Category Archives: Principles

Measles, mites and anti-vaxxers

About 11,000 years ago nomadic hunter-gatherers living near the river Tigris discovered they could collect the seeds from wild grasses and, by scattering them around on the bare soil, reduce the distance they had to travel to collect more grain the following year.

This was the start of the agricultural revolution.

They couldn’t do much more than clear the ground of competing ‘weeds’ and throw out handfuls of collected seed. The plough wasn’t invented for a further 6,000 years and wouldn’t have been much use anyway as they had no means of dragging it through the baked-hard soil.

But they could grow enough grains and cereals to settle down, doing less hunting and more gathering. Some grains grew better than others, with ‘ears’ that remained intact when they were picked, making harvesting easier. The neophyte farmers preferentially selected these and, about 10,000 years ago, the first domesticated wheat was produced.

Einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), one of the first domesticated cereals

Since they were less nomadic and more dependent upon the annual grain harvest they took increasing care to protect it. They were helped with this by the hunting dogs domesticated from wolves several thousands years earlier. The dogs protected the crops and kept the wild animals, primarily big, cloven-hooved ungulates and the native wild sheep and goats, at a distance.

But those that got too close were trapped and were remarkably good to eat.

And since it was easier to keep animals penned up to avoid the need to actively hunt them it was inevitable that sheep and goats were eventually domesticated (~9,000 years ago) … and the nomadic hunter-gatherers became settled farmers practising recognisably mixed agriculture.

Domestication of cattle

The sheep and goats were a bit weak and scrawny. The large ungulates, the aurochs, gaur, banteng, yak and buffalo 1 had a lot more meat on them.

Inevitably, first aurochs (which are now extinct) and then other wild ungulates, were independently domesticated to produce the cattle still farmed today. This process started about 8,000 years ago.

Auroch bull (left) and modern domesticated bull (right). Auroch were big, strong (tasty) animals.

Cattle were great. Not only did they taste good, but they could be managed to produce milk and were strong enough to act as beasts of burden.

The plough was invented and crop yields improved dramatically because the grain germinated better in the cleared, tilled soil. Loosely knit families and groups started to build settled communities in the most fertile regions.

Bigger farms supported more people. Scattered dwellings coalesced and became villages.

Not everyone needed to farm the land. The higher yields (of grain and meat) allowed a division of labour. Some people could help defend the crops from marauders from neighbouring villages, some focused on weaving wool (from the sheep) into textiles while others taught the children the skills they would need as adults.

Communities got larger and villages expanded to form towns.

Zoonotic diseases

Hunter-gatherers had previously had relatively limited contact with animals 2. In contrast, the domestication of dogs, sheep, goats and cattle put humans in daily contact with animals.

Many of these animals carried diseases that were unknown in the human population. The so-called zoonotic diseases jumped species and infected humans.

There’s a direct relationship between the length of time a species has been domesticated and the number of diseases we share with it.

Domestication and shared zoonotic diseases (years, X-axis)

The emergence of new diseases requires that the pathogen has both the opportunity to jump from one species to another and that the recipient species (humans in this case) transmits the disease effectively from individual to individual.

The nomadic hunter-gatherers had been exposed to many of these diseases as well but, even if they had jumped species, their communities were too small and dispersed to support extensive human-to-human transmission.

Rinderpest and measles

Until relatively recently rinderpest was the scourge of wild and domesticated cattle across much of the globe. Rinderpest is a virus that causes a wide range of severe symptoms in cattle (and wild animals such as warthog, giraffe and antelope) including fever, nasal and eye discharges, diarrhoea and, eventually, death. In naÏve populations the case fatality rate approaches 100%.

Rinderpest outbreak in South Africa, 1896

Animals that survive infection are protected for life by the resulting immune response.

Rinderpest is closely related to canine distemper virus and measles virus. Virologically they are essentially the same virus that has evolved to be specific for humans (measles), dogs (canine distemper) or cattle (rinderpest).

Measles evolved from rinderpest, probably 1,500 to 2,000 years ago, and became a human disease.

Rinderpest was almost certainly transmitted repeatedly from cattle to humans in the 6,000 years since auroch or banteng were domesticated. However, the virus failed to establish an endemic infection in the human population as the communities were too small.

However, by about 1,500 – 2,000 years ago the largest towns had populations of ~250,000 people. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that you need a population of this size to produce enough naÏve hosts (i.e. babies) a year to maintain the disease within the population.

This is because, like rinderpest, measles induces lifelong immunity in individuals that survive infection.

Measles is a devastating disease in an unprotected community. Case fatality rates of 10-30% or higher are not unusual. It is also highly infectious, spreading very widely in the community 3. Survivors may suffer brain damage or a range of other serious sequelae.

Measles subsequently changed the course of history, being partially responsible (along with smallpox) for Cortés’ defeat of the Aztec empire in the 16th Century.

John Enders, Maurice Hilleman and Andrew Wakefield

In the late 1950’s John Enders developed an attenuated live measles vaccine. When administered it provided long-lasting protection. It was an excellent vaccine. Maurice Hilleman, in the early 1970’s combined an improved strain of the measles vaccine with vaccines for mumps and rubella to create the MMR vaccine.

Widespread use of the measles and MMR vaccines dramatically reduced the incidence of measles – in the UK from >500,000 cases a year to a few thousand.

Incidence of measles in England and Wales

If vaccine coverage of 92% of the population is achieved then the disease is eradicated from the community. This is due to so-called ‘herd immunity’ 4 in which there are insufficient naÏve individuals for the disease to be maintained in the population.

Measles cases (and deaths) continued to fall everywhere the vaccine was used.

There was a realistic possibility that the vaccines would – like rinderpest 5 – allow the global eradication of measles.

And then in 1986 Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the Lancet suggesting a causative link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children.

Subsequent studies showed that this was a deeply flawed and biased study. And totally wrong.

There is not and never was a link between autism and measles vaccination 6. But that didn’t stop a largely uncritical press and subsequently even less critical social media picking up the story and disseminating it widely.

Measles and the anti-vaccine movement

Measles vaccination rates dropped because a subset of parents refused to have their kids vaccinated with the ‘dangerous’ measles vaccine.

Several successive birth cohorts had significantly lower than optimal vaccination rates. Measles vaccine coverage dropped to 84% by 2002 in the UK, with regional levels (e.g. parts of London) being as low as 61%. By 2006, twenty years after the thoroughly discredited (and now retracted) Lancet paper vaccine rates were still hovering around the mid-80% level.

As immunisation rates dropped below the critical threshold, measles started to circulate again in the population. 56 cases in 1998 to ~450 in the first 6 months of 2006. In that year there was also the first death from measles for many years – an entirely avoidable tragedy.

In 2008 measles was again declared endemic (i.e. circulating in the population) in the UK.

Similar increases in measles, mumps and rubella were occurring across the globe in countries where these diseases were unknown for a generation due to previous widespread vaccination.

The distrust of the MMR vaccine was triggered by the Wakefield paper but is part of a much wider ‘anti-vaccination movement‘.

“Vaccines are dangerous, vaccines themselves cause disease, there are too many vaccines and the immune system is overloaded, vaccines contain preservatives (thiomersal) that are toxic, vaccines cause sterility etc.”

None of these claims stand up to even rudimentary scientific scrutiny.

All have been totally debunked by very extensive scientific analysis.

The World Health Organisation consider the anti-vaccine movement (anti-vaxxers) one of the top ten threats to global health. Vaccination levels are lower than they need to be to protect the population. Diseases – not just measles – that should be almost eradicated now kill children every year.

Where are the bees in this beekeeping blog?

Bear with me … before getting to the bees I want to move from fact (all of the above) to fantasy. The following few paragraphs (fortunately) has not happened (and to emphasise the point it is all italicised). However, it is no more illogical than the claims already being made by the anti-vaccine movement.

Childhood measles

The inexorable rise of internet misinformation and social media strengthened the anti-vaxxers beliefs further. Their claims that vaccines damage the vaccinees were so widespread and, for the uncritical, naturally suspicious or easily influenced who simply wanting to protect their kids, so persuasive that vaccine rates dropped further. They refused to consider the scientific arguments for the benefits of vaccines, and refused to acknowledge the detrimental effects diseases were having on the community.

The obvious causative link to the inevitable increase in disease rates was not missed – by both the anti-vaxxers and those promoting vaccination. However, the solutions each side chose were very different. Measles remained of particular concern as kids were now regularly dying from this once near-forgotten disease. The symptoms were very obvious and outbreaks spread like wildfire in the absence of herd-immunity 7.

The anti-vaxxers were aware that population size was a key determinant of the ability of measles to be maintained in the population. Small populations, such as those on islands or in very isolated regions, had too few new births annually to maintain measles as an endemic disease.

With the increase in remote working – enabled by the same thing (the internet) responsible for lots of the vaccine misinformation – groups of anti-vaxxers started to establish remote closed communities. Contact with the outside world was restricted, as was the size of the community itself.

A quarter of a million was the cutoff … any more than that and there was a chance that measles could get established in the unprotected population.

Small communities 8 work very well for some things, but very badly for others. Efficiencies of scale, in education, industry, farming and trade became a problem, leading to increased friction. When disease did occur in these unprotected communities it wreaked havoc. Countless numbers of people suffered devastating disease because of the lack of vaccination.

In due course this led to further fragmentation of the groups. They lived apart, leading isolated lives, flourishing in good years but struggling (or failing completely) when times were hard, or when disease was introduced. Some communities died out altogether. 

They chose not to travel because, being unvaccinated, they were susceptible to diseases that were widespread in the environment. Movement and contact between villages, hamlets and then individual farm settlements was restricted further over time.

The benefits of large communities, the division of labour, the economies and efficiencies of scale, were all lost.

They didn’t even enjoy particularly good health.

They had ‘evolved’ into subsistence farmers … again.

OK, that’s enough! Where are the bees?

Anyone who has bothered to read this far and who read Darwinian beekeeping last week will realise that this is meant to be allegorical.

The introduction of Varroa to the honey bee population resulted from the globalisation of beekeeping as an activity, and the consequent juxtaposing of Apis mellifera with Apis cerana colonies.

Without beekeepers it is unlikely that the species jump would have occurred.

Apis cerana worker

Undoubtedly once the jump had occurred transmission of mites between colonies was facilitated by beekeepers keeping colonies close together. We do this for convenience and for the delivery of effective pollination services.

The global spread of mites has been devastating for the honey bee population, for wild bees and for beekeeping.

But (like the introduction to measles in humans) it is an irreversible event.

However, it’s an irreversible event that, by use of effective miticides, can at least be partially mitigated.

Miticides do not do long-term harm to honey bees in the same way that vaccines don’t overload the immune response or introduce toxins or cause autism.

There can be short term side effects – Apiguard stinks and often stops the queen laying. Dribbled oxalic acid damages open brood.

But the colony benefits overall.

Many of the miticides now available are organic acids, acceptable in organic farming and entirely natural (even being part of our regular diet). Some of the hard chemicals used (e.g. the lipid-soluble pyrethroids in Apistan) may accumulate in comb, but I’d argue that there are more effective miticides that should be used instead (e.g. Apivar).

I’m not aware that there is any evidence that miticides ‘weaken’ colonies or individual bees. There’s no suggestion that miticide treatment makes a colony more susceptible to other diseases like the foulbroods or Nosema.

Of course, miticides are not vaccines (though vaccines are being developed) – they are used transiently and provide short to medium term protection from the ravages of the mite and the viruses it transmits.

By the time they are needed again the only bee likely to have been previously exposed is the queen. They benefit the colony and they indirectly benefit the environment. The colony remains strong and healthy, with a populous worker community available for nectar-gathering and pollination.

The much reduced mite load in the colony protects the environment. Mites cannot be spread far and wide when bees drift or through robbing. Other honey bee colonies sharing the environment therefore also benefit.

The genie is out of the bottle and will not go back

Beekeepers (inadvertently) created the Varroa problem and they will not solve it by stopping treatment. Varroa will remain in the environment, in feral colonies and in the stocks of beekeepers who choose to continue treating their colonies.

And in the many colonies of Apis mellifera still kept in the area that overlaps the natural (and currently expanding) range of Apis cerana.

Treatment-free beekeepers may be able to select colonies with partial resistance or tolerance to Varroa, but the mite will remain.

So perhaps the answer is to ban treatment altogether?

What would happen if no colonies anywhere were treated with miticides? What if all beekeepers followed the principles of Darwinian (bee-centric, bee friendly, ‘natural’) beekeeping – well-spaced colonies, allowed to swarm freely, killed off if mite levels become dangerously high – were followed?

Surely you’d end up with resistant stocks?

Yes … possibly … but at what cost?

Commercial beekeeping would stop. Honey would become even scarcer than it already is 9. Pollination contracts would be abandoned. The entire $5bn/yr Californian almond crop would fail, as would numerous other commercial agricultural crops that rely upon pollination by honey bees. There would be major shortages in the food supply chain. Less fruits, more cereals.

Pollination and honey production require strong, healthy populous colonies … and the published evidence indicates that naturally mite resistant/tolerant colonies are small, swarmy and only exist at low density in the environment.

Like the anti-vaxxers opting to live as isolated subsistence farmers again, we would lose an awful lot for the highly questionable ‘benefits’ brought by abandoning treatment.

And like the claims made by the anti-vaxxers, in my view the detrimental consequences of treating colonies with miticides are nebulous and unlikely to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Does anyone seriously suggest we should abandon vaccination and select a resistant strain of humans that are better able to tolerate measles?


Notes

It is an inauspicious day … Friday the 13th (unlucky for some) with a global pandemic of a new zoonotic viral disease threatening millions. As I write this the UK government is gradually imposing restrictions on movement and meetings. Governments across Europe have already established draconian regional or even national movement bans. Other countries, most notably the USA and Africa, have tested so few people that the extent of Covid-19 is completely unknown, though the statistics of cases/deaths looks extremely serious.

What’s written above is allegorical … and crudely so in places. It seemed an appropriate piece for the current situation. The development of our globalised society has exposed us – and our livestock – to a range of new diseases. We cannot ‘turn the clock back’ without dissasembling what created these new opportunities for pathogens in the first place. And there are knock-on consequences if we did that many do not properly consider.

Keep washing your hands, self-isolate when (not if) necessary, practise social distancing (no handshakes) and remember that your bees are not at risk. There are no coronaviruses of honey bees.

Darwinian beekeeping

A fortnight ago I reviewed the first ten chapters of Thomas Seeley’s recent book The Lives of Bees. This is an excellent account of how honey bees survive in ‘the wild’ i.e. without help or intervention from beekeepers.

Seeley demonstrates an all-too-rare rare combination of good experimental science with exemplary communication skills.

It’s a book non-beekeepers could appreciate and in which beekeepers will find a wealth of entertaining and informative observations about their bees.

The final chapter, ‘Darwinian beekeeping’, includes an outline of practical beekeeping advice based around what Seeley (and others) understand about how colonies survive in the wild.

Differences

The chapter starts with a very brief review of about twenty differences between wild-living and managed colonies. These differences have already been introduced in the preceding chapters and so are just reiterated here to set the scene for what follows.

The differences defined by Seeley as distinguishing ‘wild’ and ‘beekeepers’ colonies cover everything from placement in the wider landscape (forage, insecticides), the immediate environment of the nest (volume, insulation), the management of the colony (none, invasive) and the parasites and pathogens to which the bees are exposed.

Some of the differences identified are somewhat contrived. For example, ‘wild’ colonies are defined fixed in a single location, whereas managed colonies may be moved to exploit alternative forage.

In reality I suspect the majority of beekeepers do not move their colonies. Whether this is right or not, Seeley presents moving colonies as a negative. He qualifies this with studies which showed reduced nectar gathering by colonies that are moved, presumably due to the bees having to learn about their new location.

However, the main reason beekeepers move colonies is to exploit abundant sources of nectar. Likewise, a static ‘wild’ colony may have to find alternative forage when a particularly good local source dries up.

If moving colonies to exploit a rich nectar source did not usually lead to increased nectar gathering it would be a pretty futile exercise.

Real differences

Of course, some of the differences are very real.

Beekeepers site colonies close together to facilitate their management. In contrast, wild colonies are naturally hundreds of metres apart 1. I’ve previously discussed the influence of colony separation and pathogen transmission 2; it’s clear that widely spaced colonies are less susceptible to drifting and robbing from adjacent hives, both processes being associated with mite and virus acquisition 3.

Abelo poly hives

50 metres? … I thought you said 50 centimetres. Can we use the next field as well?

The other very obvious difference is that wild colonies are not treated with miticides but managed colonies (generally) are. As a consequence – Seeley contends – beekeepers have interfered with the ‘arms race’ between the host and its parasites and pathogens. Effectively beekeepers have ‘weaken[ed] the natural selection for disease resistance’.

Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with this general statement, I am not convinced that simply letting natural selection run its (usually rather brutal) course is a rational strategy.

But I’m getting ahead of myself … what is Darwinian beekeeping?

Darwinian beekeeping

Evolution is probably the most powerful force in nature. It has created all of the fantastic wealth of life forms on earth – from the tiniest viroid to to the largest living thing, Armillaria ostoyae 4. The general principles of Darwinian evolution are exquisitely simple – individuals of a species are not identical; traits are passed from generation to generation; more offspring are born than can survive; and only the survivors of the competition for resources will reproduce.

I emphasised ‘survivors of the competition’ as it’s particularly relevant to what is to follow. In terms of hosts and pathogens, you could extend this competition to include whether the host survives the pathogen (and so reproduces) or whether the pathogen replicates and spreads, but in doing so kills the host.

Remember that evolution is unpredictable and essentially directionless … we don’t know what it is likely to produce next.

Seeley doesn’t provide a precise definition of Darwinian beekeeping (which he also terms natural, apicentric or beefriendly beekeeping). However, it’s basically the management of colonies in a manner that more closely resembles how colonies live in the wild.

This is presumably unnnatural beekeeping

In doing so, he claims that colonies will have ‘less stressful and therefore more healthful’ lives.

I’ll come back to this point at the end. It’s an important one. But first, what does Darwinian mean in terms of practical beekeeping?

Practical Darwinian beekeeping

Having highlighted the differences between wild and managed colonies you won’t be surprised to learn that Darwinian beekeeping means some 5 or all of the following: 6

  • Keep locally adapted bees – eminently sensible and for which there is increasing evidence of the benefits.
  • Space colonies widely (30-50+ metres) – which presumably causes urban beekeepers significant problems.
  • Site colonies in an area with good natural forage that is not chemically treated – see above.
  • Use small hives with just one brood box and one super – although not explained, this will encourage swarming.
  • Consider locating hives high off the ground – in fairness Seeley doesn’t push this one strongly, but I could imagine beekeepers being considered for a Darwin Award if sufficient care wasn’t taken.
  • Allow lots of drone brood – this occurs naturally when using foundationless frames.
  • Use splits and the emergency queen response for queen rearing i.e. allow the colony to choose larvae for the preparation of new queens – I’ve discussed splits several times and have recently posted on the interesting observation that colonies choose very rare patrilines for queens.
  • Refrain from treating with miticides – this is the biggy. Do not treat colonies. Instead kill any colonies with very high mite levels to prevent them infesting other nearby colonies as they collapse and are robbed out.

Good and not so good advice

A lot of what Seeley recommends is very sound advice. Again, I’m not going to paraphrase his hard work – you should buy the book and make your own mind up.

Sourcing local bees, using splits to make increase, housing bees in well insulated hives etc. all works very well.

High altitude bait hive …

Some of the advice is probably impractical, like the siting of hives 50 metres apart. A full round of inspections in my research apiary already takes a long time without having to walk a kilometre to the furthest hive.

The prospect of inspecting hives situated at altitude is also not appealing. Negotiating stairs with heavy supers is bad enough. In my travels I’ve met beekeepers keeping hives on shed roofs, accessed by a wobbly step ladder. An accident waiting to happen?

And finally, I think the advice to use small hives and to cull mite-infested colonies is poor. I understand the logic behind both suggestions but, for different reasons, think they are likely to be to the significant detriment of bees, bee health and beekeeping.

Let’s deal with them individually.

Small hives – one brood and one super

When colonies run out of space for the queen to lay they are likely to swarm. The Darwinian beekeeping proposed by Seeley appears to exclude any form of swarm prevention strategy. Hive manipulation is minimal and queens are not clipped.

They’ll run out of space and swarm.

Even my darkest, least prolific colonies need more space than the ~60 litres offered by a brood and super.

Seeley doesn’t actually say ‘allow them to swarm’, but it’s an inevitability of the management and space available. Of course, the reason he encourages it is (partly – there are other reasons) to shed the 35% of mites and to give an enforced brood break to the original colony as it requeens.

These are untreated colonies. At least when starting the selection strategy implicit in Darwinian beekeeping these are likely to have a very significant level of mite infestation.

These mites, when the colony swarms, disappear over the fence with the swarm. If the swarm survives long enough to establish a new nest it will potentially act as a source of mites far and wide (through drifting and robbing, and possibly – though it’s unlikely as it will probably die – when it subsequently swarms).

A small swarm

A small swarm … possibly riddled with mites

Thanks a lot!

Lost swarms – and the assumption is that many are ‘lost’ – choose all sorts of awkward locations to establish a new nest site. Sure, some may end up in hollow trees, but many cause a nuisance to non-beekeepers and additional work for the beekeepers asked to recover them.

In my view allowing uncontrolled swarming of untreated colonies is irresponsible. It is to the detriment of the health of bees locally and to beekeepers and beekeeping.

Kill heavily mite infested colonies

How many beekeepers reading this have deliberately killed an entire colony? Probably not many. It’s a distressing thing to have to do for anyone who cares about bees.

The logic behind the suggestion goes like this. The colony is heavily mite infested because it has not developed resistance (or tolerance). If it is allowed to collapse it will be robbed out by neighbouring colonies, spreading the mites far and wide. Therefore, tough love is needed. Time for the petrol, soapy water, insecticide or whatever your choice of colony culling treatment.

In fairness to Seeley he also suggests that you could requeen with known mite-resistant/tolerant stock.

But most beekeepers tempted by Darwinian ‘treatment free’ natural beekeeping will not have a queen bank stuffed with known mite-resistant mated queens ‘ready to go’.

But they also won’t have the ‘courage’ to kill the colony.

They’ll procrastinate, they’ll prevaricate.

Eventually they’ll either decide that shaking the colony out is OK and a ‘kinder thing to do’ … or the colony will get robbed out before they act and carpet bomb every strong colony for a mile around.

Killing the colony, shaking it out or letting it get robbed out have the same overall impact on the mite-infested colony, but only slaying them prevents the mites from being spread far and wide.

And, believe me, killing a colony is a distressing thing to do if you care about bees.

In my view beefriendly beekeeping should not involve slaughtering the colony.

Less stress and better health

This is the goal of Darwinian beekeeping. It is a direct quote from final chapter of the book (pp286).

The suggestion is that unnatural beekeeping – swarm prevention and control, mite management, harvesting honey (or beekeeping as some people call it 😉 ) – stresses the bees.

And that this stress is detrimental for the health of the bees.

I’m not sure there’s any evidence that this is the case.

How do we measure stress in bees? Actually, there are suggested ways to measure stress in bees, but I’m not sure anyone has systematically developed these experimentally and compared the stress levels of wild-living and managed colonies.

I’ll explore this topic a bit more in the future.

I do know how to measure bee health … at least in terms of the parasites and pathogens they carry. I also know that there have been comparative studies of managed and feral colonies.

Unsurprisingly for an unapologetic unnatural beekeeper like me ( 😉 ), the feral colonies had higher levels of parasites and pathogens (Catherine Thompson’s PhD thesis [PDF] and Thompson et al., 2014 Parasite Pressures on Feral Honey Bees). By any measurable definition these feral colonies were less healthy.

Less stress and better health sounds good, but I’m not actually sure it’s particularly meaningful.

I’ll wrap up with two closing thoughts.

One of the characteristics of a healthy and unstressed population is that it is numerous, productive and reproduces well. These are all characteristics of strong and well-managed colonies.

Finally, persistently elevated levels of pathogens are detrimental to the individual and the population. It’s one of the reasons we vaccinate … which will be a big part of the post next week.


 

Which is the best … ?

It’s (slowly) approaching the start of the beekeeping season.

From draughty church halls across the land newly trained beekeepers are emerging (or eclosing, to use the correct term), blurry-eyed from studying their Thorne’s catalogues, desperate to get their hands on some bees and start their weekly inspections.

Their enthusiasm is palpable 1.

The start of the beekeeping season, any season, after the long winter is always a good time. Longer days, better weather, more light 🙂 . For current beekeepers we can stop fretting over stores or winter losses. The long days with plentiful forage are getting nearer. We’ll soon be doing inspections in our shirtsleeves and thinking about swarm prevention.

New beekeepers, those who haven’t had to worry about Storm Ciara wrecking their apiaries or subsequent flooding washing hives away, simply want to get started as soon as possible.

Moving to higher ground ...

Moving to higher ground …

But, of course, they want to do things properly.

They don’t want to cut corners, they don’t want to skimp or make false economies. They want the best for their (as yet, non-existent) bees.

They’re committed and serious and determined to make a success of beekeeping … and get a great honey crop.

It needs to be great as they’ve already ‘promised away’ half of it to friends and family 🙂

Which is the best …?

If you look on the online beekeeping discussion fora, or questions to the BBKA Q&A monthly column or listen to discussions at local association meetings, many start with the words “Which is the best …”.

Which is the best hive, the best strain of bees, the best fuel for your smoker etc.

These questions reflect a couple of things:

  1. A lack of experience coupled with an enthusiasm to properly care for their charges.
  2. The generally misguided belief that these things make any substantive difference to the welfare or productivity of the bees.

Neither of these are criticisms.

All beekeepers should want the best for their bees.

Inexperienced beekeepers don’t know what works and what does not work, but they want to ensure that – whatever they do – the bees do not suffer (or fail to thrive).

They want the best bees, presumably defined as those that are calm, frugal, populous and productive and they want the best hive so these bees are warm enough in winter and cool enough in summer, or have enough space, or are easiest to manipulate, or best resembles a tree trunk.

And the smoker fuel should be the best so that it’s easy to light, never goes out and calms the bees quickly.

The best smoker fuel

Logic dictates that if there was a ‘best’ smoker fuel then almost everyone would be using it.

The septuagenarian ‘expert’ with 50 years experience would have said “Stuff your smoker with XYZ” when describing hive inspections on the beginners course. Other experienced beekeepers around the room would nod sagely and that would be the end of the matter.

If a beginner were to ask “Why don’t you use hessian rather than XYZ?” over a cuppa and a digestive afterwards there would be an awkward silence and a simple “Because XYZ is the best smoker fuel you can use” response.

The group would then move on to talk about something else.

Fuel bucket

XYZ …

And that happens … precisely never.

What actually happens is that eight beekeepers (with varying levels of expertise) contribute eleven different opinions of their personal view of the ‘best’ smoker fuel.

The only thing vaguely in common in these opinions is that some of the recommended fuels burn.

Note that I said ‘some’ 😉

The point I’m trying to make is that the ‘best’ smoker fuel does not exist. It’s what works for you when you need it … dried horse manure (yes, really), grass, wood chips, Thorne’s cardboard packaging, rotten dried wood etc.

It’s what’s in your bag, it’s what you carefully collected last month, it’s what you find in the car glove compartment when you can’t find anything else.

If it burns – ideally slowly and gently – producing good amounts of smoke, if it’s easy to light, light to carry, stays lit and is available when you need it, it’ll do.

The best hive

I’ve previously discussed the ridiculously wide range of hives and frames available to UK beekeepers.

Knowing that, or spending just half an hour perusing the Thorne’s catalogue, shows that there is clearly no ‘best’ hive. Any, and probably all, of the hives work perfectly satisfactorily. In the right conditions and with sympathetic and careful beekeeping all are capable of housing a colony securely and productively.

It’s the hive type that is compatible with those used by your mentor 2, it’s the type you have a stack of in the corner of the shed, it’s what you can borrow at short notice when you’ve run out of broods or supers.

It’s what’s available in the end of season sales or it’s what you started with (or your mother started with) and it ‘just works’.

If there was a best hive type, or hive tool or smoker fuel the Thorne’s catalogue would be about 3 pages long.

It’s not, it’s approaching 100 pages in length, with 12 pages of hive types alone (including a nice looking Layens hive). The 2020 catalogue has even more hive tools than the seventeen I counted in 2019 🙁

If there’s no ‘best’, will anything do?

Just because there might not be the perfect hive, smoker fuel or hive tool does not mean that it doesn’t matter what you use.

There are some that are unsuitable.

Smoker fuel that doesn’t stay lit, or that burns too fiercely. Hive tools with blunt edges, or that rust badly and are difficult to sterilise, or that bend 3. Hives with incorrect dimensions, ill-fitting floors, overly fussy designs or a host of other undesirable ‘features’.

Just because there’s no single best whatever definitely does not mean that anything will do.

Anthropocentrism

But, before we move on, note that all the things I used to define a smoker fuel or hive as ‘the best’ were anthropocentric 4 criteria.

It’s what suits us as beekeepers.

And, since there are a wide range of beekeepers (by education, age, height, intellect, shoe size, strength, wealth, petty likes and dislikes etc.) there is inevitably a very wide choice of stuff for beekeeping.

Which also emphasises the irrelevance of the ‘best type of ‘ question.

The full version of the question is “Which is the best type of hive tool for beekeepers” 5.

But what’s best for the bees?

None, or any, of the above.

Clearly no single hive tool is better than any other as far as the bees are concerned.

Take your pick ...

The bees do not care …

Likewise, as long as the smoker fuel generates cool, not-too-acrid, smoke, as far as the bees are concerned it’s just smoke. It masks the smell of the alarm pheromones and encourages the bees to gorge on honey, so they remain calm. Used judiciously, which is nothing to do with the fuel and everything to do with the beekeeper, one type of smoker fuel should be as good as any other.

And the same thing applies to hives. Assuming they’re secure, wind and watertight, large enough to fill with stores, have a defendable entrance and proper bee space around the frames, they’ll suit the bees perfectly well.

Think about the trees that wild-living bees naturally choose … do they prefer oak or lime, tall chimney-like cavities or largely spherical hollows?

Oak … preferred by bees. Or not.

Do they do better in one species of tree over another, one shape of space over another?

No.

Doing better …

How do we tell if the bees are ‘doing better’ anyway?

We can’t ask them.

We cannot, despite the assurances of the so-called bee-centric or bee-friendly beekeepers, tell whether they’re happy or not.

I’m a very bee-friendly beekeeper, but I don’t anthropomorphize and attribute feelings like happy or sad to my bees 6.

I determine whether a colony is doing well (or better) by very similar criteria to those you would use to judge whether a colony in a tree was flourishing.

Are they building up well, are they storing sufficient pollen and honey stores, is there overt disease, are they going to swarm?

The hive tool, smoker fuel or any one of a dozen or more hive types, have little or no influence on these measurable definitions of ‘doing well’.

What is it that determines the success or otherwise of a colony?

Essentially it comes down to two things – forage and colony health.

Bees ‘do well’ when they have ample and varied forage and when they are (largely) free of disease 7.

A healthy colony with ample forage will do better irrespective of the hive tool, hive type or smoker fuel used. You could house them in a plastic dustbin, prize the lid off with a screwdriver and waft a smouldering egg box across the entrance and they’ll still ‘do well’.

Egg box smoker

Smouldering egg box …

Conversely, put a disease-weakened colony in an area of poor forage and they’ll do badly (probably very badly) … again irrespective of the hive type, tool or smoker fuel.

Good forage does not just mean lots of it (though that helps). It means early-season pollen for colony build-up, it means late-season nectar and pollen to help develop a strong population of winter bees, it means a varied diet and it means season-long availability.

A healthy colony is one that has no overt disease. It has low levels of parasites and pathogens 8 and is able to survive periods of nectar shortages without succumbing to disease. In addition, it is resilient and genetically diverse.

And so back to those eclosing trainee beekeepers … the real ‘best’ questions they should be asking are:

  • Where is the best place to site my colonies to ensure good, season-long forage availability?
  • How to I best keep my colonies as disease-free as possible so that they can exploit that forage?

Focusing on these questions will help ensure the honey crop really is great so you can provide all those friends and family with the jars they have been promised 😉

Exceptions to the above

Inevitably there are exceptions.

It wouldn’t be beekeeping without qualifications and caveats.

The best bees are almost certainly local bees. There are several studies that demonstrate locally-adapted bees do better than imported bees. This does not mean that imported (and not necessarily from abroad) bees cannot do well. I’ve discussed some of these studies recently.

Finally, whilst the smoker fuel is irrelevant, the smoker is not.

The best smoker is the large Dadant smoker. The small Dadant is pretty good, but the large one is the bee’s knees 9.

Large Dadant smoker

I know, because my happy bees told me so 🙂


 

 

“Start beekeeping” courses

It’s mid-January. If you are an experienced beekeeper in the UK you’re being battered by the remnants of Storm Brendan and wondering whether the roofs are still on your hives.

If my experience is anything to go by, they’re not 🙁

But if you’re a trainee beekeeper you may well be attending a course on Starting Beekeeping, run by your local beekeeping association. Typically these run through the first 1- 3 months of the year, culminating in an apiary visit in April.

Trainee beekeepers

Trainee beekeepers

Sometimes a not-really-warm-enough-to-be doing-this apiary visit in April 🙁

Beekeeping, just like driving a car

Many years ago I attended the Warwick and Leamington Beekeepers Introduction to Beekeeping course. It was a lot of fun and I met some very helpful beekeepers.

But I learnt my beekeeping in their training apiary over the following years; initially as a new beekeeper, and subsequently helping instruct the cohort of trainees attending the course and apiary sessions the following year(s).

Teaching someone else is the best way to learn.

The distinction between the theoretical and practical aspects of the subject are important. You can learn the theory in a classroom, refreshed with tea and digestive biscuits, with the wind howling around outside.

Plain chocolate are preferable

However, it is practical experience that makes you a beekeeper, and you can only acquire these skills by opening hives up – lots of them – and understanding what’s going on.

Some choose never to go this far 1, others try but never achieve it. Only a proportion are successful – this is evident from the large number who take winter courses compared to the relatively modest growth in beekeeper numbers (or association memberships).

Beekeeping is like driving a car. You can learn the theory from a book, but that doesn’t mean you are able to drive. Indeed, the practical skills you lack may mean you are a liability to yourself and others.

Fortunately, the consequences of insufficient experience in beekeeping are trivial in comparison to inexperienced drivers and road safety.

Theoretical beekeeping

What should an ‘introduction to beekeeping’ course contain?

Which bits are necessary? What is superfluous?

Should it attempt to be all encompassing (queen rearing methods, Taranov swarm control, Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus) or pared back to the bare minimum?

Who should deliver it?

I don’t necessarily know, but for a variety of reasons I’ve been giving it some thought(s) … and here they are.

The audience and the intended outcome

You have to assume that those attending the course know little or nothing about bees or beekeeping. If you don’t there’s a good chance some of the audience will be alienated before you start 2.

When I started I had never seen inside a beehive. I don’t think I even knew what a removable frame was. Others on the course had read half a dozen books already. Some had already purchased a hive.

Some even had bees (or ‘hoped they were still alive’ as it was their first winter) 😯

I felt ignorant when others on the course were asking Wouldn’t brood and a half be better? or I’ve read that wire framed queen excluders are preferable.

Framed wire QE ...

Preferable to what?

What’s a queen excluder?

By working from first principles you know what has been covered, you ensure what is covered is important and you keep everyone together.

Some on the course like the idea of keeping bees, but will soon get put off by the practicalities of the discipline. That doesn’t mean they can’t still be catered for on the course. It can still be interesting without being exclusive 3.

But, of course, the primary audience are the people who want to learn how to keep bees successfully.

For that reason I think the intended outcome is to teach sufficient theory so that a new beekeeper, with suitable mentoring, can:

  • acquire and house a colony
  • inspect it properly
  • prevent it swarming, or know what to do if it does
  • manage disease in the colony
  • prepare the colony for winter and overwinter it successfully

The only thing I’d add to that list is an indication of how to collect honey … but don’t get their hopes up by discussing which 18 frame extractor to purchase or how to use the Apimelter 😉

Course contents

I’m not going to give an in-depth breakdown of my views of what an introduction to beekeeping course should contain, but I will expand on a few areas that I think are important.

The beekeeping year and the principles of beekeeping

I’d start with an overview of a typical beekeeping year. This shouldn’t be hugely detailed, it simply sets out what happens and when.

It provides the temporal context to which the rest of the course can refer. It emphasises the seasonality of beekeeping. The long periods of inactivity and the manic days in May and early June. It can be quite ‘light touch’ and might even end with a honey tasting session.

Or mead … 😉

‘Typical’ means you don’t need to qualify everything – if the spring is particularly warm or unless there’s no oil seed rape near you – just focus on an idealised year with normal weather, the expected forage and the usual beekeeping challenges.

The normal beekeeping challenges

But this part of the course should also aim to clearly emphasise the principles and practice of beekeeping.

Success, whether measured by jars of honey or overwintered colonies, requires effort. It doesn’t just happen.

Hive inspections are not optional. They cannot be postponed because of family holidays 4, weekend breaks in Bruges, or going to the beach because the weather is great.

Great weather … good for swarming and swimming

Quite the opposite. From late April until sometime in July you have to inspect colonies at weekly intervals.

Whatever the weather (within reason).

Not every 9-12 days.

Not just before and when you return from a fortnight in Madeira 🙁

Andalucian apiary

While you’re looking at these Andalusian hives your colony might be swarming.

And hive inspections involve heavy lifting (if you’re lucky), and inadvertently squidging a few bees when putting the hive back together, and possibly getting stung 5.

The discussion of the typical year must mention Varroa management. This is a reality for 99% of beekeepers and it is our responsibility to take appropriate action in a timely manner (though the details of how and when can be saved for a later discussion of disease).

Finally, this part of the course should emphasise the importance of preparing colonies properly for the winter. This again necessitates mentioning disease control.

By covering the principles and practice of a typical year in beekeeping the trainee beekeepers should be prepared from the outset for the workload involved, and have an appreciation for the importance of timing.

We have to keep up with the bees … and the pace they go (or grow) at may not be the same every year, or may not quite fit our diaries.

Bees and beekeeping

There is a long an interesting history of beekeeping and an almost limitless number of fascinating things about bees. Some things I’d argue are essential, others are really not needed and can be safely ignored.

Bee boles in Kellie Castle, Fife, Scotland … skep beekeeping probably isn’t an essential course component.

Of the essential historical details I’d consider the development of the removable frame hive is probably the most important. Inevitably this also involves a discussion of bee space – a gap that the bees do not fill with propolis or wax. Of course, bee space was known about long before Langstroth found a way to exploit it with the removable frame hive.

The other historical area often covered is the waggle dance, but I’d argue that this is of peripheral relevance to beekeeping per se. However, it could be used to introduce the concept of communication in bees.

And once the topic turns to bees there’s almost no limit what could be included. Clearly an appreciation of the composition of the colony and how it changes during the season is important. This leads to division of labour and the caste system.

It also develops the idea of the colony as a superorganism, which has a bearing on swarm preparation, management and control.

Queen development

Queen development …

Probably most important is the development cycle of the queen, workers and drones. A proper understanding of this allows an appreciation of colony build-up, the timing of swarming and queen replacement, and is very important for the correct management of Varroa.

As with the beekeeping year, sticking to what is ‘typical’ avoids confusion. No need to mention laying workers, two-queen hives, or thelytokous parthenogenesis.

Keep on message!

Equipment

What a minefield?!

As long as the importance of compatibility is repeatedly stressed you should be OK.

An Abelo/cedar hybrid hive ...

An Abelo/cedar hybrid hive …

A little forethought is needed here. Are you (or the association) going to provide your beginners with bees?

I’d argue, and have before, that you really should.

Will the bees be on National frames? 14 x 12’s? One of several different Langstroth frames? Smiths?

Or packages?

I said it was a minefield.

Beginners want to be ready for the season ahead. They want to buy some of that lovely cedar and start building boxes. They need advice on what to buy.

What they buy must be influenced by how they’re going to start with bees. One of the easiest ways around this is to allocate them a mentor and let them lead on the specifics (assuming they’ll be getting bees from their mentor).

One thing that should be stressed is the importance of having sufficient compatible equipment to deal with swarming (which we’ll be coming to shortly).

Dummy board needed ...

5 frame poly nucleus hive needing a dummy board …

My recommendation would be to buy a full hive with three supers and a compatible polystyrene nucleus hive. In due course beginners will probably need a second hive, but (if you teach the simplest form of swarm control – see below) not in the first year. A nuc box will be sufficient.

Swarming and swarm control

Swarming is often considered to be confusing 6.

It doesn’t need to be.

The life cycle of the bee and the colony have been covered already. Swarming and queen cells is just honey bee reproduction … or it’s not swarming at all but an attempt to rescue the otherwise catastrophic loss of a queen 🙁

Deciding which is important and should influence the action(s) taken.

The determinants that drive swarming are reasonably well understood – space, age of the queen etc. The timing of the events, and the importance of the timing of the events leading to swarming is very well understood.

Preventative measures are therefore easy to discuss. Ample space. Super early. Super often.

It’s swarm control that often causes the problem.

And I think one of the major issues here is the attempts to explain the classic Pagden artificial swarm. Inevitably this involves some sort of re-enactment, or an animated Powerpoint slide, or a Tommy Cooper-esque “Glass, bottle … bottle, glass” demonstration 7.

Often this is confounded by the presenters’ left and right being the audiences right and left.

Confused? You will be.

Far better to simply teach a nucleus hive-based swarm control method. Remove the old queen, a frame of emerging brood, a frame of stores and a few shakes of bees. Take it to a distant apiary (or block the entrance with grass etc. but this adds confusion) and leave a single open charged queen cell in the original hive.

This method uses less equipment, involves fewer apiary visits, but still emphasises the need for a thorough understanding of the queen development cycle.

And, to avoid confusion, I wouldn’t teach any other forms of swarm control.

Yes, there are loads that work, but beginners need to understand one that will always work for them. Hopefully they’ve got dozens of summers of beekeeping ahead of them to try alternatives.

I think swarm control is one area where the KISS principle should be rigorously applied.

Disease prevention and management

Colony disease is a reality but you need to achieve a balance between inducing paranoia and encouraging complacency.

This means knowing how to deal with the inevitable, how to identify the possible and largely ignoring the rest.

The inevitable is Varroa and the viruses it transmits. And, of at least half a dozen viruses it does transmit, only deformed wing virus needs to be discussed. The symptoms are readily identifiable and if you have symptomatic bees – and there can be no other diagnosis – you have a Varroa problem and need to take action promptly.

Worker bee with DWV symptoms

Worker bee with DWV symptoms

In an introductory course for new beekeepers I think it is inexcusable to promote alternate methods of Varroa control other than VMD-approved treatments.

And, even then, I’d stick to just two.

Apivar in late summer and a trickle of Api-Bioxal solution in midwinter.

Used properly, at the right time and according to the manufacturer’s instructions, these provide excellent mite management.

Don’t promote icing sugar shaking, drone brood removal, small cell foundation, Old Ron’s snake oil or anything else that isn’t documented properly 8.

Almost always there will be questions about treatment-free beekeeping.

My view is that this has no place in a beginners course for beekeepers.

The goal is to get a colony successfully through the full season. An inexperienced beekeeper attempting to keep bees without treatment in their first year is a guaranteed way to lose both the colony and, probably, a disillusioned trainee beekeeper from the hobby.

To lose one may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness. 9

Once they know how to keep bees alive they can explore ways to keep them alive without treatment … and they will have the experience necessary to make up for the colony losses.

In terms of other diseases worth discussing then Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV) is rapidly increasing in prevalence. Again the symptoms are pretty characteristic. Unlike DWV and Varroa it’s not yet clear what to do about it. Expect to see more of it in the next few years.

Nosema should probably be mentioned as should the foulbroods. The latter are sufficiently uncommon to be a minor concern, but sufficiently devastating to justify caution.

By focusing on the things that might kill the colony – or result in it being destroyed 🙁 – you’re obviously only scratching the surface of honey bee pests and pathogens. But it’s a start and it covers the most important things.

Most beginners have colonies that never get strong enough for CBPV to be a problem. Conversely, their weakness means that wasps might threaten them towards the end of the season, so should probably be discussed.

And, of course, the Asian hornet if you’re in an area ‘at risk’.

My beekeeping year

By this time the beginners have an overview of an idealised beekeeping year, an appreciation of the major events in the year – swarming, disease management, the honey harvest and preparation for winter.

Sounds easy, doesn’t it?

But an ideal wrap-up session to a starting beekeeping course would be the account of a real first year from a new beekeeper.

What were the problems? How did they attempt to solve them? What happened in the end?

This asks a lot of a relatively inexperienced beekeeper. Not least of which is good record keeping (but of course, they learnt this on the course the previous year 😉 ).

However, the comparison between the ‘textbook’ account delivered during the course with the ‘sweating in a beesuit’ reality of someone standing by an open hive feeling totally clueless is very enlightening.

Sweating in a beesuit

With sufficient preparation you could even turn it into a quiz to test what the trainees have understood.

I’ve seen several ‘starting beekeeping’ courses. All have had some of the things described above. None have had all of them. Most have included superfluous information, or in some cases, dangerous misinformation.

Which brings neatly me to the question of who should teach the course?

If you can do, if you can’t teach

Ensuring that everything is covered at the right time, avoiding duplication and maintaining the correct emphasis takes skill for one person. For a group of individuals it requires a lot of preparation and strict instructions not to drift off topic.

You might have noticed that many experienced beekeepers like to talk.

A lot.

A course handbook becomes an essential – both to help the students and as a guide to keep “on message” for the tutors.

Often it is some of the most experienced beekeepers who teach these courses.

Some are outstanding. Others less so.

Their years of experience often means they take for granted the subtleties that are critical. The difference between play cups and a 1-2 day old queen cell. A reduced laying rate by the queen. How to tell when there is a nectar flow on, and when it stops.

All of this, to them, is obvious.

They forget just how much they have learned from the hundreds of hives they have opened and the thousands of frames they have examined. They’ve reached the stage when it looks like they have a sixth sense when it comes to finding the queen.

Queen rearing course

Listen up Grasshopper!

As Grasshopper says to the old, blind master 10 “He said you could teach me a great knowledge”.

Possibly.

But sometimes they’ve retained some archaic approaches that should have been long-forgotten. They were wrong then, they still are. Paint your cedar hives with creosote. Use matchsticks to ventilate the hive in winter. Apistan is all you need for Varroa control.

 

Matchless matches

If any readers of this post have had these suggested on a course they are currently attending then question the other things that have been taught.

Get a good book that focuses on the essentials. I still think Get started in beekeeping by Adrian and Claire Waring is the best book for beginners that I’ve read 11.

Get a good mentor … you’re going to need one.

And good luck!


 

Resolutions

It’s that time of the year again. The winter solstice is long passed. Christmas has been and gone. The New Year is here.

Happy New Year 🙂

And New Year is a time to make resolutions (a firm decision to do or not to do something).

There is a long history of making resolutions at the turn of the year. The Babylonians promised to pay their debts and return borrowed objects at their New Year. Of course, their year was based on a lunar calendar and started with the first crescent moon in March/April, but the principle was the same.

Many New Year’s resolutions have religious origins … though the more recent trend to resolve to “drink less alcohol” or “lose weight are somewhat more secular.

About 50% of people in the western world make New Year’s resolutions. This figure is up from ~25% in the 1930’s. Perhaps success increases uptake?

Popular resolutions include improvement to: health (stop smoking, get fit, lose weight), finance or career (reduce debt, get a better job, more education, save more), helpfulness (volunteer more, give more to charity) or self (be less grumpy, less stressed, more friendly) etc.

But since this is a beekeeping website it is perhaps logical to consider what resolutions would lead to improvements in our beekeeping.

Beekeeping resolutions

The short winter days and long, dark nights are an ideal time to develop all sorts of fanciful plans for the season ahead.

How often are these promptly forgotten in the stifling heat of a long June afternoon as your second colony swarms in front of you?

The beekeeping season starts slowly, but very quickly gathers pace. It doesn’t take long before there’s not enough time for what must be done, let alone what you’d like (or had planned) to do.

And then there are all those pesky ‘real life’ things like family holidays, mowing the lawn or visiting relatives etc. that get in the way of essential beekeeping.

So, if you are going to make beekeeping resolutions, it might be best to choose some that allow you to be more proactive rather than reactive. To anticipate what’s about to happen so you’re either ready for it, or can prevent it 1.

Keep better records

I’ve seen all sorts of very complex record keeping – spreadsheets, databases, “inspection to a page” notepads, audio and even video recordings.

Complex isn’t necessarily the same as ‘better’, though I’ve no doubt that proponents of each use them because they suit their particular type of beekeeping.

Objective and subjective notes

My notes are very straightforward. I want them to:

  • Be available. They are in the bee bag and so with me (back of the car, at home or in the apiary) all the time. If I need to refer to them I can 2. They are just printed sheets of A4 paper, stuffed into a plastic envelope. I usually write them up there and then unless I forget a pen, it’s raining and/or very windy or I’m doing detailed inspections of every colony in the apiary. In these cases I use a small dictation machine and transcribe them later that evening.
  • Keep track of colonies and queens. I record the key qualitative features that are important to me – health, temper, steadiness on the comb etc. – using a simple numerical scoring system. Added supers are recorded (+1, +1, -2 etc) and there’s a freeform section for an additional line or two of notes. Colonies and queens are uniquely numbered, so I know what I’m referring to even if I move them between apiaries, unite them or switch from a nuc box to a full hive.
  • Allow season-long comparisons ‘at a glance’. With just a line or two per inspection I can view a complete season on one page. Colonies consistently underperforming towards the bottom of the page usually end up being united in late August/early September.
  • Include seasonal or environmental jottingsMay 4th – first swift of the year”, “June 7th – OSR finished”, “no rain for a fortnight”. These are the notes that, over time, will help relate the status of the colony to the local environment and climate. If the house martins, swallows and swifts are late and it’s rained for a month then swarming will likely be delayed. Gradually I’m learning what to expect and when, so I’m better prepared.

Monitor mites

Varroa remains the near-certain threat that beekeepers have to deal with every season. But you can only deal with them properly if you have an idea of the level of infestation.

Varroa levels in the colony depend upon a number of factors including the rate of brood rearing, the proportion of drone to worker brood and the acquisition of exogenous mites (those acquired through the processes of drifting and robbing).

Pupa (blue) and mite (red) numbers

In turn, these factors vary from colony to colony and from season to season. As I discussed recently, adjacent colonies in the same apiary can have very different levels of mite infestation.

Additional variation can be introduced depending upon the genetically-determined grooming or hygienic activity of the colony, both of which rid the hive of mites.

Since the combined influence of these factors cannot be (easily or accurately) predicted it makes sense to monitor mite levels. If they are too high you can then intervene in a timely and appropriate manner.

Quick and effective ways to monitor mite levels

Any monitoring is better than none.

Easy counting ...

Easy counting …

There are a variety of ways of doing this, some more accurate than others:

  1. Place a Correx tray under the open mesh floor (OMF) and count the natural mite drop over a week or so. Stick the counts into the National Bee Unit’s (appropriately named) Varroa calculator and see what they advise. There are quite a few variables – drone brood amounts, length of season etc – that need to be taken into account and their recommendation comes with some caveats 3. But it’s a lot better than doing nothing.
  2. Uncap drone brood and count the percentage of pupae parasitised by mites. The NBU’s Varroa calculator can use these figures to determine the overall infestation level. The same caveats apply.
  3. Determine phoretic mite levels by performing a sugar roll or alcohol wash. A known number of workers (often ~300) are placed in a jar and the phoretic mites displaced using icing sugar or alcohol (car screenwash is often used). After filtering the sugar or alcohol the mites can be counted. Sugar-treated bees can be returned to the colony 4. Infestation levels of 2-3% (depending upon the time of season) indicate that intervention is required 5.

Does what it says on the tin.

Overwinter nucs

If you keep livestock you can expect dead stock.

Unfortunately colony losses are an inevitability of beekeeping.

They occur through disease, queen failure and simple accidents.

Most losses are avoidable:

  • Monitor mites and intervene before virus levels threaten survival of the colony.
  • Check regularly for poorly mated or failing queens (drone layers) and unite the colony before it dwindles or is targeted by wasps or other robbers.
  • Make sure you close the apiary gate to prevent stock getting in and tipping over hives … or any number of other (D’oh! Slaps forehead 🙄 ) beekeeper-mediated accidents).

But they will occur.

Corpses

Corpses …

And most will occur overwinter. This means that as the new season starts you might be missing one or two hives.

Which could be all of your colonies if you only have a two 6.

Replacing these in April/May is both expensive and too late to ensure a spring honey crop.

Winter colony losses are the gift that keeps on giving taking.

However, if you overwinter an additional 10-25% of your colonies as 5 frame nucs (with a minimum of one), you can easily avoid disaster.

Here's one I prepared earlier

Here’s one I prepared earlier

If you lose a colony you can quickly expand the nuc to a full hive (usually well before a commercially-purchased colony would be ready … or perhaps even available).

And if you don’t lose a colony you can sell the nuc or expand your colony numbers.

Sustainable beekeeping

If you’ve not watched Michael Palmer’s The Sustainable Apiary at the National Honey Show I can recommend it as an entertaining and informative hour for a winter evening.

Michael keeps bees in Vermont … a different country and climate to those of us in the UK. However, his principles of sustainable beekeeping without reliance on bought-in colonies is equally valid.

Overwintering nucs requires a small investment of time and money. The former in providing a little more care and attention in preparation for winter, and the latter in good quality nucleus hives.

I reviewed a range of nuc boxes six years ago. Several of these models have been discontinued or revised, but the general design features to look for remain unchanged.

Here's three I prepared earlier ...

Everynuc poly nucs

Buy dense poly nucs for insulation, make sure the roof isn’t too thin and flimsy and choose one with an entrance that can be readily reduced to a “bee width” 7. Choice (and quality) has improved over the last 5-6 years but I still almost exclusively use Thorne’s Everynuc. I bought 20 a few seasons ago and remain pleased with them, despite a few design weaknesses.

Beekeeping benefits

I do all of the above.

Having learned (often the hard way) that my beekeeping benefits, these habits are now ingrained.

I had about 20 colonies going into the 2019/20 winter, including ~20% nucs. All continue to look good, but it won’t be until late April that I’ll know what my winter losses are.

In the meantime I can review the hive notes from last season and plan for 2020. Some colonies are overwintering with very substandard queens (generally poor temper) because they’re research colonies being monitored for changes in the virus population 8. They will all be requeened or united by mid/late May.

My notes mean I can plan my queen rearing and identify the colonies for requeening. I know which colonies can be used to source larvae from and which will likely be the cell raisers. The timing of all this will be influenced by the state of the colonies and the environmental ‘clues’ I’ve noted in previous years.

Capped queen cells

Capped queen cells

Of course, things might go awry before then, but at least I have a plan to revise rather than making it up on the spur of the moment.

I learned the importance of mite monitoring the hard way. Colonies unexpectedly crashing in early autumn, captured swarms riddled with mites that were then generously distributed to others in the same apiary. Monitoring involves little effort, 2-3 times a season.

So these three things don’t need to be on my New Year’s resolution list.

Be resolute

More people make New Year’s resolutions now than 90 years ago.

However, increasing participation unfortunately does not mean that they are a successful way to achieve your goals.

Richard Wiseman showed that only 12% of those surveyed achieved their goal(s) despite over 50% being confident of doing so at the beginning of the year.

Interestingly, success in males and females was influenced by different things. For men, incremental goal-setting increased the success rate 9 (I will write hive notes on every apiary visit, rather than Keep better notes). For women, the peer pressure resulting from telling friends and family increased success by 10%.

More generally, increased success in achieving the goals resulted from:

  • Making only one New Year’s resolution – so perhaps the three things above is overly ambitious?
  • Setting specific goals and avoiding resolutions you’re previously failed at.

My New Year’s (beekeeping) resolutions?

Since I’m a man, the chance of achieving my goals is not influenced by peer pressure so I’m not publishing them. We’ll have to see in 12 months whether I’m in the 12% that succeed … or the 88% that fail 😉


 

Questions & Answers

One of the challenging things about beekeeping is that the season can be both confusing and entertaining in equal measure.

It’s entertaining because it’s always a little bit different from the seasons that have preceded it. The environment changes. There’s an early spring, or late frosts, a drought, a monsoon or the local farmer changes from one strain of OSR to another.

Sometimes you get all of those in a single season … or month.

Mainly dry ...

Mainly dry …

But not only does the environment change, so do your bees. Inevitably your queens will be replaced over the years. In turn, they influence the performance of the colony. Your virgins fly off to the drone congregation areas where they mate with the ‘bad boys’ from colonies run by a nearby beekeeper with much thicker gloves and a fleece under his beesuit 🙁

Mayhem ensues. Inspections get a whole lot less fun. Quickly.

Or you collect a swarm headed by a fecund queen who busies herself producing calm, prolific, frugal and productive workers.

The colony gets bigger. And bigger. It shows no signs of swarming.

As you add the fourth super you feel like you’ve really cracked this beekeeping lark.

Sorted 🙂

But these things also make beekeeping incredibly confusing to the newcomer.

If you take a calendar-centric view there is no right answer to ‘When will the colony swarm?’ or ‘Is this the right time to treat for mites?’ or ‘Should I remove the supers now?’.

And many beginners do have a calendar-based viewpoint. It’s so much easier to prepare if you’re told that swarming starts in the third week of May and the supers should be removed at the end of August.

Not only is that easier to understand, but the telltale signs that the bees produce aren’t – for a beginner – very good at telling tales.

The first half-hidden charged queen cell, a reduced laying rate, the reduction in loaded returning foragers etc.

Play cup or queen cell?

Play cup or are they planning their escape …?

But, for me, at least half of the enjoyment is deciphering these signs and working out what the colony is doing, or going to do.

And therefore, what I should be doing.

Questions and answers

Most of this is observation, interspersed with a bit of record keeping and sprinkled with some ‘best guesses’.

If you keep asking the (right) questions you will slowly but surely start finding the answers.

Are they running out of space, making more play cups, and slimming the queen down for the great escape?

But many of these things are too subtle for beginners overwhelmed by the difficulty in just finding the queen amongst 38,789 of her daughters.

Inevitably this means that beginners – quite rightly – ask other beekeepers lots of questions.

I did.

I still do.

And in this increasingly connected world, some of those questions take the form of internet searches.

And some of these questions pop up as search terms on this site.

Mites

Willie Wonka meme

Many of these queries are about mite management:

  • best time to treat for varroa in honey bees?
  • should bees be treated for mites in spring?
  • use apiguard in june?
  • oxalic acid to treat varroa can i do it this week?
  • when to treat bees with oxalic acid in arkansas?

Very specific questions, very calendar-centric. There are hundreds more queries like these 1.

A correct answer requires an understanding of the biology of the mite and an appreciation of the state of the hive.

Neither necessarily involves the calendar. Both can be acquired with a little homework and good observation. However, the very fact that ~25% of queries are about mite management emphasises that many struggle with this aspect of beekeeping.

I remain convinced that the biggest challenge new beekeepers face is how to effectively manage mites. Without proper mite management your colonies will perish.

If you lose your colonies every winter you soon get disheartened.

The easiest way to properly control mite numbers is with chemicals.

It’s what I do.

Returning a marked and clipped queen

However, it’s not the only way.

Excellent beekeeping, selective rearing of mite-tolerant colonies (or of attenuated viruses!) and yet more excellent beekeeping – coupled with a favourable environment – may mean you can keep colonies without chemical intervention, and without excessive losses 2.

All beginners lack the necessary experience to achieve this. Most lack the ability to learn the skills quickly enough to save their colonies and the majority probably live in areas that are unsuitable.

Most importantly, many beginners aren’t resilient enough to ‘learn the hard way’. They believe the (largely incorrect) statements about the evils of treatment, they want their bees to be ‘healthy and happy’ 3, they like the sound of the term biodynamic 4 … but they cannot cope with losing their stocks every single winter through disease and starvation.

So they give up.

Learn to keep bees … then learn (again, using the years of knowledge already accumulated) to keep them without chemical intervention if you want. Not the other way round.

Read all you can – here and elsewhere – but remember that nothing is as valuable as time spent observing your bees.

Technical queries

These are the sorts of questions that probably can be easily answered 5.

Remembering of course that there are usually at least two correct answers for every question, and any number of incorrect ones.

  1. honey warming cabinet plans
  2. how long does it take bees to chew through newspaper?
  3. what is the chance of a queen being left in my hive when i have just lost a huge swarm?
  4. alighting board angle
  5. where and how to set up bait hives?

My honey warming cabinet is one of the most useful things I’ve built for my beekeeping and the pages that first describe it, the plans and its use, remain some of the most popular on this site.

The answer to Q2 obviously depends upon how many sheets of newspaper are involved.

I think we all know the answer to Q3 and it’s not going to make the questioner happy 😉

It’s very rare that you can provide an absolute definitive answer in beekeeping. However, after many years of exhaustive, well-controlled and independently verified trials I have unequivocally shown that the answer to Q4 is 47.7°.

47.7° precisely

Not more, not less.

Remembering of course that a landing (alighting) board isn’t actually needed at all 😉

Tom Seeley has done the definitive studies on bait hives (Q5). He clearly describes the ‘where’. My recommendations are rather more pragmatic. It’s easier to monitor and move bait hives if they’re not 5 metres above the ground.

Miscellaneous or just weird

And then there are lots of queries that are simply amusing typos, nonsensical or just odd. My favourites this year are:

  1. maxant crank mechanism
  2. langtorthe eke
  3. how to wear rigger boots?

I’ve no idea how the first of these landed up on the apiarist.org as it’s a term I’ve never used. The middle query (Q2) is a typical typo. It’s an obvious one, but it constantly amazes me how good fuzzy matching algorithms are these days.

Q3 is about beekeeping footwear. My last pair of rigger boots were abandoned years ago when the lining fell apart and they eventually turned my feet to a bloody pulp.

How to wear them?

I wore mine while hobbling. It’s not something I’d recommend.

I now wear Muck boots – specifically the now discontinued Edgewater II short boots – which are lightweight, very comfortable and fully waterproof. No steel toe cap, but I never drop full supers.

Oops ...

Oops …

Well, almost never.

Questions and comments

Not all questions originate in internet searches. Many come via the comments sections at the end of most posts. Most of these are both welcomed and useful; they allow me to clarify things that I’d presented confusingly, or they provide an opportunity to expand on parts of the post.

The numbers of comments have increased significantly this year.

More words and more comments

This increase probably reflects the increased readership (and page accesses) of the site.

Alternatively it might mean the writing is getting worse as the comment numbers correlate with the increased length of posts 🙁

I try and answer as many comments/questions as I can. Many make very salient points and I’m very grateful for those who take the time to comment, either to correct me, to seek clarification or to provide their own insight on the topic.

I ignore those that are dogmatically stupid or just plain wrong. My prerogative. There’s enough bad advice on the internet without propagating more.

I apologise to those who comment via Facebook or Twitter. I almost exclusively use both for promoting posts made here 6. Both generate a lot of traffic to this site but I simply don’t have time (or interest) to use them interactively.

If you want to contact me do so via the comments section or the, aptly named, contact form.

More Readers’ Questions

Which, in a rather circuitous way, brings me to the Readers’ Questions Answered column in the BBKA News. I was asked to tackle these a few months ago and January and February are already written 7.

BBKA News Readers’ Questions Answered proofs

The BBKA News is the monthly newsletter of the British Beekeepers Association. It has a circulation of ~25,000. Each year a different victim expert mug contributor prepares the answers. I’m taking over from Bob Smith, NDB from Medway BKA who did an excellent job and will be a hard act to follow. Some of the previous contributors have been anonymous which might have been a sensible option, but it’s too late for me now.

My family joke that I’m now an agony aunt for beekeepers.

I discussed this with Calum, a regular contributor to the comments section of these pages, who provided (as usual) some very sage advice, including “Bees put up with a lot of sh1t from beekeepers”. I don’t think the BBKA will want to use that as my strapline but it certainly sums things up pretty accurately.

Happy New Year … may your queens be well mated, your mite numbers low, your supers heavy and may your prime swarms be in my bait hives  🙂


 

Rinse and repeat

Midwinter mite treatment is no substitute for a properly applied late summer treatment that protects your all important winter bees. However, you also need to control mites in the winter or there is a good chance their numbers will reach damaging levels the following season 1.

Mid September

Late summer treatment and no winter treatment – mite levels in red.

OA (oxalic acid-containing) treatments are the ones to use in midwinter (e.g. Api-Bioxal). These can be trickled in syrup onto each seam of bees or they can be vaporised (sublimated), effectively coating everything in the hive with a very fine dusting of crystals.

Trickling damages open brood whereas sublimation is exceedingly well-tolerated by the colony.

If you are certain the colony is broodless then trickling is faster 2 and – because you don’t need power or any more PPE 3 than a pair of gloves – much easier.

If the ambient temperature is consistently below ~6°C and I know the colony is broodless I usually trickle. If the temperature is higher and/or I’m uncertain about whether there is brood present I usually vaporise.

I watch the weather and treat after the first prolonged cold spell of the winter.

Experience over the last few years suggests this is when colonies are most likely to be broodless.

Most likely is not the same as certain 🙁

Count the corpses

After treating I closely monitor the mite drop over several days. I use white Correx Varroa trays that slide underneath the open mesh of my kewl floors.

Easy counting ...

Easy counting …

I don’t count the mites every day, but I do try and count the day after treatment and 2-4 days later. I record the mite drop per hive and, over time, look for two things:

  1. The cumulative mite drop. This indicates the original infestation level of the hive. Usually it’s in the range 10-75 mites (total) for my colonies in midwinter, but – as you’ll see – it can be much higher.
  2. The speed with which the daily mite drop falls to a low single-digit average. OA treatment is very effective at killing phoretic mites. If there’s a continuing high level of mite drop it suggests that more are getting exposed over time.

In my experience, vaporised OA often results in a greater mite drop 24-48 hours post-treatment rather than in the first 24 hours 4. After that I expect (hope) the daily mite drop tails off very quickly.

Vaporised OA remains effective in the hive for several days. Randy Oliver reports studies by Radetzki who claims it remains effective for up to three weeks. I think this is an overestimate but I’m sure it continues working well for four to five days.

OA, whether vaporised or trickled, on broodless colonies is 90-95% effective i.e. if there were 100 mites in the colony you should expect as few as 5 remain after treatment.

Four to five days after the initial treatment I eyeball the numbers across all the hives in an apiary and look at the profile of the mite drop.

Mite drop profiles

I couldn’t think of a better term for this. Essentially, it’s the shape of a graph of mites dropped per day after treatment.

I don’t usually draw the graph – I have a life – but I do look carefully at the numbers.

Here are a couple of sketched graphs showing what I mean. Days are on the horizontal (X) axis, dead mites per day are on the vertical (Y) axis. Treatment applied on day 0. No count (yet) on day 6.

Mite drop profile – this is what you want

In the graph above there are high(er) levels of dropped mites on the first day or two after treatment, but levels thereafter drop to a basal level of perhaps 1-4 mites per day.

Each time I count the mites I clean the Varroa tray (the rinse in the title of the post).

Assuming the day 5 mite drop is very low, the profile above is what I’m looking for. It shows that treatment has worked and no repeat is necessary.

The profile below is much less promising 5.

Mite drop profile – this suggests additional treatment is needed

In this graph (above) the mite drop remains high every day after treatment. Sometimes they even increase over time.

If you assume treatment is equally effective – say 90%+ – on the five days after treatment 6 this must mean that there are mites being killed on days 4 and 5 that were not exposed to treatment on the earlier days.

How can this be?

The most likely explanation is that the colony had some sealed brood that has emerged in the days following treatment, exposing previously ‘hidden’ mites to the miticide.

It’s good that they’ve perished, but are there more hiding? How do you tell?

Enough of my hand drawn idealised graphs with no real numbers … what about some actual data?

Real world data

The graph below shows data for seven colonies in a single apiary. All were treated with Apivar in late summer. All were treated with a vaporised oxalic acid-containing treatment on the 28th of November. 

Mite drop profiles – real world data

I counted the mite drops on the 29th (T+1), the 2nd (T+4) and 3rd (T+5). The figures for 30th to the 2nd were averaged, which is why the bars are all the same height.

  • Colonies 3 and 6 had very low mite levels. Though not the lowest in the apiary 🙂
  • Colonies 2 and 7 had pretty good mite drop profiles, with low single-digit numbers on day T+5. None of these four colonies (2, 3, 6, 7) need treating again.
  • Colonies 1 and 5 have high mite levels 7 and – despite the pretty good levels on T+5 in colony 1 – were both re-treated.
  • Colony 4 was also treated again as the profile was flat and I suspected they had low levels of mites but were rearing brood..

And repeat

Note: The instructions for Api-Bioxal specifically state that the maximal dose of 2.3g/hive should be made in a single administrations with only one treatment per yearPrior to the VMD licensing and approval of Api-Bioxal there was effectively tacit approval for beekeepers to use unadulterated oxalic acid by trickling or vaporisation, without any particular limitations on frequency of usage.

It’s worth stressing that you should not repeat oxalic acid trickling 8.

Here is some real data for repeat treatments of another colony in the same apiary.

Repeat treatment for brood-rearing colony

The average mite drop per day over the first 5 days was ~60. This justified an additional treatment. Over the next 6 days 9 the average drop was ~20. I considered a third application was needed after which the mite drop per day was in the low single digits.

And again

Repeated treatment is needed if there is sealed brood in the colony.

The likelihood is that two additional treatments will be required.

Why two?

Here’s a reminder of the development cycle of the Varroa mite in developing worker or drone brood.

Repeated oxalic acid vaporisation treatment regime.

Worker brood occupies capped cells for 12 days (days 10 – 21 of development, shown above). Vaporised oxalic acid-containing treatments show a drop in efficacy after 4-5 days 10.

Therefore, to cover a complete cycle of capped brood, you need 3 x 5 day treatments to be sure no mites emerge without them being greeted with a lethal dose of something really, really unpleasant 😉

There should be no drone brood in your winter hives 11 but, if there was, 3 x 5 day treatments should just be enough to cover the complete cycle of capped drone brood as well. However, a fourth treatment might be needed.

Note (again): The instructions for Api-Bioxal specifically state that the maximal dose of 2.3g/hive should be made in a single administrations with only one treatment per year

Not all hives are equal

There are 15 hives in the apiary containing the bee shed. Colony 1 had just about the highest mite levels. However, as shown in one of the graphs above, adjacent colonies can have markedly different mite levels.

There is no clear correlation between mite drop after treatment and colony size. Colony 1 is a double brood monster, but the others in the bee shed are all single brood 10 and 11 frame Nationals 12.

Some colonies need repeated treatment, others did not.

To maximise efficient treatment and minimise unnecessary miticide usage it is necessary to monitor all the colonies.

It’s also worth noting that monitoring only a single hive in an apiary may be misleading; compare colonies 1 and 6 above in the graph of real data from the bee shed.

This monitoring takes just a few minutes. I usually do it after work. In the bee shed this is easy as I now have LED lighting and it’s nice and dry.

Easy conditions to count mites

In my out apiaries I have to do it by headtorch … under an umbrella if it’s raining 🙁

Checking mite drop by torchlight

That’s the last job of the winter completed … time now to review the season just gone and plan for next year.


Colophon

Rinse and repeat

Rinse and repeat is a truncation of instructions often found on the side of shampoo bottles – Lather, rinse and repeat. Other than potentially resulting in an endless loop of hair washing, it also means that a process is (or needs to be) repeated.

In The Plagiarist by Benjamin Cheever, a marketing executive becomes an industry legend by adding one word – REPEAT – to shampoo bottles. He doubles sales overnight.

For Varroa treatment the instructions should be amended to Repeat if necessary … and note again the instructions on Api-Bioxal which, at the time of writing, is the only oxalic-acid containing VMD approved miticide that can be administered by vaporisation.

 

More local bee goodness?

Before the wind-down to the end of the year and the inevitable review of the season I thought I’d write a final post apparently supporting the benefits of local bees. This is based on a recently published paper from the USA 1 that tests whether local bees perform better than non-local stocks.

However, in my view the study is incomplete and – whilst broadly supportive – needs further work before it can really be seen as an example of better performing local bees. I suspect there’s actually a different explanation for their results … that also demonstrates the benefits of local bees.

This is a follow-up to a post three weeks ago that provided evidence that:

  1. Colonies derived from different geographic regions show physiological adaptations (presumably reflecting underlying genetic differences) that seem pretty logical e.g. bees from Saskatchewan express more proteins involved in heat production, whereas Hawaiian bees show higher levels of protein turnover (which would make sense if they had evolved locally to have high metabolic rates).
  2. In a study by Büchler, European colonies survived better overwinter in their local environment; a fact subsequently attributed to the colonies being stronger going into the winter. In turn, this agrees with a recent study that clearly demonstrates the correlation between overwintering success and colony strength.

I suggest re-reading 2 that post as I’m going to try and avoid too much repetition here.

Strong colonies

Strong colonies overwinter better and – if you’re interested in that sort of thing – are much more likely to generate a profit for your honey sales.

So how can you ensure strong colonies at the end of the season?

What influences colony strength?

One thing is colony health. A healthy colony is much more likely to be a strong colony.

In the ambitious 600-colony Büchler study in Europe they didn’t do any disease management. The colonies were monitored over ~2.5 years during which time 84% of colonies perished, at least half due to the ravages of Varroa.

Clearly this is not sustainable beekeeping and doesn’t properly reflect standard beekeeping practices.

Study details

The recent Burnham study makes a nice comparison to the Büchler study.

It was conducted in New York State using 40 balanced 3 colonies requeened in late May.

Queens were sourced from California (~4000 km west) or Vermont (~200km east in the neighbouring state, and therefore considered ‘local’) and colonies were assigned queens randomly.

Unlike some previous studies the authors did not evidence the genetic differences between queens.

A local queen

A local queen

However, the queens looked dissimilar and the stocks were sourced from colonies established in California or Vermont for at least 10-15 generations. I think we can be reasonably confident that the queens were sufficiently distinct to be relevant for the tests being conducted.

Colonies were maintained using standard beekeeping practices, Varroa levels were managed using formic acid (MAQS for European readers) and the colony weight and productivity (frames of bees) was quantified, as was the pathogen load.

In contrast to the Büchler study, Burnham and colleagues only followed colonies over one beekeeping summer season. This was not a test of overwintering survival, but mid-season development.

Results

The take-home message is that colonies headed by the ‘local’ Vermont queens did better. The colonies got heavier faster and brood levels built up better.

Bigger, faster, stronger …

It’s notable that colony weight built up before any brood would have emerged from the new queen (upper panel) and that brood level in colonies headed by the local queen recovered much better after formic acid treatment (arrow in lower panel).

Nosema levels

However, Nosema levels were significantly different (above) as were the levels of Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV; below).

Virus loads (DWV, BQCV and IAPV)

There were no significant differences in the Varroa loads before or after treatment (not shown), or in the levels of DWV or Black Queen Cell Virus (BQCV).

Taken together – bigger, heavier, stronger colonies and lower pathogen loads (at least of some pathogens) – seems good evidence to support the contention that local bees are beneficial.

The benefits are precisely what you want for good overwintering – strong, healthy colonies.

That’s a slam-dunk then?

Case proven?

No.

IAPV is a virus rarely detected in the UK. It causes persistent and systemic infections in honey bees and can be found in every caste (drones, workers, queens) and at every stage of the life cycle.

As IAPV is detectable in eggs and larvae – neither of which are Varroa-exposed – it is assumed to be vertically transmitted from the queen. IAPV is also found in the ovaries of the queen, which is additional evidence for vertical transmission.

At the first timepoint (12 days post requeening) the levels of IAPV are different between the two colony types, but not significantly so. However, by 40 days (T2) the levels are very different. At this later timepoint all the bees in the colony will be have come from the introduced queen.

The authors explain the differences in IAPV levels in terms of local bees being more resistant to ‘local’ pathogens … in much the same way that Pizarro’s 168 conquistadors, being more resistant to smallpox, defeated the might of the Inca Empire with the help of the virus diseases they inadvertently introduced to Peru.

I suspect there’s another explanation.

Perhaps the Californian queens were IAPV infected from the outset?

If this was the case they could introduce a new and virulent strain of IAPV to the research colonies and – over time – the levels would increase as more and more workers in the colony were derived from the new queen. IAPV is present in ~20% of US colonies so it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest it might have been largely absent from the Vermont queens and the test colonies, but present in the queens introduced from California.

How should they have tested that?

The obvious thing to do would be to characterise the IAPV present in the colony. IAPV shows geographic variation across the USA. If the predominant virus was of Californian origin it would suggest it was brought in with the queen. This is a relatively easy test to conduct … a sort of 23andme to determine bee virus provenance.

Alternatively, though less conclusively, you could do the experiment the other way round … ship Vermont queens to California and compare their performance with colonies headed by Californian queens on their own territory. If the Californian queens again performed less well it undermines the ‘local bees do better’ argument and suggests another explanation should be sought.

Nosema is sexually transmitted but it is not vertically transmitted, so the same arguments cannot be made there. Why the Nosema levels drop so convincingly in colonies headed by the local queens is unclear. Nosema was present at the start of the study and was lost over time in the stronger colonies headed by the local queens.

One possibility of course is that the stronger colonies were better fed – more workers, more foragers, more pollen, more nectar. Improved diet leads to a more active and effective immune system and an increased ability to combat pathogens. Simplistic certainly, but it is known that diet influences pathogen resistance and colony performance.

So what does this paper show?

I suspect it doesn’t directly show what the authors claim (in the title) … that local queens head colonies with lower pathogen levels.

This largely reflects the lack of proper or complete controls. However, it does not mean that local bees are not better.

More than anything I think this paper demonstrates the impact queen quality has on colony performance.

Perhaps the Vermont-sourced queens were just better queens. Local certainly (on a USA scale definition of the word local), but not better because they were local, just better because they were better.

However, if my interpretation of the source of the IAPV is correct i.e. introduced from the Californian queens, I think the paper indirectly demonstrates one of the most compelling reasons why local bees are preferable.

If they’re local – your apiary, your neighbours, someone in your association – there is little chance they will be bringing with them some unwanted baggage in the form of an undetected exotic pathogen.

Or a more virulent strain of one already circulating relatively benignly.

Extensive bee movements, whether of queens, packages or full colonies, risks spreading parasites and pathogens.

There is compelling evidence that hosts and pathogens co-evolve to reduce the pathogenicity of the interaction. Naive hosts are always more susceptible to introduced pathogens, or novel strains of pre-existing pathogens. After all, look what happened to the Peruvian Inca when they met the measles- and smallpox-ridden conquistadors.

So, when thinking about the claims being made by bee importers (or, for that matter, strong advocates of local bee breeding), it’s worth considering all of the factors at play – queen quality per se, genetic adaptation of the queen to the local environment and the potential for the introduction of novel pathogens with introduced non-local stock.

And that’s before you also consider the benefits to your beekeeping of being self-sufficient and not reliant on others to produce your stocks.

I never said it was simple 😉


 

Locally adapted bees

This is a follow up to the last post on Strong hives = live hives which was written in response to the oft-repeated mantra that ‘local bees are better adapted to the local environment’.

In that previous post a study of the overwintering survival of colonies headed by queens from very different locations was discussed. There was no difference whether the queen (and consequently all the workers she subsequently mothered) had come from Vermont or Florida.

Instead, the primary correlate of overwintering success was the strength of the colony 1 going into the winter.

Migratory beekeeping

Despite the size differences between the US and UK (or Europe), the honey bee population structure is actually more distinct on this side of the Atlantic.

In the USA the huge impact of migratory beekeeping causes considerable mixing of the bees on the continent. Those on the east and west coasts are distinct, but those in the north and south, or across smaller geographic scales, are really rather similar.

It’s not only commercial migratory beekeeping that enforces this, it’s also some of the very large-scale queen rearing operations. These ship queens all across the USA ensuring that there is less genetic diversity than you’d expect from the vast geographic (and climatic) differences.

Bee caravan

Bee caravan …

So, perhaps the study I discussed last week was not particularly surprising after all … ? 2

In contrast to the US, beekeeping activities in the UK and Europe are rather more localised.

In the UK we still import thousands of queens, but we don’t move our hives across the continent – often more than once a season.

We might take a dozen hives to the heather moors 150 miles away, but we never take them 2500 miles to pollinate almonds.

‘Local’ bees in Europe

Probably as a consequence of less large-scale migratory beekeeping, and less ‘centralisation’ of commercial queen rearing, there is genetic evidence for ‘local’ strains of bees in Europe.

In addition, there is evidence that these genetic differences result in changes to the individual proteins that the bee expresses … and that these may result in local ecological adaptations.

However, this still doesn’t get us to ‘local bees are better adapted to the local environment (and this explains why local bees survive better)‘ …

Andalucian apiary

Local Andalucian apiary

But there is even some evidence to support this last statement as well.

So let’s look at each of these points in turn 3.

Genetically diverse bees

Biologists use the terms genotype and phenotype to describe the genetic makeup of an organism and its appearance. Most beekeepers are familiar with the different phenotypes of honey bee – the dark ‘native’ bees, carniolans, Buckfast etc.

The phenotype is defined and determined by the genotype, but we don’t necessarily know which genes determine which physical characteristic. Population geneticists therefore often use different genetic features to discriminate between different groups or populations.

Microsatellites are DNA markers that contain variable numbers of short tandem repeat sequences. In honey bees, microsatellites are abundant and highly variable. They are therefore very useful for differentiating between populations or groups of populations, though how this is done is outside the scope of this post.

In 1995 Arnaud Estoup and colleagues reported the microsatellite analysis of 9 populations of honeybees from Africa (intermissa, scutellatacapensis) and Europe (mellifera, ligustica, carnica, cecropia), previously distinguished phenotypically. In their enticingly titled paper Microsatellite Variation in Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) Populations: Hierarchical Genetic Structure and Test of the Infinite Allele and Stepwise Mutation Models 4 they support the earlier morphometric (phenotypic) definition by Ruttner of three distinct evolutionary branches of honey bee.

In a series of particularly impenetrable tables and phylogenetic trees they also demonstrate the the European lineages are genetically distinct and, importantly, that sub-populations could be readily identified 5.

Ecological adaptation of bees

Microsatellites are essentially non-functional genetic markers that we can use for analysis. They are carried alongside the thousands and thousands of genes that encode the proteins that make the wings, eyes, guts, feet etc. of honey bees. Other proteins also influence the behaviour of bees – how and when they swarm, their cold tolerance, there longevity.

We can now measure genetic variation of individual genes easily through so-called ‘next generation sequencing’ of the whole genome of the honey bee. However, the variation we see is one step removed from the variation at the protein level that directly influences how the bee copes in (or is adapted to) different environments.

But, it turns out, we can measure the variation at the protein level as well using a technique termed proteome profiling.

If distinct genetic populations of bees have adapted to particular environments (through selection, either natural or by beekeepers) we would expect the proteins they express – that both make the bee and determine its behaviour – should be different.

For example, simplistically, if a bee had evolved to live in a very windy environment we might expect the proteins forming the flight muscles would be stronger, enabling the bee to fly on windier days 6.

Collect the data, decipher what it all means …

Alternatively, you could turn the analysis around:

  • Identify the differences in the proteins that are expressed
  • Work out (or look up) what those particular proteins do and …
  • Conclude that those adaptive changes are required by that sub-population of bees in a particular ecological environment.

And, using proteome profiling, this is exactly what Robert Parker and colleagues reported in 2010 7. They compared proteins from adult bees sourced from geographically dispersed locations (Canada, New Zealand, Chile, USA).

They then grouped proteins into particular pathways e.g. energy metabolism, and observed significant differences.

Pathway analysis of honey bee midgut proteins across the populations studied.

As far as we’re concerned here – which is evidencing that locally adapted bees are actually different from each other in a meaningful way – the precise differences Robert Parker and colleagues aren’t too important.

But … if you insist.

Cold-adapted bees e.g. those from Saskatchewan (SK1, SK2), exhibited much higher levels of proteins involved in heat production in the mitochondria. In contrast, bees from warmer climates e.g. Hawaii (HI), showed higher levels of proteins involved in biosynthesis/folding and degradation of proteins.

Importantly, distinct populations of bees from geographically-distant regions exhibit differences that, logically, could be expected to make them better adapted to that environment.

But, there’s a bit still missing …

The key phrase in that last sentence is ‘could be expected’.

What was not shown in these two studies is that the differences observed are responsible for the better performance or survival of those bees in those environments.

Which finally brings me to a study by Ralph Büchler entitled The influence of genetic origin and its interaction with environmental effects on the survival of Apis mellifera L. colonies in Europe 8.

Local bees do survive better

This was an ambitious and large scale study of the survival of ~600 colonies in 21 apiaries in Europe. The colonies included 5 sub-species (carnicaligusticamacedonia and mellifera) and 16 different genotypes of bees.

In each of the 21 apiaries a local genotype was tested in parallel with at least two non-local genotypes. The large team of scientists/beekeepers involved used standardised management protocols which excluded any form of disease management e.g. no control of Varroa or other diseases. Consequently (many) colonies were lost to Varroa and were removed from the study once infestation levels had reached 10% (i.e. 1 in 10 workers carried phoretic mites) or bee numbers dropped below 5000.

The study started in autumn 2009 and ended in March 2012. During this ~2.5 years 84% of the colonies perished. Almost half of these losses were attributable to Varroa … not a particular surprise.

There are a lot of variables in this study – sub-species (5), genotypes (16), apiaries (21) – so the statistics and analysis are a bit of a minefield.

Count the corpses

Essentially the researchers ‘counted the corpses’ (i.e. colonies that died). They then looked at the survivors and tried to determine the characteristics they shared.

Unsurprisingly, survival of colonies in different apiaries was not the same. Graphed below is the percentage of colonies that survived (vertical axis) in each of the 21 apiaries against time (horizontal axis).

Trajectories of colony survival for the different locations.

These differences are presumably due to local forage availability, colony management, climate etc. We know that bees do better in some places than others 9.

When survival of different genotypes was compared they were much of a muchness, with two outliers.

Trajectories of colony survival for the 16 different genotypes

But, very significantly, colonies headed by local queens did significantly better than colonies headed by non-local queens.

Trajectories of colony survival for the origin of the queens

Why do local bees survive better?

The differences between the two lines – local and non-local queens – in the Kaplan-Meier survival curve above may not look particular good … they both drop disconcertingly quickly, indicating lots of dead colonies.

But it is.

The authors unequivocally demonstrate this statistically, but for beekeeping purposes it’s perhaps even more convincing to simply state that:

“colonies with local queens survived on average 83 ± 23 days longer than those with non-local queens”

That’s a key quote from the paper. It also probably explains why colonies headed by local queen survive better.

In a follow-up paper to Büchler et al., 2014, the same authors did a more in-depth analysis of a range of colony parameters that correlated with survival 10 which contains an additional piece of the jigsaw explaining why colonies headed by local queens survived better.

“colonies of local origin had significantly higher numbers of bees than colonies placed outside their area of origin”

And, by significantly higher, I mean ~20% higher.

Which finally completes the story and brings us back to the Strong hives = live hives from last week.

Local queens head up colonies that survive better in the local environment to which they (and their workers) are adapted.

The colonies survive significantly longer because the colonies are significantly stronger.

Caveats and conclusions

There are a number of caveats to the ‘count the corpses’ study conducted by Büchler and colleagues.

For example, the local bees might have actually been adapted to the local beekeeping management practices. In future experiments there might be ways to control for this 11.

The absence of Varroa control meant colonies were always weaker in the second year of the study. For the majority of beekeepers this is not a sustainable way to manage colonies. A fourth year would have been impossible as they would have run out of colonies.

Nevertheless, under the conditions tested, this is confirmation that ‘local bees are better adapted to the local environment (and survive better)‘.

But as a scientist there’s always another ‘Why?’ question.

Why are the colonies stronger? Is it increased longevity of worker bees? Perhaps it is better foraging skills, meaning more brood can be reared? Is it an adaptation of the queen to the chemicals in the local pollen that increases her fecundity?

Question, questions, questions …

I can think of at least two additional compelling reasons why local bees and queens are preferable. I’ll cover these at some point in the future.


 

Income and outgoings

I discussed beekeeping economics a couple of weeks ago.

I used some potentially questionable survey data on hive numbers, winter losses, honey yields and pricing, together with ‘off the shelf’ costs for frames, sugar and miticides.

Even ignoring the costs of travel and depreciation on equipment the ‘profit’ was not substantial.

Actually, it was just £102 per colony.

Consider the hard work involved, the heavy lifting, the vagaries of the weather and the amount of honey given away to friends and family.

You are not going to get rich fast (or at all) and the Maldives will have to remain a dream.

What a fantastic beekeeping year that was …

Most of us 1 keep bees for pleasure. However, a small profit from our endeavours can’t do any harm, and may actually do some good.

It might pay for a “sorry I was late back from the apiary … again” crate of beer/bunch of flowers 2 or for the new smoker to replace the one you reversed the car over.

Smoker still life

Smoker

So how do you fund the purchase of a crate of beer/bunch of flowers and a new smoker?

How do you increase the profit per colony from that rather paltry £100 to something a little more substantial?

It’s clear that to do this you need to reduce your outgoings and increase your income.

Income and outgoings

I’m going to restrict myself to the same range of outgoing costs and sources of income to those I covered on beekeeping economics.

I’m ignoring most equipment costs, depreciation, petrol, honey gifts to friends etc. All these reduce ‘profit’.

Here is the summary table presented earlier. Remember, this is for a four hive apiary, per annum 3.

Item Expenditure (£) Income (£)
Frames and foundation 40.00
Miticides 38.00
Food 26.00
Honey (jars/labelling) and gross 63.00 550.00
Nucleus colony 15.00 40.00
Sub totals 182.00 590.00
Profit 408.00

Cutting your food costs

Not a whole lot of leeway here I’m afraid.

Granulated sugar is probably the least expensive way of feeding your bees for the winter. Other than shopping around for the best price there’s not much option to reduce your outgoings.

However, before buying sugar it’s always worth asking your local supermarket for any spoilt or damaged packets. Supermarkets are under pressure to reduce waste and can usually be persuaded to support something as environmentally-friendly as local bees.

It costs nothing to ask.

Many beekeeping associations will arrange bulk purchases of either Ambrosia-type invert syrup or fondant. I’ll comment more extensively on this later.

Cutting your medicine costs

There are even fewer opportunities for savings if you want to use VMD-approved miticides.

I’ve discussed miticide costs extensively in the past. The figures are now a bit dated (and they omitted Apivar which was not available off-prescription at the time). However, it remains broadly true that the annual cost per hive is about the same as a jar of honey 4.

If you’re using Api-Bioxal for midwinter trickling remember that you can safely dilute it to a final concentration of 3.2% (w/v), rather than that recommended on the label. Historically the UK has used oxalic acid at 3.2% and there’s no increase in efficacy at the higher strength. Full details are provided on the preparation of oxalic acid elsewhere.

At 3.2% w/v a 35g “10 hive” pack of Api-Bioxal will treat 15 hives.

There … at £11.95 a packet I’ve just slashed your midwinter treatment costs from £1.20 a hive to  80p.

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves 😉

Frames and foundation

First quality ‘off the shelf’ frames with foundation cost about £3 each. Obviously it makes sense to shop around and/or buy in bulk.

However, much more substantial savings are possible if you do three things:

  • re-use frames after steaming and sterilising
  • use second quality frames bought on supplier ‘sale days’
  • use foundationless frames

If you nail and glue frames during construction they usually survive at least a couple of trips through a steam wax extractor. Yes, there’s some work involved in cleaning them up afterwards, but it’s no more work than building new frames each year.

Drone-worker-drone

Drone-worker-drone …

Second quality frames are sold in packs of 50 for about £37.50 5. Of the hundreds I’ve used I’ve had few (~2% or less) that were unusable due to knots, shakes, splits or other weaknesses.

Foundationless frames take a bit longer to build and you have additional expenditure on bamboo or wire/nylon. However, this outlay is insignificant when compared with the saving made on foundation.

Remember that foundationless frames built with bamboo supports can go through a steam wax extractor and be put back into service. Don’t use wax starter strips. Use lollipop sticks or tongue depressors fixed with waterproof wood glue.

Take your pick ...

Take your pick …

Purchased premium foundation is lovely stuff but freshly drawn comb on a foundationless frame is even better. Contamination-free, robust once fully drawn and much easier to clean from the frame when it eventually goes through the steamer.

Taken together – re-use, second quality and foundationless – I calculate that frames cost me ~25p each. This equates to a saving of £36.75 over a year 6. Remember also that additional outlay on brood frames is needed to produce nucleus colonies (see below) where the savings would be £13.75 per nuc produced.

That’s more like it 🙂

A co-operative association intermission

Beekeeping associations often have co-operative purchasing schemes. Bulk purchasing reduces both individual item costs and (often substantial) P&P costs. These schemes are often organised to pass on the majority of the discount and retain a small amount of the savings for association activities.

The larger the association the greater the savings that can be made, and there’s no reason why neighbouring associations or regional groupings cannot act together.

Yes, of course, it takes some organisation. If your association doesn’t have such a scheme either find one that does or set up your own.

My beekeeping alma mater (Warwick and Leamington Beekeepers) offered excellent discounts on jars, honey buckets, foundation, Ambrosia, fondant and gloves … and probably a load of other things I didn’t take advantage of when I was a member 7.

Products of the hive

That’s enough about outlay, what about income?

Honey bees make honey and bees.

Both are very valuable.

You can maximise income in two ways.

You can make more of either (or both) or you can sell them at a higher price.

You might even be able to achieve both.

I’ll deal with these in reverse order …

Maximising the prices of honey and bees

I’ve discussed honey pricing recently. If you’re producing a unique, high quality, well packaged product (and if you’re not, you should be) you need to price it accordingly.

More local honey

That’s not the £4 a pound charged for the imported, blended, filtered, pasteurised, uniform, dull, available-by-the-tonne-anywhere rubbish stuff sold by the supermarkets.

Look in the delicatessens and local artisan outlets … you might be surprised.

£10 a pound is not unreasonable.

£10 a pound is readily achievable.

But let’s not be greedy, let’s assume a very conservative £7.50 a pound.

Local honey

At £7.50/lb the average UK yield of 25lb of honey per hive equates to £687 (for the four hives) after paying out £63 for jars and labels 8

Two factors contribute to the price you can realise for bees (which, for this exercise, means nucleus colonies):

  1. Timing – to maximise the price you need to sell when demand is the highest and supply is limited. This means early in the season. You therefore must overwinter nucs and ensure they are strong and healthy in mid-late April. Four to six weeks later there’s a glut of bees available as colonies start swarm preparation … prices drop precipitously. Nucs are easy to overwinter with a little TLC.
  2. Quality – with a small number of colonies it is not easy to improve your stocks. However, by judicious replacement of poorly-performing queens/colonies you should be able to produce perfectly acceptable bees for sale. Don’t try selling bad bees – chalkbrood-riddled, poorly behaved, patchy brood or diseased (high Varroa, overt DWV etc.).

If you are selling one or more nucs you should expect to allow them to be inspected before the sale. Just like honey tasting, nothing is more convincing than trying the product.

Maximising the amount of honey and bees

All other things being equal 9 stronger colonies will produce more honey and generate more ‘spare’ nucs.

Compare a productive commercial colony and an unproductive amateur colony at the height of the season. What’s the difference?

Mid-May ... 45,000 bees, 17 frames of brood, one queen ... now marked

Mid-May … 45,000 bees, 17 frames of brood, one queen … now marked and clipped

The productive colony is on a double brood box underneath three or four full or rapidly filling supers. There are 16+ frames of brood and the beekeeper has already split off a nuc for swarm control.

In contrast, the unproductive colony has about seven frames of brood in a single brood box topped by an underwhelmingly light super. There’s little chance of producing a spare nuc this season … or much honey.

But at least they might not swarm 🙂 10

Generating these strong colonies requires good genetics and good beekeeping.

With further good management the productive colony could produce another couple of supers of late-season honey and at least one more nuc for overwintering.

Here's one I prepared earlier

Here’s one I prepared earlier

How does that help the bank balance?

Let’s assume an ambitious-but-not-entirely-unrealistic one nuc per colony and 75lb of honey per annum in total (being sold at £175 per nuc and £7.50 a pound for honey). Honey ‘profit’ for the four colonies in our hypothetical apiary works out at £2061 11 with a further £700 for the sale of four nucs at £175 each 12.

That works out at a very much more impressive £690 per colony.

Minimising losses

But wait, surely we have to use some of those valuable nucs to make up for the 25% overwintering colony losses that the average UK beekeeper experiences?

No we don’t 🙂

If you have the beekeeping skills to manage strong colonies you almost certainly also have below average overwintering losses.

And that’s because strong colonies are, almost by definition, healthy colonies which have low mite and virus levels. And, as we’ve seen time and time again, low virus levels means reduced winter losses.

This minimises the need for nucs to maintain overall colony numbers and so maximises the nucs for sale 🙂

For the sake of finishing this already overly long post, let’s assume overwintering colony losses are 12.5% (because it makes the maths easier … 10% or lower is readily achievable) rather than the 25% national average.

That being the case, for our four hive hypothetical apiary, we’ll need one replacement nuc every two years. Therefore, over a four year period we might generate 16 nucs and use just 2 of them to replace lost colonies.

Kerching!

Here are the figures for our hypothetical four colony apiary. These assume good bees, good beekeeping, low winter losses, good forage, good weather and a following wind.

I’ve assumed savings are being made where possible on frames and foundation, but also increased the number of frames (and miticides) needed to reflect colony size and strength.

Item Expenditure (£) Income (£)
Frames and foundation 7.50 13
Miticides 76.00 14
Food 52.00 15
Honey (jars/labelling) and gross 189.00 16 2250.00 17
Nucleus colony 5.00 18 612.50 19
Sub totals 329.50 2862.50
Profit 2533.00

Per colony the overall profit is £633/annum (cf £102/colony/annum for an ‘average’ hive and beekeeper).

These figures are not unrealistic (though they’re not necessarily typical either).

They won’t be achieved every year. They are dependent upon good forage, good weather and having the beekeeping skills needed to maintain strong healthy colonies.

They might be exceeded in some years. With good forage and a good season 100+ pounds of honey per colony can be achieved.

You have no control over the weather 20, but you can influence the other two factors. You can place your bees on better forage and you can continuously try and improve your skills as a beekeeper.

And learning how to maintain (and keep!) really strong healthy productive colonies is demonstrably a very valuable skill to acquire.

E & OE

Just like in the previous article, I’ve made all sorts of assumptions and cut all sorts of corners.

Managing big strong double-brood colonies producing a nuc each every year and topped by at least three supers inevitably means investing in lots more brood boxes, supers and nuc boxes 21.

It also means a lot more work.

Extracting and jarring hundreds of pounds of honey takes time. It also benefits from some automation … an extractor, a creamer, settling tanks, a honey processing room, a warm room for supers etc.

But that lot is not needed for our well-managed four hive hypothetical apiary.

The other things I’ve deliberately omitted are alternative ways of managing colonies for profit. For example, as suggested by Calum in a previous comment, propolis is a very valuable product of the hive. You can split a strong colony very hard to generate 6-10 nucs (but no honey). You can rear queens (very easily) and you can sell wax.

You could even produce Royal Jelly …

And it’s that endless variety and options that make beekeeping so fascinating.