Not treating varroa

[Finman]

Treat your bees, it's as simple as that.

So it is. So many times discussed by same persons msny times a year. It strenghtens the soul.

 

[Finman]

I don't believe that.
".

This is not believing issue. Every one can read about your miteless beekeeping, how easy it is.

 

[Fusion_power]

How have you found the influence of africanised bees

The BWeaver queens I got in 2015 were moderately africanized as shown by their stinging propensity. I kept one of the 3 queens for breeding purposes. Her offspring were still much hotter than I care to manage. There was one huge positive. They have significantly higher resistance to hive beetles. For this reason, I am selecting milder queens for breeding and gradually eliminating any queens that express high stinging behavior. I currently have 5 colonies (out of 20) expressing too much defensiveness. I am breeding from a queen that is very mild. Her colony is easily worked with minimal smoke. I have a second queen identified with similar gentle traits and will use her for breeding later this year. This was shown to be an effective method by Brother Adam as he discussed in his books. Just keep breeding from the gentle queens and eventually the stinging traits will be reduced to manageable levels.

 

[Swarm]

I don't believe that.
How can some bees need no treatment at all and others need multiple treatments? Clearly, there is a difference in their ability to manage varroa by themselves. If there is a difference, that trait can be selected for and improved upon. "It's as simple as that".

You use artificial means to perpetuate a Dutch element of a sub species that never colonised these parts. Do you propose that everyone follows suit?

 

[B+.]

You use artificial means to perpetuate a Dutch element of a sub species that never colonised these parts. Do you propose that everyone follows suit?

Not necessarily....but its better than doing nothing, hoping that they'll improve all by themselves

 

[foghornleghorn]

Not necessarily....but its better than doing nothing, hoping that they'll improve all by themselves

What is your average winter loss?

 

[B+.]

What is your average winter loss?

Average? Do you mean over the last 10 years?
Last winter I lost 2. They had so much honey that the queen didn't have enough space to lay winter bees. They had 3 Langstroth deep boxes each. The bottom was virtually empty at the last inspection. The weather was so mild though, they went on collecting ivy nectar for a long time. So, when I checked in the Spring there was hardly any cells empty

These queens had never been treated.

 

[foghornleghorn]

Average? Do you mean over the last 10 years?
Last winter I lost 2. They had so much honey that the queen didn't have enough space to lay winter bees. They had 3 Langstroth deep boxes each. The bottom was virtually empty at the last inspection. The weather was so mild though, they went on collecting ivy nectar for a long time. So, when I checked in the Spring there was hardly any cells empty

These queens had never been treated.

Average percentage over last 5-10 years and roughly what size group?

Losing 2 hives means nothing

 

[B+.]

Average percentage over last 5-10 years and roughly what size group?

Losing 2 hives means nothing

There were 32 on that site going into winter

 

[foghornleghorn]

There were 32 on that site going into winter

But what was your average percentage loss across all hives over the past 5-10 years?

 

[B+.]

But what was your average percentage loss across all hives over the past 5-10 years?

Your tone is becoming increasingly aggressive. Why?
You asked for meaningful data. I gave you enough information to work out an average for that site last year. I would have to go digging through my records to get the information to give you an average over all family groups for all years. That would take time, and frankly, I have no intention of doing it to satisfy an aggressive question.

 

[foghornleghorn]

Your tone is becoming increasingly aggressive. Why?
You asked for meaningful data. I gave you enough information to work out an average for that site last year. I would have to go digging through my records to get the information to give you an average over all family groups for all years. That would take time, and frankly, I have no intention of doing it to satisfy an aggressive question.

It's not aggressive just a direct question.

You always give us the highlights of how great your stock are but won't tell us about any of the negative aspects. How can anyone make a judgement without knowing the full picture.
One site in one year does not give anyone any worthwhile information that they can compare their own stock to.

 

[B+.]

It's not aggressive just a direct question.

You always give us the highlights of how great your stock are but won't tell us about any of the negative aspects. How can anyone make a judgement without knowing the full picture.
One site in one year does not give anyone any worthwhile information that they can compare their own stock to.

That's not true. I give you breeding values - which are the only real measure of stocks genetic value. These are also freely available on the www.BeeBreed.eu website along with all my other records. In any case, this thread is about non-treatment. In BeeBreed, this links to the Vitality test (overwintering without treatment) - something that is a requirement for stock that is considered for inclusion in the NL line i.e. potential 2a breeder queens MUST have been overwintered without treatment. In fact, 3 of the 5 potentials for the second breeding slot failed this test so were not available this year. The second slot had to be awarded to Prof Brascamps back-up which was ranked fifth. The first choice was available though so we will use queens ranked 1 and 5 this summer

 

[foghornleghorn]

That's not true. I give you breeding values - which are the only real measure of stocks genetic value. These are also freely available on the www.BeeBreed.eu website along with all my other records. In any case, this thread is about non-treatment. In BeeBreed, this links to the Vitality test (overwintering without treatment) - something that is a requirement for stock that is considered for inclusion in the NL line i.e. potential 2a breeder queens MUST have been overwintered without treatment. In fact, 3 of the 5 potentials for the second breeding slot failed this test so were not available this year. The second slot had to be awarded to Prof Brascamps back-up which was ranked fifth. The first choice was available though so we will use queens ranked 1 and 5 this summer

A vitality score on beebreed doesn't mean anything to someone unless they've experience of a range of stock that also had breeding values under, if they're considering going down the treatment free road, what matters is %losses and what can they hope to level out at after years of work.

Did 3 out of the 5 queens die or were they treated?



Edit, dairy cow breeding values here are based off a base cow. So if a bull is rated as +100kg milk you know that it's the base cows value (about 5200kg from memory) +100kg.
Beebreed values don't give that sort of information about losses

 

[B+.]

A vitality score on beebreed doesn't mean anything to someone unless they've experience of a range of stock that also had breeding values under, if they're considering going down the treatment free road, what matters is %losses and what can they hope to level out at after years of work.

Did 3 out of the 5 queens die or were they treated?

Actually, it does. Every 10% above the mean (100%) represents 1 standard deviation so you know, not only how good it is, but, how much of the population is above/below it. I typically work with queens that are 2-3 s.d. above the mean(i.e. the top 2.5%-0.15%)
I wasn't at the meeting in March so I only know from the minutes that queens ranked 2,3 & 4 based on total breeding value were not available for subsequent breeding. I assume this means they had died overwinter....but this shows that selective breeding for a target is not without risk. Even though queens ranked 1 & 5 were available, it is still a collaborative effort where we all benefit from the best breeding material available.
You have to recognize that even the queen ranked fifth by the group is still far superior to what most beekeepers have. This, I think, corresponds to what Randy Oliver means by breeding from the best queens you can get. Of course, all the queens I make are pure carnica, as are their drones. So, these high breeding values are dispersed through my own queens, thus improving the local bee.The problem is that the hygiene trait has a fairly low heritability (H2=0.18) so it's a slow, continuous process.

 

[foghornleghorn]

Actually, it does. Every 10% above the mean (100%) represents 1 standard deviation so you know, not only how good it is, but, how much of the population is above/below it. I typically work with queens that are 2-3 s.d. above the mean(i.e. the top 2.5%-0.15%)
I wasn't at the meeting in March so I only know from the minutes that queens ranked 2,3 & 4 based on total breeding value were not available for subsequent breeding. I assume this means they had died overwinter....but this shows that selective breeding for a target is not without risk. Even though queens ranked 1 & 5 were available, it is still a collaborative effort where we all benefit from the best breeding material available.
You have to recognize that even the queen ranked fifth by the group is still far superior to what most beekeepers have. This, I think, corresponds to what Randy Oliver means by breeding from the best queens you can get. Of course, all the queens I make are pure carnica, as are their drones. So, these high breeding values are dispersed through my own queens, thus improving the local bee.The problem is that the hygiene trait has a fairly low heritability (H2=0.18) so it's a slow, continuous process.

But what is the mean in real world terms? Is it 10% loss per year is it 90% loss?

 

[B+.]

But what is the mean in real world terms? Is it 10% loss per year is it 90% loss?

I've explained this before so didn't think I'd have to do it again.
Honeybees aren't like cows which, I assume, produce reasonably consistently. The weather can be perfect one year and terrible the next. So, we don't compare it with a mean for a single year but use a 5-year moving average. I can't give you an absolute figure. Not only because I don't know it but, also, because it changes each year.
You just have to accept that the performance for each trait is compared to the 5-year moving average. This means that they can only over-achieve the mean if they perform better than the average for the previous 5-years.

ADDED: I'm not sure I answered your question correctly. A loss makes no sense in breeding values because you can't breed from a dead animal. I also don't have access to information on losses in the database. Only co-ordinators/administrators have that sort of access

 

[B+.]

But what is the mean in real world terms? Is it 10% loss per year is it 90% loss?

I can honestly tell you that 100% of my 10 year old queens are dead.

 

[foghornleghorn]

I can honestly tell you that 100% of my 10 year old queens are dead.

Are your average annual losses really that bad that you're too embarrassed to share them?

 

[Fusion_power]

FL, Are you trying to figure out if mite resistance traits are reliable enough to stop treating?

The first three years after I stopped treating were pretty rough. I lost 30% of my colonies one year. I split the remaining colonies and built back up. From 2010 to now averaged 10% winter losses. This past winter was 0, however, I combined several small colonies last fall that probably would not have made it. Note that I've been trying to raise extra queens which means I usually have some small colonies at the end of summer.

I have had repeated problems with hive beetles in late summer overwhelming small colonies. This makes queen production very dicey. I've stopped raising queens in the fall which means I have to put a lot more effort into producing queens for spring splits.