colony.

If the bees swarm and the queen leaves to start afresh, which is the original colony? Is it the swarm or the colony left with a virgin queen...or is it both?

I think this is relevant when beekeepers point to colonies which, having existed continuously for many years, are an indication of relative health and good management of their bees. I see this typically when used against "natural" or "low intervention" beekeepers, for instance, with the claim that by not dealing with varroa, your colony will die within three years/five years/a random number of years Where is the evidence that this is true?

 

[Erichalfbee]

A recent thread hit on the subject of natural colony life and as a result of this, the definition of how you define the continuous existence of a colony was called into question. I would definitely agree with the proposal that if a beekeeper re-queens from other than the progeny of the existing queen, you have a new colony.

If the bees supersede their queen, you have a continuing colony.

If the bees swarm and the queen leaves to start afresh, which is the original colony? Is it the swarm or the colony left with a virgin queen...or is it both?

I think this is relevant when beekeepers point to colonies which, having existed continuously for many years, are an indication of relative health and good management of their bees. I see this typically when used against "natural" or "low intervention" beekeepers, for instance, with the claim that by not dealing with varroa, your colony will die within three years/five years/a random number of years Where is the evidence that this is true?

These are three very interesting videos here
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/threads/aficionados-of-oxalic-sublimation.51127/#post-781618

 

[Patrick1]

A recent thread hit on the subject of natural colony life and as a result of this, the definition of how you define the continuous existence of a colony was called into question. I would definitely agree with the proposal that if a beekeeper re-queens from other than the progeny of the existing queen, you have a new colony.

If the bees supersede their queen, you have a continuing colony.

If the bees swarm and the queen leaves to start afresh, which is the original colony? Is it the swarm or the colony left with a virgin queen...or is it both?

I think this is relevant when beekeepers point to colonies which, having existed continuously for many years, are an indication of relative health and good management of their bees. I see this typically when used against "natural" or "low intervention" beekeepers, for instance, with the claim that by not dealing with varroa, your colony will die within three years/five years/a random number of years Where is the evidence that this is true?

You may find the answer in Tom Sealy’s work, he studied swarms in trees and concluded that a swarm only survived on average 1 year.

 

[user 20297]

You may find the answer in Tom Sealy’s work, he studied swarms in trees and concluded that a swarm only survived on average 1 year.

...but that's not the same as a managed colony in a box.

 

[Erichalfbee]

These are three very interesting videos here
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/threads/aficionados-of-oxalic-sublimation.51127/#post-781618

Sorry....I don't know why this is here....It's probably meant for somewhere else

 

[user 20297]

Sorry....I don't know why this is here....It's probably meant for somewhere else

Elsewhere, in a round about way, I think I asked if we know how miticides work...so maybe that's an answer to the question?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Elsewhere, in a round about way, I think I asked if we know how miticides work...so maybe that's an answer to the question?

Yes....found it so put it there too

 

[Boston Bees]

I would definitely agree with the proposal that if a beekeeper re-queens from other than the progeny of the existing queen, you have a new colony.

Indeed - you can't claim that is a continuing colony.

If the bees swarm and the queen leaves to start afresh, which is the original colony? Is it the swarm or the colony left with a virgin queen...or is it both?

Given your definition that a superceding colony remains the same colony, the logical answer has to be that both of these colonies can be viewed as the original colony.

I see this typically when used against "natural" or "low intervention" beekeepers, for instance, with the claim that by not dealing with varroa, your colony will die within three years/five years/a random number of years Where is the evidence that this is true?

a) The experience that most people remember when they started keeping bees, and messed up (or missed out) varroa treatment, and their bees died after a year or three in a really miserable state

b) Seeley's work

c) The annual recurrence on forums like this of multiple conversations like this:

"My bees have come out of winter really weak [or dead] even though they have lots of stores, why is this?"
"Sorry to hear that, how did you treat for varroa and when?"
"Oh, I couldn't see any varroa on the bees in autumn so I didn't treat" (or "Yes, I treated in October")
"OK....."

d) Treatment-free beekeepers who say their colonies die every few years

e) A common-sense consideration of what varroa mites do to bees, and the effect that this has on the health of the bees

 

[Finman]

Where is the evidence that this is true?

Black is black , but where are evidencies?

 

[user 20297]

Ask from google.

This forum is better than Google. You know more about bees than Google.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I would definitely agree with the proposal that if a beekeeper re-queens from other than the progeny of the existing queen, you have a new colony.

Indeed - you can't claim that is a continuing colony.

But just to throw another thought into the mix - what is requeening but an artificial means of supersedure?

If the bees supersede their queen, you have a continuing colony.

 

[Boston Bees]

But just to throw another thought into the mix - what is requeening but an artificial means of supersedure?

I think the 100 percent change in genetics is too dramatic a difference to claim it's a continuous colony, personally

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I think the 100 percent change in genetics is too dramatic a difference to claim it's a continuous colony, personally

I tend to agree, but as the whole claim to colony longevity is based on a justification for leaving bees die 'naturally' rather than address a man made pest issue caused by inadvertently introducing a non native parasite I thought I'd throw it in

 

[TryingToLetThemBee]

This is pretty academic if a beekeeper is actively involved. As you unite weak colonies into strong, AS etc., the waters are irretrievably muddied. To make sense I think you have to regard an apiary as a supercolony with hopefully infinite life. Is how I would look at it anyway. All my colonies have a common ancestor now. If Gd forbid AFB etc means I start with a new colony then something measurable has happened: otherwise you are just heading for limitless confusion.

 

[Finman]

This is pretty academic if a beekeeper is actively involved. As you unite weak colonies into strong, AS etc., the waters are irretrievably muddied. To make sense I think you have to regard an apiary as a supercolony with hopefully infinite life. Is how I would look at it anyway. All my colonies have a common ancestor now. If Gd forbid AFB etc means I start with a new colony then something measurable has happened: otherwise you are just heading for limitless confusion.

That helps alot. But nothing to do with academic.
.

 

[user 20297]

Th

I think the 100 percent change in genetics is too dramatic a difference to claim it's a continuous colony, personally

Eggzackly!

 

[user 819]

If a managed colony doesn't die out and carries on in perpetuation whether the colony swarms or superscedes then it is still the original colony imv. After all their survival and reproduction is about swarming and the reason why they do so.

 

[Anduril]

A colony has been referred to a river, it keeps on flowing. The old queen leaves the emerging queen takes over.

 

[user 20297]

I tend to agree, but as the whole claim to colony longevity is based on a justification for leaving bees die 'naturally' rather than address a man made pest issue caused by inadvertently introducing a non native parasite I thought I'd throw it in

I'm coming from the opposite end of that argument; I don't accept that my bees must die off. Let's say you actively try to keep your colony from dying over several years with the same healthy queen or her successors; you have your chemical weapons at the ready and are prepared too use them. But you don't treat them as you have checked the varroa load and are confident they are OK. Then after five years or less, the colony dies for a reason other than starvation, but which may implicate varroa.

Compare that with another colony which has been requeened and treated with chemicals each year. Twenty years hence it is still thriving and you still consider that to be the same colony." Is it the requeening which kept the beehive full or was it the treatment?

 

[Boston Bees]

I'm coming from the opposite end of that argument; I don't accept that my bees must die off.

Then after five years or less, the colony dies for a reason other than starvation, but which may implicate varroa.

Isn't this a contradiction? Do you or don't you think that varroa will probably kill your colony if left untreated?