Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
April 17, 2014, 03:22:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: propolis benifcial to hive?  (Read 3076 times)
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2010, 01:52:17 PM »

You pick apart the pieces, in a strange way.

I probably coined the term "Mite Leveling" as seen in the following thread to label the suggestions that mites in Berry's studies were being seen as basically the same, by having two hives in the same yard, with suggestions that one hive will impact the others by "leveling" out the mites. Pure crock in my book.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214153&highlight=mite+leveling

Some interesting comments on this was posted in post 141

See also Post 173

And I think Dennis even made reference to placing an infested hive in the same yard as another, and the hives "leveled out" as some rationale to suggest this is what happened in the study.

See posts 212 and beyond.

So it's all there. I did not make up these claims or discussions. Many other conversations were based on these ideas on "mite leveling". So don't say "leveling out" was not suggested or justified for smallcell failure in the studies. It may not mean mite counts would always be the same, but it was used to suggest that smallcell failed due to mite pressure in other hives. The hive may of had some mite pressure, but still should of been lower in counts compared to large cell, if even HALF the claims that were being made about the benefits of smallcell were true.

Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2010, 02:02:18 PM »

1.  Anyone but Dennis?  I went and followed your last link to a beesource thread, and it was a wild goose chase.

2. 
Quote
And I think Dennis even made reference to placing an infested hive in the same yard as another, and the hives "leveled out" as some rationale to suggest this is what happened in the study.
This is a very different set of dynamics.  2 Treated colonies ("mite free") that are differently able to handle mite loads next to one another is essentially what jennifer used as a model.

deknow
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2010, 02:14:46 PM »

 huh

That's funny. It goes to the right thread for me. Same one I just read from 2007. It's the same thread that beemandan, who took part in the study with Berry, stated "Smallcell does not work" in post 3#.

a very interesting read for those having the time to read the whole thing.

You could also go the beesource "search" feature, and search "mite leveling" and punch in my name "BjornBee". (B's in caps) 4 posts will show. It is the bottom one.

No it is not the same what Berry did as what Dennis did. Berry started with bees of the same mite count and load in all the hives. Then over time, the mite levels remained constant in buildup. Not expected with the smallcell hives.

What Dennis did, was different, then used erroneously to suggest that "mite leveling" happened in the study. Big difference.  Wink
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2010, 07:13:43 PM »

honestly, i'm not sure what you are arguing about.

dennis is consistently the one who "mislead" you...he is always who you are referring to when you say, "all those small cell people"...it's never anyone but him.  go send him a nastygram if you feel so moved....i've seen lots of bad advice (and false facts) from LC beekeepers...none of "us" are responsible for what dennis says or said anymore than you are responsible for LC beekeepers recommending we all dump coumaphos in our hives (and i can cite that if you like).

Quote
Berry started with bees of the same mite count and load in all the hives. Then over time, the mite levels remained constant in buildup. Not expected with the smallcell hives.
why was that not expected?  i've never seen a beekeeper do that and be successful (with both bees in the same yard), and i defy you to cite an example of anyone who has.  given this fact, why would anyone (especially a scientist) expect any given outcome from a brand new experiment?  shouldn't the researcher try her best to test anecdotal success?

deknow
Logged
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13470


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2010, 08:52:13 PM »

My first mention of "mite leveling" (minus that precise terminology) was here and written back in 2005 or 2006.  Well before Jennifer's study.  I for one think Jennifer Berry is a very smart and I happen to like her a lot.  Don't know where you get this stuff.  That doesn't mean I agree with her results.  I recently added a quote to back up the concept, but the rest has been there for five years or so. 

"...some people have observed a sudden increase to thousands and thousands of mites in a short time. Part of this is, of course, all the brood emerging with more mites. But I believe the issue is also that the FGMO (and many other systems as well) manage to create a stable population of mites within the hive. In other words the mites emerging is balanced out by the mites dying. This is the object of many methods. SMR queens are queens that reduce the mites' ability to reproduce. But even if you get to a stable reproduction of mites, this does not preclude thousands of hitchhikers coming in. Using powdered sugar, small cell, FGMO or whatever that gives an edge to the bees by dislodging a proportion of the mites, or preventing the reproduction of mites and seems to work under some conditions. I believe these conditions are where there are not a significant number of mites coming into the hive from other sources...

"Conditions that cause the mites to skyrocket seem to be in the fall when the hives rob out other hives crashing from mites and bring home a lot of hitchhikers."

http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#varroa

To imply this is a recent "excuse" is simply not true.  I've been saying this all along as have others.
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2010, 09:01:13 PM »

looking over jennifer's study, a few other things come to mind:

1.  she isn't basing the study on the results or experiences of "successful beekeepers" who have used small cell (she didn't cite any anecdotal evidence from any beekeeper)...she based the study on some other academic studies.

2.  she is working on the assumption that 9-10 weeks is long enough to evaluate mite resistance.  she cites a harbo paper from 1996 (which i have not been able to find as of yet):
Harbo J.R. (1996) Evaluating colonies of honey bees
for resistance to Varroa jacobsoni, BeeScience 4,
100–105

i'd be interested to read the harbo study...but is 10 weeks (for a colony that has been treated) long enough to tell anything?  if i told you i had bees that were virtually mite free for 10 weeks, would you buy them as resistant bees?

deknow
Logged
Tommyt
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 855


Location: TampaBay Fl


« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2010, 09:10:00 PM »

I see and feel for a few of you
Being its Christmas I'll offer some help not much
but a start



Merry Christmas

Tommyt
Logged

"Not everything found on the internet is accurate"
Abraham Lincoln
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2010, 06:45:34 AM »

My first mention of "mite leveling" (minus that precise terminology) was here and written back in 2005 or 2006.  Well before Jennifer's study.  I for one think Jennifer Berry is a very smart and I happen to like her a lot.  Don't know where you get this stuff.  That doesn't mean I agree with her results.  I recently added a quote to back up the concept, but the rest has been there for five years or so.  

"...some people have observed a sudden increase to thousands and thousands of mites in a short time. Part of this is, of course, all the brood emerging with more mites. But I believe the issue is also that the FGMO (and many other systems as well) manage to create a stable population of mites within the hive. In other words the mites emerging is balanced out by the mites dying. This is the object of many methods. SMR queens are queens that reduce the mites' ability to reproduce. But even if you get to a stable reproduction of mites, this does not preclude thousands of hitchhikers coming in. Using powdered sugar, small cell, FGMO or whatever that gives an edge to the bees by dislodging a proportion of the mites, or preventing the reproduction of mites and seems to work under some conditions. I believe these conditions are where there are not a significant number of mites coming into the hive from other sources...

"Conditions that cause the mites to skyrocket seem to be in the fall when the hives rob out other hives crashing from mites and bring home a lot of hitchhikers."

http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#varroa

To imply this is a recent "excuse" is simply not true.  I've been saying this all along as have others.



Sorry, MB.

Robbing to show mite transfer is very different than the mite leveling excuse used after Berry's study came out. It's not about suggesting because mite were seen to drift in a yard, or could peak with a robbing condition. I think everyone in the bee industry has understood that for years.

We are talking about hives in the same yard, void of robbing, under controlled studies, all being relatively the same mite counts, due to the suggestion that mite transfer at a rate that one could not distinguish between a smallcell have and another standard hive.

Again, after THOUSANDS of mite counts, drastic differences CAN be seen in individual yards between different hives. Mite do transfer, but nowhere near the rate that could blow away the data and make smallcell and large cell hives all the same mite counts. If that were the case, you would see standard mite counts being the same in all yards. Beekeepers for years have tried to suggest a "threshhold" to determine which hives one should treat. That way, beekeepers could treat those needing help, and not treat the others. If mites "leveled out", it would be suggested that all hives should be treated or not treated based on one hive's mite count. And we know that not to be the case. Hive's individual abilities to handle and deal with mites are drastically different and huge differences in mite counts can be seen within the same yard. And that is why it was shocking to most, even the smallcell crowd, by the fact that the mite counts were not seen as different in the studies.  

Heck, we even seen and collected data on mite count differences between hives in shade vs sun in the same yard. Certainly we should be able to see differences between mite counts when one was supposed to inhibit mites (smallcell) and one was supposed to be a mite multiplier (large cell).

For the record MB,  Can you post when was the first time you actually used the definition of "mite leveling". Not the idea, that mites drift or infect other nearby hives by robbing, etc., but the actual use of the idea of "mite leveling", which is what was used to discredit Berry's study. Thanks. I checked beesource and found no use of the term by you till after I started using it to describe the "excuse" given to rationalize the smallcell failure in Berry's study.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 08:37:09 AM by BjornBee » Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
windfall
Guest
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2010, 09:06:12 PM »

OK....clearly you all have some history on this front and I really don't want to step into that.

Jumping back to my intial question, it seemed that you were in general agreement as to the benifit of the hive shell becoming propolized. It seemed an obvious conclusion to me but begginers need to be mighty careful about what seems obvious.
Outside of using roughsawn, what can I do to encourage this behavior....or is bee strain the only other controlling factor? (I will be getting a russian hybrid nuc from Kirk Webster)

deknow made brief mention of it "not being just one thing" in the argument you all were having....that is very much the approach I am taking as I start out...it seems unlikely that it would ever be just one thing when you talk about complex living systems. So I am looking for all the little things I can do to stack the odds in favor for my bees....that is why you all will be seeing me question small details like this, or asking about what may seem foolish practice. I can learn a lot from understanding why some obvious things are not done. 

 
Logged
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2010, 11:13:00 PM »

hi windfall,

yes, this is the kind of discussion that happens when we all agree (!!!)

it is more than just a collection of little things, management schemes are systems.  beware of taking a little of this from here, and a little of that from there...sometimes (oftentimes) something seemingly insignificant are related to other seemingly insignificant things, adding up to something signficant Smiley

it's been suggested that (assuming you aren't starting with rough hewn wood) roughing up the inside of the box (a stiff wire brush on the end of a drill?) will encourage more propolis...but high propolis production is a trait that has been largely bred out of the commercial stock.

deknow
Logged
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2010, 05:59:52 AM »

Wait till ya watch em dis-agree. Wink

thomas
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
windfall
Guest
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2010, 09:47:28 AM »

"it is more than just a collection of little things, management schemes are systems.  beware of taking a little of this from here, and a little of that from there...sometimes (oftentimes) something seemingly insignificant are related to other seemingly insignificant things, adding up to something signficant"

I understand what you are saying here. I have been trying to bear that attitude in mind as I do my homework, and try to sort through the various opinions and strategies that different keepers follow/promote.  My "problem" is that I tend to research voraciously when starting something new...and it can be difficult to assimilate all the conflicting data without personal experience yet; but it's part of the fun for me. Also I tend to be an overthinking perfectionist and I love to tinker/experiment....these traits can be a bit of a hindrance when just starting out, but hey it's just a hobby(for me). Something new to learn and enjoy...
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2010, 07:39:47 AM »

Wait till ya watch em dis-agree. Wink

thomas

And if you pay attention, you may learn something..... grin
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
VolunteerK9
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1647

Location: Southeast Tennessee

Gamecock fan in UT land.


« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2010, 08:07:31 AM »

I'm not kicking either of you guys...just want make both of you certain of that. You guys are always a good read  grin

What I see, which is totally unrelated to the OP and for that I apologize, is 2 people very passionate about their own observations and studies. If you guys were to ever reach a common ground I think that between the both of you combined with a few more here on this site, could find the cure for CCD. Hell, you guys could probably find the cure for cancer. Nothing else, it would sure make an interesting reality show on TV. Personally, I respect both opinions.
Logged
windfall
Guest
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2010, 09:19:40 AM »

My original question has been addressed. folks should carry on from here as they see fit, I wasn't trying to dictate how/where the thread lead to...not that further input from others (on the original topic) would not be appreciated.

Personally I like spirited debate between educated/experienced people...it can be pretty educational watching folks flesh out and defend their practices. But as an outsider without knowledge of the whole history of dialogue here, I will say that you guys seem pretty entrenched in your positions.
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2010, 09:41:43 AM »

I think what some don't see is the history and evolution of what has transpired over the years.

So years later when someone like myself suggests something happening years ago, many times it is just simply ignored or denied ever happening.

I mentioned awhile back how 4.9 smallcell was once referred too as "natural". And some suggested that it was never called that. But is was. And there continues to be people reading stuff referring to bees being forced to draw 4.9 foundation as being on "natural" comb.

Here is a thread started in 2005 speaking specifically on 4.9 smallcell bees. If you read post #1 and post #2, you can clearly see how smallcell was in fact referred to as "natural".

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200348&highlight=smallcell

Of course today, we refer to natural cell (even though technically wrong) as comb made by foundationless systems, where bees are allowed to draw comb based on need, etc. Which is what I have been saying for years. But it's like pulling teeth. And even today, some still refer to forcing bees to draw 4.9 foundation as "natural".

I won't even get into the other claims, in the post above, which suggests smallcell handles and deals with about everything under the sun. Which is bogus in my opinion and experience.

So yes, some of these conversations have much history behind them.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
VolunteerK9
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1647

Location: Southeast Tennessee

Gamecock fan in UT land.


« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2010, 03:13:43 PM »



So yes, some of these conversations have much history behind them.

And in the meantime, your still sporting the "Marking queens is gay' slogan  grin
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #37 on: December 23, 2010, 04:46:36 PM »



So yes, some of these conversations have much history behind them.

And in the meantime, your still sporting the "Marking queens is gay' slogan  grin

And the person who put it there, can take it down anytime they wish too!  grin
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
AllenF
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8070

Location: Hiram, Georgia


« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2010, 06:12:58 PM »

I kinda like it there.    Leave it.   Sounds like school children bickering. 

Like I don't get enough of that around the house here.     grin
Logged
Brian D. Bray
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7369


Location: Anacortes, WA 98221

I really look like this, just ask Cindi.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 24, 2010, 09:49:44 PM »

I agree with Deknow that is always more than just one thing and trying to focus research to find the "silver bullet," especially over a limited time period of just 8-10-or 12 weeks doesn't provide enough of a time period to even begin to come close to a definitive answer unless one skews the data.
With CCD it is more than just one thing, such as various contaminants from a number of sources and a beehive on one side of a bee yard might not go as far in a given direction during its foraging as a hive on the opposite side of the bee yard and, hence, not be exposed to a forage source that might provide the tipping point to produce what is called CCD, when all other things are more or less the same.  I don't think they are going to come to a definitive answer on CCD until they can duplicate the same exact conditions as to pest infestations, weather, forage (where and what), and same number and type of bee hives for several years in a row let a lone 10 weeks.

I've been beekeeping for over 50 years and I still make observations on things I hadn't noticed before, so using a restricted time frame to prove a theory when such time can hardly identify the obstacles in the way of the theory is a bunch of bunk, IMO. 

Now I well agree that one way to help an ailing hive over the hump is to feed it propolis collected from its neighboring hives and maybe even steal a frame of honey/pollen/brood from one or more of the hives as well. 

I have come to the opinion that the use of breeder queens is not necessary and might be counter productive.  I can find no evidence, nor have I observed any, that would indicate that manufacturing grafted queens cells from the eggs of a breeder queen produces better queens than those chosen and nurtured by the bees themselves.  Just the opposite, I will take a bee selected queen over a grafted queen any day of the week.  I trust the bees to select a better egg candidate then I ever could except on a purely random basis.
Logged

Life is a school.  What have you learned?   Brian      The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.53 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page February 18, 2014, 10:09:59 AM