# Competition for breeding bees suitable for commrcial operation



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

While it's not a bad idea at first glance, there's an underlying issue here.

Many people find the whole model that commercial beekeepers use to be abhorrent. 

Very much like those huge caged chicken farms, ugh.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

WLC said:


> Many people find the whole model that commercial beekeepers use to be abhorrent.
> 
> Very much like those huge [HIGHLIGHT]caged [/HIGHLIGHT] chicken farms, ugh.


What commercial beekeeper has bees in _*cages*_? :scratch: :s



:gh:


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Bugs in a box. On palettes. On trucks. In holding yards. HFCS and pollen sub fed. High loses and short lived queens.

1.5 million hives from all over the country in almonds every winter and growing.

That's what I'm referring to.

The model.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> What commercial beekeeper has bees in _*cages*_? :scratch: :s
> 
> 
> 
> :gh:


Package suppliers.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Maybe we should reward 'organic' queen breeders and producers instead?

At least there's a payoff in the end:

'Organic' resistant Honeybee queens.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

The only issue I see is what is the criteria?? That is the tough thing to postulate... one mans good, is another mans poor. There are many here whos queens I would never touch.... Is it survivbility? brood size? honey production??

So establishing what the criteria for a commercial beek to be pleased is your first task.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

I thought the USDA already did this....they're called VSH Pol-Line.



Rusty


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

gmcharlie said:


> The only issue I see is what is the criteria?? That is the tough thing to postulate... one mans good, is another mans poor. There are many here whos queens I would never touch.... Is it survivbility? brood size? honey production??
> 
> So establishing what the criteria for a commercial beek to be pleased is your first task.


Jep, it is difficult. But of course there might be several classes, one for honey produces, one for package producing beekeepers... but this makes it much bigger.
What I was thinking is something of a waking up thing for beekeepers and for the public. We know that there is no such thing as the best honeybee for everybody.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> I thought the USDA already did this....they're called VSH Pol-Line.
> 
> 
> 
> Rusty


Here is something about the Pol-Line. I knew nothing about them. Are they widely used?
http://vshbreeders.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=125


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

For additional information you could look at the old Glenn site:

http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/hygienic_italian_breeder_queens.html

I'm not commercial, so I have no idea how many use them, but I have tried to add these genetics to my own bees.

HTH

Rusty


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

WLC said:


> Bugs in a box. On palettes. On trucks. In holding yards. HFCS and pollen sub fed. High loses and short lived queens.
> 
> 1.5 million hives from all over the country in almonds every winter and growing.
> 
> ...


I like that "The Model" Accurate and to the point.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Juhani, that's a pretty difficult standard. Not only would we have problems in defining a successful bee, there's no agreement on what constitutes a commercial beekeeper.

If you ask the guys over in the commercial forum, Tim Ives with 150 hives is not commercial. Michael Bush with 200? No. 

Another complication is trying to decide the relative importance of bee genetics and cultural practices. Those who have succeeded in having productive treatment free operations have all sorts of bees from all sorts of sources. I'm beginning to think that genetics, while part of the solution, may not be the most important factor.


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

WLC said:


> Maybe we should reward 'organic' queen breeders and producers instead?
> 
> At least there's a payoff in the end:
> 
> 'Organic' resistant Honeybee queens.


The likelihood of that happening is about as likely as all those diamond dealers in your neighborhood selling at a loss to gain market share 100 years from now. :kn:

How many $50 queens did you buy last year to support this effort with your own wallet?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

Why buy $50 dollar queens when you can raise? Unless to introduce quality genetics into you current line of queens.


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Why buy $50 dollar queens when you can raise? Unless to introduce quality genetics into you current line of queens.


Name me one full time ( no outside income) "100% organic" queen breeder who sells them for under $50!!!:scratch:

Thats what he's looking for!


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Honey-4-All said:


> Name me one full time ( no outside income) "100% organic" queen breeder who sells them for under $50!!!:scratch:
> 
> Thats what he's looking for!


Do you mean BeeWeaver?


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

WLC said:


> Do you mean BeeWeaver?


No I don't. Not close enough to be rich enough to bet a lunch in Times square vs a good crab dinner on the SF wharf as to whether Weavers are "organic" or not. If I was you'd be on!!!!

So do you want to call Laura tomorrow and confirm with her that she's willing to sit and confirm in a deposition that they only use organic sugar for feed, never use tylosin or TM and keep 100% of their bees 100% of the time in an area that is 100% certified organic........... or do you want me to? I suppose I'll have my answer by ? Lets say .... I'm thinking never!!!!!!! Doubt her lawyer husband would let it happen even if it was true!!!! If you hear otherwise send me a copy of the paperwork.:waiting:


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm not sure why you're casting stones?

I like a lot of things about BeeWeaver.

Is there such a thing as an organically certified Honeybee queen?

You could always go on their website to see what it says.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> I'm not sure why you're casting stones?

Perhaps _Honey-4-All _is responding to the subject that *WLC *first brought up ...



WLC said:


> Maybe we should reward 'organic' queen breeders and producers instead? At least there's a payoff in the end:
> 
> [HIGHLIGHT]'Organic' resistant Honeybee queens.[/HIGHLIGHT]






:gh:

... where do you get those anyway ....
.... '_organic_' .....


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Rader:

If you're asking what it is I like about BeeWeaver...

They're probably the most easily available chemical free/resistant queens that I can find.

The service is very good.

Daniel Weaver not only coordinated the HoneyBee Genome Consortium, the genome sequence itself came from BeeWeaver queens.

I have also benefitted as a result of his work on the Honeybee Genome Consortium.

Furthermore, since they're open mated queens, I also have access to a number of papers describing the genetics of the feral population in Texas.

In short, I have more information available to me about BeeWeaver's genetics than I do for any other queen producer on the planet.

Organic or not.

Finally, I like the way they're working out so far.

That's what I like about them.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

Honey-4-All said:


> Name me one full time ( no outside income) "100% organic" queen breeder who sells them for under $50!!!:scratch:
> 
> Thats what he's looking for!


 I would like to know how one would become 100% organic queen breeder? Its like 100% organic honey how is that possible. :lookout:


----------



## DPBsbees (Apr 14, 2011)

Move to a rain forest in South America.


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

WLC said:


> I'm not sure why you're casting stones?
> 
> I like a lot of things about BeeWeaver.
> 
> ...



Not casting stones. Just shedding light on what I would consider a misconception and a pipe dream commercially. 

You asked for "organic" queen producers as Radar noted? Not true? I said it ain't happening under $50..... which is the fact currently as far as I know. 

In fact no one I know one I know sells them at any price here in the US? 

Not sure even anyone in Hawaii could still qualify at this point. 

If I'm wrong I would love to see a web link. Could it be done..... Yes. 

Under $50.00 and its not very probable you will see them for sale.

If you wish to place an order for a thousand at $75 I would consider raising some "July" ones in our yards in the shadow of Denali in AK.... Best 100% organic fields in the US and we could run the bees to match your request. Its my estimate that even at that pricing we would loose money 8 out of 10 years on such a crazy attempt.

Queen raising on massive scale is not all its cut out to be for those who produce one or two at home. An Organic version would not be nearly as easy as you think.

What you infer from your reading of Weavers website...... Things like "we haven't treated for mites since xxxx " is a heck of a long way from "organic" by the definitions used here in CA. 

So....... Are you calling or do I need to ask her the next time I chat with them???? There is no way they will be signing the paper certifying what you infer!!! 

Up for lunch?


----------



## Honey-4-All (Dec 19, 2008)

Birdman said:


> I would like to know how one would become 100% organic queen breeder? Its like 100% organic honey how is that possible. :lookout:


Birdman: Some summer you can visit and see the yards in AK and tell me if they would qualify as "organic." We could do it, Bees, Bears, Moose, and millions of acres of nothing but great scenery, rocks, rivers, and a lot of mush.... The certification would cost me a ton and not earn a penny more on the honey anyways! Same with the queens.... All it would do is ad a ton of expense for very little gain...


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

rhaldridge said:


> Juhani, that's a pretty difficult standard. Not only would we have problems in defining a successful bee, there's no agreement on what constitutes a commercial beekeeper. I'm beginning to think that genetics, while part of the solution, may not be the most important factor.


What about thinking it like a PR trick and advertisement for beekeeping. The winner of a racing competition is not the best driver, is he. The winner of a singing competition is not the best singer either, but the media likes to tell stories about them. 

And the rules are something we make up. We are not claiming that the winner of this competition would work as a perfect bee all over the world. It would just be the winner.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"So....... Are you calling or do I need to ask her the next time I chat with them???? There is no way they will be signing the paper certifying what you infer!!! Up for lunch?" 

Honey4all, perhaps we'll just call them 'chemical free' since you're insisting on a 'certified' organic status.

I'm always up for breakfast, lunch, or dinner. What a silly question.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I guess it would be about best results, and that could only be determined by them actually being tested in a commercial outfit.

So probably it would be a case of finding a friendly commercial beekeeper (if such a creature exists LOL), who would be prepared to take say, 10 queens and measure the results of them over a 2 or 3 year period.

There would be a lot of work involved for the commercial beekeeper, he would have to initially introduce the queens to 10 equal hives along with the same for any competitor queens. He would then have to keep track of them all, more complex than it sounds in a migratory outfit, especially if splits are made, brood swapped, etc. And it would have to be a migratory outfit, or the queens would not be exposed to those hardships and it would not be a fair trial.

The very hardest for a commercial beekeeper would be to not treat, and if the hive is dying, let it. Very difficult in a commercial operation with bees on pallets.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Commercial outfits already use resistant queens, like BeeWeavers.

They probably use queens from so many different sources however, that I wonder if they can even keep track of them, let alone find comparisons.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Oldtimer said:


> I guess it would be about best results, and that could only be determined by them actually being tested in a commercial outfit.
> 
> And it would have to be a migratory outfit, or the queens would not be exposed to those hardships and it would not be a fair trial.
> 
> The very hardest for a commercial beekeeper would be to not treat, and if the hive is dying, let it. Very difficult in a commercial operation with bees on pallets.


The best beekeepers for the testing job are not the biggest ones, maybe someone with hundreds of hives and a system of record keeping. And weather it should be a migratory outfit, it is totally up to us to decide. Maybe the beekeeper in US could be one, but the others not. Migratory beekeeping as done in US is quite unknown to for instance beekeepers in Europe. Professional beekeepers move their bees according to flowers blooming, but we don´t have the almond deserts.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

Honey-4-All said:


> Birdman: Some summer you can visit and see the yards in AK and tell me if they would qualify as "organic." We could do it, Bees, Bears, Moose, and millions of acres of nothing but great scenery, rocks, rivers, and a lot of mush.... The certification would cost me a ton and not earn a penny more on the honey anyways! Same with the queens.... All it would do is ad a ton of expense for very little gain...


 I would love to come down a check it out. How big are your yards and what do the bee forage on rocks, rivers and mush don't produce much honey.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

Birdman said:


> I would love to come down a check it out. How big are your yards and what do the bee forage on rocks, rivers and mush don't produce much honey.


AK is one of the richest areas around for honey I would kill for just the fireweed. only downside is its a short season


----------



## DanielD (Jul 21, 2012)

Ok, I am a beginner at this beekeeping, but I can see one thing about this TF commercial beekeeping idea. I don't know how well I can explain my thoughts here, but I don't think that TF can go commercial in the normal sense of commercial beekeeping. Not that it's incompetent, just maybe the two attitudes of beekeeping aren't really compatible. 

I can think of my daughters raising chickens, tending to their needs to have fresh water and food, allowing them to be pastured, watching over each one of them in a sense, and knowing when one has an issue to tend to. They have a lot of hands on in it to keep the chickens healthy and laying great tasting eggs. The chickens don't need any medications, etc. to keep them alive. If one came along that wasn't healthy and strong like the rest, don't drag it along with the rest of them, but put it on the butcher block. The time invested wouldn't pay off and we wouldn't want weak genetics in the mix either. They won't be able to compete with the local super market for egg sales, but they would have a smaller market with the people who would want that great tasting pastured chicken egg and willing to pay extra. 
If they one day decided to ramp up the egg sales to thousands of eggs a week, or whatever, their chicken raising model would have to change. They would have to invest in a big long building and cage them all up with automated feeding, watering, etc. They don't have the time to know each chicken a little bit, (they seem to know which chicken laid which egg) and how are you going to keep track of all those chickens out in the pasture? Of course, now they would be able to sell to Tyson or some industrial egg producer, but their chickens and eggs would taste like the rest too. 
I am sure this is a shabby illustration, but you can either raise chickens with care and produce a great tasting chicken and egg, or you can be commercial and feed the masses. I think both will be there, but they can only mix so far before they become the other. The industry will pound out a bunch of cheap chickens, and the chicken keeper will salvage the different breeds and keep a diverse selection of chickens out there and provide some people with great eggs. 
I don't think we even need the commercial food industry to feed the world, but they will be here because they make cheaper food. 

I hope everyone can apply that picture to bees. I am not trying to compare chickens to bees some how, so no straw men please. It's just that there are two models of producing and I don't think they can mix. I could also be totally wrong. 

By the way, I am attempting TF bees.


----------



## Tim Ives (May 28, 2013)

Just received my 2013 USDA Pesticide Diagnostic Report, collected 8/19/13. Zero Pesticides detected. 

Of the 451 samples tested nationally. The top 5 pesticides are put in by the beekeeper.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

DanielD said:


> I am sure this is a shabby illustration, but you can either raise chickens with care and produce a great tasting chicken and egg, or you can be commercial and feed the masses. I think both will be there, but they can only mix so far before they become the other. The industry will pound out a bunch of cheap chickens, and the chicken keeper will salvage the different breeds and keep a diverse selection of chickens out there and provide some people with great eggs.
> 
> By the way, I am attempting TF bees.


There may be a middle ground, to continue the chicken analogy. Joel Salatin makes a good living from farming sustainably. (He's the chicken tractor guy in VA.) His chickens are a little more expensive than Tyson's but if I were in VA, I'd buy them. He's worked out the technology to produce thousands of chickens over the course of a year on pasture and organic feed, without medication or debeaking.

Some beekeepers have done the same, but they evidently lack Salatin's promotional genius. But the trend is positive, I believe.

http://www.polyfacefarms.com/


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I see one major fundamental flaw with this idea (and several minor ones which I shall not address at this time). In my experience, treatment-free beekeeping relies on bees bred and tested in the conditions in which they operate. That means you'd need a consistent commercial testbed and it has been explained repeatedly how commercial beekeepers are not willing to so endanger their profit margin.

Furthermore, I have yet to see it possible for treatment-free bees to survive such stress and exposure to pathogens as they are when migrated.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

If chickens get a pest the size of a silver dollar that starts killing them all off, you may rethink that idea.

Still waiting on my reports...... Mine were sampled in aug......


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Solomon Parker said:


> I
> Furthermore, I have yet to see it possible for treatment-free bees to survive such stress and exposure to pathogens as they are when migrated.


What about Chris Baldwin?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Nobody knows much about Chris Baldwin.

In the context of the actual thread topic, if this contest took place, the bees would need to be tested in a migratory situation. Hauling bees possibly for days, with the truck covered in nets so bees are transferring from one hive to another, along with all the other stresses of being exposed to possibly thousands of other hives and their pathogen variants, having to live for long periods with no natural food, all the stuff that is par for the course for a commercial beehive. Would require that a queen has to be tested in this environment so it can show it's mettle.

To me it is no surprise at all that of the hives that are treatment free, virtually all of them are stationary, or moved occasionally and with care.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Solomon Parker said:


> I see one major fundamental flaw with this idea (and several minor ones which I shall not address at this time). In my experience, treatment-free beekeeping relies on bees bred and tested in the conditions in which they operate. That means you'd need a consistent commercial testbed and it has been explained repeatedly how commercial beekeepers are not willing to so endanger their profit margin.
> 
> Furthermore, I have yet to see it possible for treatment-free bees to survive such stress and exposure to pathogens as they are when migrated.


This would be a test between the tf bees, so all participants would be faced the same stress factors.

Commercial testbed? For the breeder to test some intermediate results? Just breeding strong tf bees ends up sometimes with astonishing results: I have got good reports of my bees from Cyprus and Mexico, from climate and environment of stress factors, which are totally different from mine. These beekeepers are both treating.


OT: Rusty Hill Farm mentioned these VSH-Pol line bees. I read a study where they already had been tested in migratory beekeeping. They managed well.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Juhani Lunden said:


> This would be a test between the tf bees, so all participants would be faced the same stress factors.


Complex, but if you could have different classes corresponding to the severity of efforcts of different kinds abuse handed out by large commercial outfits, not only could you have your competition, you'd find out how 'deep' into the industrial model bees could be taken. You'd also highlight the depth and nature of the correlation between industrial beekeeping and the need to treat. As well as show that backing off some (and how) allowed non-treatment commercial beekeeping.

All that would give a lot of info that could be used to develop a division between harmful/non-harmful beekeeping that would allow non-harmful beekeepers to ask for a premium on their product, and also supply impetus to breeders to get in on the game. 

Note: mass breeding is very much part of the bee health problem too.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

Competition is on. We would like to call all bee breeders of the world to participate in this "Competition to breed Varroa resistant bees for commercial purposes".

Time for breeding work is 10 years. After 10 years, in January 2024, we come back to this thread and ask for participants to enter to the testing phase.

At the moment we have not set up the rules, but it seems that because of import/export restrictions, different needs and environmental factors, there will be several classes in this race. The meaning of this competition is to make beekeepers more aware of tf beekeeping, make honey consumers aware, that beekeepers are concerned about the welfare of bees and above all, to breed better bees.

The breeds which enter the test phase are somehow in scientific manner tested and a jury will make the decision of the winner. Breeding work is always local, therefore it might even be, that there are as many classes as there are participants. Don´t take this too seriously, after all it is just life. The winner will get some publicity, but not much more.


----------



## MikeTheBeekeeper (May 18, 2011)

I've been trying this for 4 years and have only had 1 hive survive more than 2 years (it's still alive and well). Most of my hives, whether bought, swarms, or splits, live through the first year and die their second winter. This year I had several very strong hives going into winter die suddenly for no apparent reason (they had enough stores and lots of bees).

But who knows maybe I'm not doing it right.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

MikeTheBeekeeper said:


> I've been trying this for 4 years and have only had 1 hive survive more than 2 years (it's still alive and well). Most of my hives, whether bought, swarms, or splits, live through the first year and die their second winter. This year I had several very strong hives going into winter die suddenly for no apparent reason (they had enough stores and lots of bees).
> 
> But who knows maybe I'm not doing it right.


Maybe you are doing it right.

I'd get hold of more bees as a matter of urgency and unless you have good reason to think they're more resistant, requeen using grafts (of one sort or another) from your surviving hive.[1] Make new splits (they need only be tiny) as soon as you can and try mating them in relatively wild places. Try to keep all mating clear of treating apiaries as much as possible. They're your worst - your only - enemy.

You need to build numbers to overcome the natural losses experienced with genetically inadeequate bees, and work up resistance through as much genetic control as you can manage. Feed routinely outside of flows to promote growth - you need the bees and the comb. 

Keep at it Mike and good luck. 

Mike (UK)

[1] Its just occurred to me - this is malappropriated plantsman's terminology. When I graft apples a 'scion' carrying the genetic material (variety) I want to grow on is united with a rootsock.

Taking that to bees: the new queen material is the scion: the bees that will accompany her (till she raises her own) are the equivalent of the rootstock. The process is grafting. 

I suppose 'the graft' can refer to the scionwood as well as the union and the process...

In queen raising the 'grafted' larvae are actually scions. I think using the term 'graft' to describe that part of the process is rather out of place. Hmmm


----------



## MikeTheBeekeeper (May 18, 2011)

I have only raised queens once (only 3 I think) but am making plans to raise more (a lot more) this spring right after almonds (February-March).

I had that in mind what you say about keeping clear of treated apiaries. While I don't treat mine, I get my bees and queens from people that do (except if I make splits from my own hives, but even then I add a laying queen from treated bees). Not to mention a commercial beekeeper places at least 100 to at most 1200 hives less than half a mile away from my own hives all throughout the season.

I have only one that I would consider of relatively good "survivor" stock (3 year old hive & queen, never treated, 10 frames of bees now). I plan on using that hive for my queens. I'm thinking of setting up a mating yard (far away from here) with 3-4 other strong hives I have (only 1 year olds however).

We'll see how it goes.


----------

