To shook swarm or not?

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Finman - I think a little confusion on your part my friend - I was only speculating, not confirming practice !!

I am well aware of the issues (presumed or otherwise) of the potential to poison the queen !

regards

S
 
- I think a little confusion on your part my friend -
I was only speculating, not confirming practice !!


S

Stupid speculation if it has nothing to do with practice.

I just speculate, do I bye zink mining stocks in the morning. In Toronto Lundin stocks are 8% higher than in Stockholm. Reason is 1,5 vacation day in Stockholm. Boliden seems angry to rise.
http://www.google.ca/finance?q=TSE:LUN

I am not confused. I know very well what I am doing, but I never know what 2 hive owner get in his.


To sake hives for varroa, the most stupid I ever heard. I have made even more stupid things.

Steve Ross just wrote that trickling disturbes seriously the hive. Of course. It happens even if you just kick the hive. The hive will be alarmed. Every time when you open the hive, it will be alarmed.
 
Last edited:
This was posted to BeeL some time ago by one of the largest Bee Farmers in the UK who keeps an open mind.


"We have tried this on a few occassions, indeed it was discussed here
some time ago, I reckon about a year or so back.

Sounds fine in theory, and is quite easy to do, but it has one huge
drawback.

The stress causes latent nosema to kick in badly, which does not appear
initially to have caused a problem. It only really manifests itself in
the winter ahead, when losses are sharply higher in the colonies from
shook swarms than from normal splits.

The last experiment we did on this was about 5 years ago, when we made
up an apiary of 20 shook swarms and 20 normal splits. All was fine
throughout the season, and the swarms roared ahead, but were soon caught
up on by the splits. (It is just the same as for another version of the
same, packages. They roar off quickly but then drop back as attrition
accounts for adult bees before the first brood hatches.)

In the winter which followed we lost most (16 out of 20 if I recall
correctly) of the shaken swarms, and the rest of them were small, but
only two of the conventional splits died, and most of the survivors were
strong.

I can almost hear the chorus of 'why didn't you feed fumidil'. Two
reasons. In our part of Scotland your window for doing this operation
inevitably coincides with a honey flow and supers are on, and secondly
we really wanted to see how it affected the bees (hence the decent scale
experiment). Thus we did not treat them in autumn either.

I am very interested in the link between nosema and stress, as it is
undoubtedly the problem most economically damaging factor to our
enterprise, resulting in too many small colonies in spring (and a fair
number of empty ones). In these days of mite problems, and hysteria
about resistant mites etc, everyone seems too keen to blame the new(ish)
pest for all their ills, and many forget about this old favourite which
is still lurking out there.

This is a post to the BeeL list from one of the biggest Bee Farmers in the UK who keeps an open mind and experiments.

"I have no doubt that, in areas without a pronounced winter, shook
swarming will be fine, and in many other areas a spring and autumn
fumidil treatment for at least the first whole year will help. After 50
years of experience between my father and I of experimentations with it
we can safely say it is not an option we will take again without a
seriously good reason.

I know this does not answer your question about the practice of this
method in the US (although the package trade is an equivalent) but our
experience is probably slightly more relevant to English conditions. If
you get a hold of the directions for dealing with packages, particularly
the bit about feeding fumidil on hiving, you should be able to do this
with fewer troubles than the untreated way.

Murray"

PH
 
Interesting PH, I know MM quite well and trust his judgement. As I said in one of my ealier musings, this works in Devon and the high loss of colonys reported in East Scotland has not been found down here. I know someone who has done it on all his colonies ( a few dozen) without any problems for several years.

I don't understand the mechanism by which nosema bites back. Perhaps Gavin has some ideas?
 
Top post PH,thank you..

Do you think part of the above post could be alluding that maybe Nosema has a bigger part to play in CCD?

It seem's it could be a vicious circle what with losing bees's buying packages for pollination then losing bees again.
 
I don't understand the mechanism by which nosema bites back. Perhaps Gavin has some ideas?

No, unfortunately.

I was at a meeting this afternoon along with four Scottish bee farmers, Murray included. I was a bit surprised to read that PH, having forgotten that post despite always looking forward to reading Murray's Bee-L posts when they come in!

Murray's views have changed over the last 6 months (so much has changed up here!). He's now a keen advocate for total comb renewal across all commercial beekeepers in the affected area and is trying hard to make it happen. I'm presuming that comb renewal will be by shook swarming.

all the best

Gavin
 
Of course a single 'supposedly' fair trial could have a result skewed by unfortunate ancestry.

So question is: were the nosema losses investigated to see if there was a hereditary link?

May not, of course, but just asking to be sure the experiment was a fair one.

Regards, RAB
 
Investigated by whom Rab?

Not being funny here but who is there or was there at the time to do such work? If you dinna ken then I'll tell ye... precisely no one.

It is mainly because of lack of Government money that Scottish Beekeepers are in such a mess.

PH
 
PH,

As a beefarmer doing a trial, there would be provenance of the participating queens available? Just wondering, as the feat has not been repeated, whether there were other reasons, not connected with the trial. Not saying there was or wasn't, but not knowing, means that type of test/trial/experiment needs duplication to be more than reasonably confident of the result (or assessment of any other possible 'interfering factors' to demonstrate non-interference).

Without the other experiments (done previously) giving the same sort of obvious result, I would be careful that any trial showing such appalling later losses was a fair one. I would be wondering 'why?'. Ancestry of the queens was just the first example that came to mind as a possible reason for such a result.

I look at the results and note there were more small colonies with the splits (up to 8, versus 4) for instance.

I know that may not be a fair assessment, but the statistics show that. Lies, damn lies and all that, selective results (by not including the lost colonies for either test sample).

I am interested in this, so am only trying to find out all the relevant information. Your reply was adequate for me.

Regards, RAB
 

Latest posts

Back
Top