What is happening to our queens

[Apple]

So when your mother said "stop doing that ... it will make you go blind"...
she was not far from the truth!!

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

My best hives are long lived

So what would you consider 'long lived', how long do your unmaintained colonies survive (I think to use the word 'thrive' here is open to debate) before they perish - or is that another statistic you conveniently forget?

I've never changed brood comb.

So there's a good chance your apiary is a simmering tank of disease as well?

, and given that I'm a bad beekeeper by most yardsticks.

No comment

 

[Mint Bee]

It is all but pointless collecting data unless you are doing a controlled experiment. There are many reasons why colonies die, and unless you discover what they are, all you can say they died. Roughly, over ten years of live and let die, of lost something of the order of 1 of 3, 2 of 6, 3 of 12, 5 of 20, then 20% of 40, 15% of 60, 12% of 70, 10% of 80; 10% of 80, this winter 16% thus far.

But: many of these have been small nucs, that I've learned fall easily. I've never renewed queens so many, I suspect l, have perished from winter queen failure. One year I lost 4 to badgers. I've never changed brood comb. In many ways I'm a novice, an amateur.

This is a predictable sort of pattern to somebody more interested in finding colonies that thrive when left alone, and wanting to build numbers (of such bees) urgently to gain a measure of drone influence. Nature has a method of locating the strongest, and that is all I need to know. My best hives are long lived, make good drone numbers, and are very productive under my regime.

So when you ask for data you have to understand that whatever I could provide isn't comparible to that done under controlled experimental conditions. It's really just a better proportion come through now, and by reported standard, and given that I'm a bad beekeeper by most yardsticks. Given that I don't treat or meddle in any way at all, not so bad I think.

I'm not in the game of experimental conditions, or managing to the nines. I'm in the game of understand nature's method and let it play out: understand traditional husbandry methods and make best from best, and see what happens. And I have maybe 40 year on year good performers, so I'm in a good position to move things up a notch. The experiment has been a success.

You can wear blinkers and demand data all you like. That is my data, my method, my story. And the main message, which is where we started remains: to the extent that there is no selection process health and vitality must be expected to decay. I'm pretty sure you knew that already. I'm also pretty sure most beekeepers don't appreciate quite what it means. To micromanage the health of an open mating population is to weaken it.

I have no blinkers, I simply wished to understand more regarding how you had achieved treatment free approach with 100 colonies and whether there was any lessons that could be learned.

All you had to do was reply that you have a rolling average of about 15% over winter loss since you reached 20 colonies. You are free to choice whatever method you like. Personally I'm glad you are based in Kent now I know more about your approach.

One point about controlled experiments. Darwin used observations to produce the data to put forward his theory of evolution through natural selection, which sound akin to the methodology you have chosen. No controlled experiments in the Galapagos Islands. Data was still valid for this purpose.

“In God we trust, all others must bring data.” – W. Edwards Deming

 

[Boston Bees]

It is all but pointless collecting data unless you are doing a controlled experiment. There are many reasons why colonies die, and unless you discover what they are, all you can say they died. Roughly, over ten years of live and let die, of lost something of the order of 1 of 3, 2 of 6, 3 of 12, 5 of 20, then 20% of 40, 15% of 60, 12% of 70, 10% of 80; 10% of 80, this winter 16% thus far.

But: many of these have been small nucs, that I've learned fall easily. I've never renewed queens so many, I suspect l, have perished from winter queen failure. One year I lost 4 to badgers. I've never changed brood comb. In many ways I'm a novice, an amateur.

This is a predictable sort of pattern to somebody more interested in finding colonies that thrive when left alone, and wanting to build numbers (of such bees) urgently to gain a measure of drone influence. Nature has a method of locating the strongest, and that is all I need to know. My best hives are long lived, make good drone numbers, and are very productive under my regime.

So when you ask for data you have to understand that whatever I could provide isn't comparible to that done under controlled experimental conditions. It's really just a better proportion come through now, and by reported standard, and given that I'm a bad beekeeper by most yardsticks. Given that I don't treat or meddle in any way at all, not so bad I think.

I'm not in the game of experimental conditions, or managing to the nines. I'm in the game of understand nature's method and let it play out: understand traditional husbandry methods and make best from best, and see what happens. And I have maybe 40 year on year good performers, so I'm in a good position to move things up a notch. The experiment has been a success.

You can wear blinkers and demand data all you like. That is my data, my method, my story. And the main message, which is where we started remains: to the extent that there is no selection process health and vitality must be expected to decay. I'm pretty sure you knew that already. I'm also pretty sure most beekeepers don't appreciate quite what it means. To micromanage the health of an open mating population is to weaken it.

Thank you for your honesty and the figures provided - it's very interesting to see.

I can't share your definitive conclusion that "the experiment has been a success" though. Let me explain why.

The closest human approximation that I can think of to varroa is HIV:

It was introduced to a species that is not the original host
It spreads from hive to hive
It kills by weakening the host, allowing other infections to take hold
It can act quite slowly, giving time for one colony to infect others

Varroa kills quicker than HIV, but still, the time it takes to do so can vary from one year to five.

As such, having a colony that was strong last year and is strong this year, with no treatment, proves nothing. It's just like running an experiment with 80 humans with HIV, with no treatment - some would be alive and well after 10 years. That doesn't mean HIV won't kill them, or that we have discovered HIV-resistant humans, just that it hasn't killed them yet.

During a rapid build up in numbers of colonies, such as you have done, most of your colonies will be "young", by definition. With more stable numbers you are likely to see mortality rise, as you seem to have done this year. Of course, splitting colonies aggressively, or allowing them to swarm, which I presume you do one of, slows down the build up of varroa (I use splits myself for that reason) - but that's all it does.

Losing 16% of 80 colonies by mid-Feb doesn't sound a ringing endorsement of the experiment.

So, I do wish you well for the experiment continuing, but I definitely think you are too early in claiming it has proved anything.

 

[Beesnaturally]

So what would you consider 'long lived', how long do your unmaintained colonies survive (I think to use the word 'thrive' here is open to debate) before they perish - or is that another statistic you conveniently forget?


So there's a good chance your apiary is a simmering tank of disease as well?

No comment

First, I'm not 'conveniently forgetting' anything. Second, to the extend that you 'forget' to be civil in the future I will stop responding to you. I'm telling the truth for those who are interested - and can be civil.

That doesn't mean I know every detail about my hives by a long long way, and I may tell you something later that hasn't occurred to me to say now - but what I tell you is about right.

Variously, up to 6 years. That was the last time I moved them, and I have a good memory for position (So some may be a few years older - but I'm not claiming that). For several years I made a note of what I described as 'M's - best maternal sources, and then I moved to a marker system (a stone under the lid) but found I knew where they are anyway.

They tend to cycle as you would expect, but the 4 or 5 top 'M's seem to have produced well through supercedure and quite possibly swarming. (No cell removal of course, and plenty of nearby bait hives).

In recent years around half of my crop I think comes from the top 25 or so; with half that coming from I'd guess 10 outstanding performers. We're talking 5 or 6 National lifts, including drawing out of probably two of those. The task ahead, obviously, is to raise the average, which I estimated last year at 40lbs. Again, don't forget: no treatment, no messing apart from a bit of fondant to bring them on and autumn feeding.

Disease, there is a bit. You may be interested to know that while I saw I lot of DWV for the first few years I see virtually none now.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Personally I'm glad you are based in Kent now I know more about your approach.

A lot of others probably share the same feelings

 

[Beesnaturally]

It was introduced to a species that is not the original host
It spreads from hive to hive
It kills by weakening the host, allowing other infections to take hold
It can act quite slowly, giving time for one colony to infect others

Every new parasite/predator attacks a population that is, to some extent, defenceless. It is that which makes it dangerous - it arrives, one way or another, in a population that has no defences - at that time. It often decimates the population. But in the vast majority of cases the population is rebuilt - surprisingly quickly - from individuals equipped with defences that can be passed on to the next generation. Its important to note such defences will fade again once the threat has passed - they come at a productive cost. But they will stay in the population's genes, at a low level, waiting for a time when they can be used again.

The natural defences of European Honeybees to varroa are reasonably well known now, both from the scientific and home-experimental viewpoint. And the processes of co-evolution can be seen to be rapidly playing out wherever that is possible.

It's just like running an experiment with 80 humans with HIV, with no treatment - some would be alive and well after 10 years. That doesn't mean HIV won't kill them, or that we have discovered HIV-resistant humans, just that it hasn't killed them yet.

All else being equal the offspring of two such survivors will have a much better chance of surviving, than the offspring of the those who died. Its a game of odds, but odds always triumph in the end. The casino always wins.

With more stable numbers you are likely to see mortality rise, as you seem to have done this year. Of course, splitting colonies aggressively, or allowing them to swarm, which I presume you do one of, slows down the build up of varroa (I use splits myself for that reason) - but that's all it does.

Possibly. In the meantime the experiment continues. Tell me this: if you bought full-on commercial bees and put them next to mine and treated them the same, which would you bet on surviving longest?

Losing 16% of 80 colonies by mid-Feb doesn't sound a ringing endorsement of the experiment.

I've given some of the reasons why that may be - perhaps you skipped those parts?

So, I do wish you well for the experiment continuing, but I definitely think you are too early in claiming it has proved anything.

Cheers! And I wish you happy beekeeping too!

 

[Beesnaturally]

A lot of others probably share the same feelings

I know that's meant to be rude, but you should know the feeling is mutual - and no offence intended. We are both best off apart from each other.

 

[Boston Bees]

I've given some of the reasons why that may be - perhaps you skipped those parts?

The fact that you have some nucs? Sorry, but I am not sure that is 100% the reason. Many people overwinter nucs with a very high survival rate, snug in poly boxes.

The natural defences of European Honeybees to varroa are reasonably well known now, both from the scientific and home-experimental viewpoint.

Their defences are swarming (brood break) and hygienic behaviour (which is yet to be proven on any kind of scale - certainly any attempt to move "VSH" queens out of their breeder's apiary seems to fail quickly). In other words, it remains highly debatable that European honeybees have effective natural defences against varroa.

And the processes of co-evolution can be seen to be rapidly playing out wherever that is possible.

Can they?

Like, the 90%+ mortality on the Gotland island experiment, with no certainty that the colonies that remain are anything more than lucky and well spread out? Can we tolerate 90-95% losses with an uncertain result?

Or like the Arnott forest, where colonies can only survive by staying vast distances away from each other, and moving nests completely every 3 or 4 years? (I have a suspicion that the Arnott forest isn't as isolated as Seeley claims, anyway, and that some of the colonies there are coming in from outside).

My problem is that whenever I see a natural beekeeper claiming to have bred bees which can tolerate varroa, they then say something like "I know this because my losses are only 20-30% per year, which is the same as some beekeepers I know who treat their bees".

if you bought full-on commercial bees and put them next to mine and treated them the same, which would you bet on surviving longest?

I don't really know how to answer that question as I am unclear what "full on commercial bees" are. I don't buy bees, or queens. But I would be prepared to bet that if we put 10 of my colonies next to 10 of your colonies, mine would last longer as they would start from a lower varroa load, and I am sceptical that you have achieved any level of varroa resistance at all, based on the numbers you have provided. Sorry.

 

[B+.]

The fact that you have some nucs? Sorry, but I am not sure that is 100% the reason. Many people overwinter nucs with a very high survival rate, snug in poly boxes.



Their defences are swarming (brood break) and hygienic behaviour (which is yet to be proven on any kind of scale - certainly any attempt to move "VSH" queens out of their breeder's apiary seems to fail quickly). In other words, it remains highly debatable that European honeybees have effective natural defences against varroa.



Can they?

Like, the 90%+ mortality on the Gotland island experiment, with no certainty that the colonies that remain are anything more than lucky and well spread out? Can we tolerate 90-95% losses with an uncertain result?

Or like the Arnott forest, where colonies can only survive by staying vast distances away from each other, and moving nests completely every 3 or 4 years? (I have a suspicion that the Arnott forest isn't as isolated as Seeley claims, anyway, and that some of the colonies there are coming in from outside).

My problem is that whenever I see a natural beekeeper claiming to have bred bees which can tolerate varroa, they then say something like "I know this because my losses are only 20-30% per year, which is the same as some beekeepers I know who treat their bees".



I don't really know how to answer that question as I am unclear what "full on commercial bees" are. I don't buy bees, or queens. But I would be prepared to bet that if we put 10 of my colonies next to 10 of your colonies, mine would last longer as they would start from a lower varroa load, and I am sceptical that you have achieved any level of varroa resistance at all, based on the numbers you have provided. Sorry.

I can see that you're very sceptical so I would ask: have you tried hygienic/VSH bees? What gives you such a strong view?

 

[Ian123]

The very fact that a lot of Nucs/splits are made is a form of varroa reduction so whilst treatment free not entirely management free, a point often forgotten. As for a comparison with commercial bees. Most of the large breeders or breeding groups are selecting for vsh traits and including these in bees they provide. You stand every chance in finding they would out preform yours. This guys got some available https://www.buckfast-zucht.de/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/2020-orderform.pdf......I am sure B+ has some carnica breeders that provide commercial queens with vsh tendencies in his group. Itld also has vsh bees available. How bad are those commercial beee now. Ian

 

[Beesnaturally]

The fact that you have some nucs? Sorry, but I am not sure that is 100% the reason. Many people overwinter nucs with a very high survival rate, snug in poly boxes.

Sure they do. But if you had read what I said you would know that making and overwintering nucs has been a learning process for me. And so they have failed often, and dragged down my overwintering figures... and my failure rates should be read in that light. However, that is a detail.

First: not reading, or ignoring what somebody has written cannot lead to productive dialogue. It leaves the impression you are just looking for a stick to beat me with. That's not the sort of conversation I'm willing to have. Accordingly I have not read the rest of your post, and won't read anything further from you without assurance that you want to talk honestly and reasonably.

Now: you seem to misunderstand the whole point of 'live and let die'. The idea is _not_ to keep alive every colony (thereby achieving low losses), but to create a setting in which the weak _will_ die. You _expect_ high losses to begin with, and as rates fall, within that setting, and in the context of zero treatment or mollycoddling, you know things are working.

You don't expect to to record the sort of low losses a skilled beekeeper, attentive to the goal of achieving zero losses could achieve. Losses are a measure of progress within the system, not an end in itself.

However: I didn't write here to teach you about live and let die. I wrote to point out to whomever it was I responded to in the first place that not selecting skillfully will result in ill health; because that's the way things work in husbandry. I expect you too already knew that.

 

[Boston Bees]

I can see that you're very sceptical so I would ask: have you tried hygienic/VSH bees?

I am pretty keen on being self-sufficient in queens to be honest, and haven't purchased any in years. My focus is on queens that demonstrate an ability to thrive in the conditions where I live. I don't insist that they can survive varroa unaided anymore than I would insist that my dog could survive chronic worms or (if I was a farmer) that my sheep and cows could survive whatever godawful parasites they get infested with, unaided. But if there was a supplier local to my area, and he/she could show me evidence (as opposed to marketing) that their queens really were varroa-resistant, sure, I would give it a try. I am not holding my breath though.

 

[Boston Bees]

Accordingly I have not read the rest of your post

OK. Probably best we just leave it there then. Best of luck with everything.

 

[B+.]

I am pretty keen on being self-sufficient in queens to be honest, and haven't purchased any in years. My focus is on queens that demonstrate an ability to thrive in the conditions where I live. I don't insist that they can survive varroa unaided anymore than I would insist that my dog could survive chronic worms or (if I was a farmer) that my sheep and cows could survive whatever godawful parasites they get infested with, unaided. But if there was a supplier local to my area, and he/she could show me evidence (as opposed to marketing) that their queens really were varroa-resistant, sure, I would give it a try. I am not holding my breath though.

There is an ethical dimension here which I don't think you're acknowledging: what you call "self-sufficiency" is really a sort of passive acceptance of what your neighbours provide. Self-sufficiency would be if you did the work to develop the trait yourself. What you're describing is taking advantage of the "free" (to you) resource that your neighbour is providing. It isn't free, your neighbour will have invested in that stock, wherever he got it from (or, perhaps, worked to develop) over many years. You are just taking it for free.
I hear this "local bee" nonsense all the time. The myth that desirable traits suddenly materialise out of thin air irrespective of the neighbour who's been steadily working on improving his bees for years.
Ruttner talked about the same thing during 1970s/80s Germany (Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee). Now, they have the best breeding system in Europe.

 

[pargyle]

Well that's modern 'research' for you
It's not about the pursuit of knowledge nowadays -
it's all about the pursuit and harvesting of funding.

And sponsorship from Specsavers ....

 

[mbc]

There is an ethical dimension here which I don't think you're acknowledging: what you call "self-sufficiency" is really a sort of passive acceptance of what your neighbours provide. Self-sufficiency would be if you did the work to develop the trait yourself. What you're describing is taking advantage of the "free" (to you) resource that your neighbour is providing. It isn't free, your neighbour will have invested in that stock, wherever he got it from (or, perhaps, worked to develop) over many years. You are just taking it for free.
I hear this "local bee" nonsense all the time. The myth that desirable traits suddenly materialise out of thin air irrespective of the neighbour who's been steadily working on improving his bees for years.
Ruttner talked about the same thing during 1970s/80s Germany (Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee). Now, they have the best breeding system in Europe.

Conversely, something you've been unwilling to acknowledge is that pretty much all beekeepers who are self sufficient in queens also do a bit of breeding along the way, in that they select their favourite mothers and get rid of the undesirables when they show their hand, it pushes populations in certain directions as evidenced by many long time beekeepers developing their own strains despite relying on open mating.

 

[Boston Bees]

Conversely, something you've been unwilling to acknowledge is that pretty much all beekeepers who are self sufficient in queens also do a bit of breeding along the way, in that they select their favourite mothers and get rid of the undesirables when they show their hand, it pushes populations in certain directions as evidenced by many long time beekeepers developing their own strains despite relying on open mating.

Yes, this.

 

[B+.]

Conversely, something you've been unwilling to acknowledge is that pretty much all beekeepers who are self sufficient in queens also do a bit of breeding along the way, in that they select their favourite mothers and get rid of the undesirables when they show their hand, it pushes populations in certain directions as evidenced by many long time beekeepers developing their own strains despite relying on open mating.

Most beekeepers don't do any breeding at all. They trust to luck - just as you are doing with maternal selection. That isn't breeding.

 

[Boston Bees]

There is an ethical dimension here which I don't think you're acknowledging: what you call "self-sufficiency" is really a sort of passive acceptance of what your neighbours provide. Self-sufficiency would be if you did the work to develop the trait yourself. What you're describing is taking advantage of the "free" (to you) resource that your neighbour is providing. It isn't free, your neighbour will have invested in that stock, wherever he got it from (or, perhaps, worked to develop) over many years. You are just taking it for free.

Actually I live in dread of what is flying over from nearby apiaries, to be honest. I suspect they are whatever cheap, warm-weather imports were available earliest in the season. There certainly aren't any "bee-breeders" living near me, so don't worry, I am not stealing their good work.

Ruttner talked about the same thing during 1970s/80s Germany (Breeding Techniques and Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee). Now, they have the best breeding system in Europe.

Do they? I have heard this said before, but I sometimes wonder if by "best" we really just mean "biggest". The Germans do like making things on production lines, but is this what we want for honey bee queens? Personally, do see the merits of open mating, given that it is the single most powerful driver of positive natural selection in beekeeping.

This may be worth a look