# Starting out in treatment-free beekeeping



## bluegrass

Overall good write up for somebody wanting to start beekeeping.

My opinion is this: 
1. A new beek can't start out treatment free, that is bound for failure. They need to read a lot, I think MB's book is too advanced for most beginners.
2. They need to join a club and get a good mentor, this is a double edge sword though because it is nearly impossible to find a good mentor, and a lot of commercial based rhetoric comes out of most clubs, and that will lead them down the wrong path. 

3. They need to have a good understanding of when something is wrong and how to identify it, prior to going treatment free, and they need to know how to raise queens and select stock to raise queens from.

Going treatment free is like owning hunting dogs... You can't buy a good hunting dog, you have breed and train them yourself or you are just throwing money away. 

You can't buy bees and decide to go treatment free, they will just die.


----------



## Duboisi

I think that you should treat the bees, but not without indication.

If you do not treat at all, you will loose a lot of bees in the start. But if you treat when you see signs of problems, you most likely keep the bees. You can then re-queen from a hive that does not need that treatment. 
If you treat them all by routine, you will not gain the benefits from any "superior" stock.

Remember that a hive is continuously renewing itself, and that a re-queened hive is completely different after two months than what it would have been with the old queen. With other livestock that would be like changing a cow from a good milk-producer to a good beef-producers before slaughter.

In a beeyard with 10 hives, where 8 suffers from varroa, while two manages pretty fine, I think you will most likely end up with one of the following three scenarios:

-2 hives and 8 boxes(that has to be repopulated from scratch). 6 weeks later you might have been able to split and have 4 weaker hives. - No honey for you this year

-2 hives that are left untreated, but manipulated to give queen-cells, and 8 hives that are treated. 
6 weeks later - you have 2 strong hives, and 8 hives that might have had a little stop in the brood-cycle, but are almost as strong as the two first. The new queens are laying and the new more resistant genetics have started taking over the hive.

-10 hives that has been treated and are strong. 6 weeks later you may retreat. Rinse and repeat for ever and ever.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Duboisi said:


> I think that you should treat the bees, but not without indication.


This is the 'Treatment-Free Beekeeping' Forum. Please observe the rules about suggesting treatments. Don't.



Duboisi said:


> Rinse and repeat for ever and ever.


Exactly what we're trying to avoid. However, when foreign substances are introduced into the hive, their residuals can have permanent effects. Never starting is far preferable.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I've actually never used any mite treatments and have never lost a hive to mites. Though I often wonder why other beekeepers have such mite problems. I see mites from time to time, so I know my bees have them, I just don't really see many mite problems.


----------



## Solomon Parker

bluegrass said:


> 1. A new beek can't start out treatment free, that is bound for failure. They need to read a lot, I think MB's book is too advanced for most beginners. ... You can't buy bees and decide to go treatment free, they will just die.


I know what you mean. I'm one of those beekeepers who started out treatment-free and failed. Except that I didn't fail. I succeeded despite the number of times I've been told the exact thing you just told me. It's a load of hooey.



bluegrass said:


> 2. They need to join a club and get a good mentor, this is a double edge sword though because it is nearly impossible to find a good mentor, and a lot of commercial based rhetoric comes out of most clubs, and that will lead them down the wrong path.


I have stayed away from clubs for the exact reason you enumerate here. My mentors have been online. Most probably didn't know they were mentors, but they were none the less.



bluegrass said:


> 3. They need to have a good understanding of when something is wrong and how to identify it, prior to going treatment free, and they need to know how to raise queens and select stock to raise queens from.


 Yes, I will write that article in good time.



bluegrass said:


> Going treatment free is like owning hunting dogs...


Going treatment-free is not like owning hunting dogs.


----------



## bluegrass

If you didn't want input then you shouldn't ask for it.

I read what you wrote and gave my opinion, no need to try and turn it into a debate.

You may consider adding Ross Conrad's book "Natural Beekeeping" to your list of recommended reading... it is a conglomeration of wisdom from people like Bush and Palmer, but is written for the beginner. He is a writer first and beekeeper second, he is also fairly new to beekeeping so he didn't interject much of his own opinions into it, he just simplified what others have written.

Have you ever hunted with dogs?


----------



## hpm08161947

For nearly 40 years a yard of 50 hives was left untouched, it was lost when the owner suddenly died. It was located deep in one of those extremely isolated carolina bays. Of the 50 hives only one was alive and it was described to me as one huge comb surrounded by a rotten tissue of wood. Supposedly the hive was thriving with a huge population of bees. Unfortunately no one has told me what happened to those bees. Wonder if they would have had significant value?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Solomon,

After reading this work, I have a few thoughts, which may or may not be helpful:

First, I feel like this is not well-aimed at "newbees". It is more useful to someone who is committed to beekeeping in a treatment free manner. The reason I say this is that a true newcomer is not likely to be able to handle a lot of what you're laying out here. A lot of this seems written for someone who has built up a fair amount of understanding, and committed a fair amount of effort to deeper learning before getting into this.

Now, I understand that you took that kind of approach as a beginner yourself, but I don't think the majority of people do. You may be actually thinking about the more committed, but it is not absolutely clear at the outset. You talk about "newbees", and "people just starting out".

Also, a lot of what you're suggesting here just cannot apply to many urban beekeepers. So, you're not just talking about "new beekeepers", but people in a rural setting, or with plenty of space, who are very much committed to beekeeping taking up a substantial amount of their time.

This is all fine, but I think that focus on audience will improve the work and the acceptance of it. You'll reach more people who are in tune with what you're offering if you are more specific with you you're talking to. 

You suggest beginning with 5 colonies. But the average newb is not likely to lay out $400 - $600 on bees their first time out. They're also not going to be likely to accept the "steep learning curve" you're describing in raising nucs and regular splitting - followed by wintering multiple nucs their first year. I can certainly see the value of learning all of that, but I have seen way too many people melting down on just trying to install a package to believe that they can swallow all of that new experience in one year as a hobbyist.

Your point about beginning with nucs is very interesting, especially from the equipment cost stand-point. But the need to do so much management and expansion in order to avoid swarming will quickly put them into quite a few boxes and frames.

I find your interest in a radically different approach interesting, but aimed at new beekeepers makes it unfeasible to me. How many people do you think would have kids if they knew it meant starting with triplets - or quintuplets?

I know just from starting out with top bars, which have a steep learning curve - that you have to be pretty committed, to handle a ton of extra learning as a beginner. And what you've written here is steeper than starting a couple of top bars. The plan here as it stands would likely eliminate just as many beginners as dying bees does - just for different reasons. In this case, they'll just be overwhelmed.

As I read it, half of this is suited to a beginner, the other half is suited to a person with some experience, who is committed to building a 10-20 colony apiary. 

I just happen to fit solidly into the second group, so I do respect your work, and appreciate your sharing it. I put these points here only to assist you in reaching your goals. A focus on the right audience, and a tailoring of the information to that audience is key.

Adam


----------



## Solomon Parker

bluegrass said:


> If you didn't want input then you shouldn't ask for it.


I did ask for input, and I do want it. It just so happens I disagree vehemently with one of your points and it's primarily because it undermines the whole purpose of what I'm trying to do. I say "Here's how to start beekeeping treatment-free" to which you replied {paraphrase} "Impossible." Sorry, not valid to the subject.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Adam Foster Collins said:


> First, I feel like this is not well-aimed at "newbees".


Adam, you make a good point. And it's hard to write this looking from other perspectives because I have a different level of drive than others do. But to put this in a context, I believe if you start with one hive and attempt to do it treatment free, it will fail. It's because that level of drive that I have to be successful at something that I was able to get this working from the beginning. I had the forethought to expect failure and plan for it while others expect success and miss the mark. I didn't deceive myself by thinking all my bees would survive, I knew that before the thing was done, I'd lose 90-95% of my original stock. I planned for that eventuality and saved the money necessary to complete the task before starting it. The truth is, I got overwhelmed. But an experience like that is one that should be used for learning and strengthening and not for a reason to quit.

So I understand that it was not well aimed at newbees, and my first point was that you should not become a beekeeper the year you plan to become a beekeeper. In a sense, I was not a newbee when I purchased the bees. I had six months of preparation. I accumulated equipment. I built wooden ware. And when things fell in place, I did what was necessary to follow it through. These are the things necessary to be successful in treatment-free beekeeping. It requires a dedication not found in a newbee with a credit card and an internet connection. If I'm going to be advocating a method that works, I must advocate the method that actually has a good chance at working, and that's what I'm doing. Otherwise, I'm just perpetuating the atrocity of setting newbees up for failure. I can't ethically do that.


----------



## Delta Bay

> Thus far, the things I have recommended are pretty standard. But the next part, I have never heard anyone talk about. I think you should do a year or two keeping only nucleus hives. I think you should increase as much as possible, I think you should overwinter them, and I think you can use them to continue to develop your treatment free operation long after you’ve switched to full size hives.


I think you're off to a great start! I beleive this quote is key for beginner beekeepers whether they are planning on treatment free or not. Just working with smaller colonies is going to be less intimidating than full size booming colonies which will be helpful in learning handling of bees in the beginning. My first years with bees showed me very clearly that a nucleus colony made up with a queen cell had very little problem going through winter compared to a colony that didn't have a brood break. Early success is really the only way to keep more beginners continuing with bees. A clear management plan spelled out as to how to would be helpful for a newbee in getting off to a good start.


----------



## Mbeck

Good hunting dogs can be bought. They are usually cost three times what they are worth and are half as good as promised. Their new owners can ruin them within a week.
So maybe buying bees and hunting dogs are similar !


----------



## Joseph Clemens

After I relocated to Marana, AZ from La Cienega (Sante Fe), NM, bringing no bees with me, I needed bees, so I bought some new equipment, then did a cutout from beneath a neighbors mobile home. When examining my memories of those bees, I think they may have been AHB's. I hadn't been in touch with other beekeepers or the contemporary beekeeping periodicals for at least a decade before this relocation. I was completely unaware of tracheal and varroa mites in the U.S.A. until I started reading about them in Bee Culture, and the American Bee Journal. Once I knew about the mites, it was easy to see them on my bees, I not only could see phoretic varroa mites, I also noticed bees with K-wing crawling on the ground (a symptom of tracheal mites). Despite the obvious presence of these mites, and my not using any mite "treatments", the bees and the many splits I'd made to increase my colony numbers (I was up to six colonies at that time), all my colonies appeared very strong and each established colony produced several 10-frame medium supers of surplus honey each year.


Then I got married and we moved together to the Picture Rocks area of Tucson, AZ. I increased my colony count from six to twelve using the same technique (walk-away splits). I still hadn't used any "mite treatments" and was having increasing problems dealing with overly defensive bees. My attempts to requeen them were entirely futile. I read everything I could find about dealing with AHB ,mites, and nearly every other topic and subtopic concerning beekeeping. Even participated in serveral online beekeeping forums. I finally discovered success at requeening my colonies and reducing their defensiveness. I also learned how to raise my own queens and nucs, though the genetics of my bees changes with my current choice of mother queens (which has changed a few times in this past decade). Presently I am using Russell SunKist Cordovan queens as mother queens and heading my colonies and nucs with their daughters. Once, a few years ago I had two colonies with symptoms of what appeared to be PMS, this cleared up within a month and I haven't seen it again. 


Specific answers to some questions: 


Q: Why don't I see many mite problems?
A: I honestly don't really know.


Q: Did you start out with a particular breed of bee?
A: Unintentionally, I believe I began in this area with feral AHB's. Though it has been at least a decade since I intentionally kept any like them.


Q: Are there other bees infested with mites in your area?
A: I'm fairly certain that all the bees in my area, including my own, are infested with mites.


If I had any specific ideas why mites don't seem to be the scourge they are to other beekeepers, I would certainly share it. Maybe it's just the climate here in Southern Arizona.

I use almost exclusively, 8-frame medium size supers; I use screened bottom boards with slatted racks (these are without entrances); I use various small-cell/natural-cell combs (because it seemed interesting when I learned about it - I didn't choose it in order to help my bees with mites); and I use upper entrances - exclusively.


----------



## bluegrass

Mbeck said:


> Good hunting dogs can be bought. *They are usually cost three times what they are worth and are half as good as promised.* Their new owners can ruin them within a week.
> So maybe buying bees and hunting dogs are similar !


LOL... well said.


----------



## Omie

Sol, I think your article is pretty good, but I think any new beekeeper would be completely overwhelmed by starting with 5 hives. Yikes, I remember how huge a thing it was when i got my 1st only hive...if i had had five I would have not been able to handle them. Lots could have then gone bad.
This is my third year and I bought one new nuc this Spring and split my surviving hive from last year into 4 colonies. i made nucs and learned from that too. I now have 5 and finally feel confident enough to take care of them.

Hello?.... _Earth calling_ you guys who come to the treatment-free forum to tell folks they ought to treat their bees...?? You are _so__ goofy_! _Dudes!!_ lol!


----------



## Roland

Omie wrote:

Hello?.... Earth calling you guys who come to the treatment-free forum to tell folks they ought to treat their bees...?? You are so goofy! Dudes!! lol! 

What if they are suggesting a method of controlling mites(non chemical treatment) that is NOT considered a treatment(chemical) per your forum definitions? I would suggest the neophyte does just that, "treat" mites with a non chemical method that YOU approve of untill they are more experienced . Of course, if they get AFB, EFB, or CCD, they will have to kill the bees and irradiate or burn the hives.

Mr. Clemens, I suspect you may have done a better job of breeding a weaker mite than you realize, it would explain most of your success. That does not in any way belittle your accomplishments.

Sol, Your ideas may work in your local, but you are asking a neophyte to attain Palmer levels of skill to winter nucs in a northern climate, much less keep them from abscounding from overcrowding. You audience is getting smaller by the minute. 

Crazy Roland:
commercially controlling mites and CCD with non chemical "not Treatments"


----------



## Solomon Parker

Well, it's up on the site, and it has pictures!

I know it's overwhelming Omie, but I think it's what will work. I think the next best option would be for a couple of friends to get together and start as a group. Then each could have a share and each could rely on the others while they get things going. Sound better?


----------



## Omie

Roland said:


> What if they are suggesting a method of controlling mites(non chemical treatment) that is NOT considered a treatment(chemical) per your forum definitions? I would suggest the neophyte does just that, "treat" mites with a non chemical method that YOU approve of untill they are more experienced . Of course, if they get AFB, EFB, or CCD, they will have to kill the bees and irradiate or burn the hives.


Roland, you've lost me there- sorry maybe I'm stupid but I can't even tell what is sarcasm and what isn't- would you clarify or reword please so I can understand what you're saying? I truly don't get what you are trying to say.

Sol- lots of new BK's do not have space for 5 hives. I'm talking about backyard beekeepers, not people with farms or land. Yes, the friends starting as a group thing might be do-able, but I tried to get that going with two other friends this year (they were both 1st yr BKs) and it just didn't work out too well because we could not agree on how to manage bees- it's funny- we all were into 'natural beekeeping' so to speak so you'd think we'd all be on the same page... but we differed enough to make it problematic to work too closely together. I wasn't into inspecting hives on a rainy day with one person who wanted to do it right then because it was a biodynamic 'root day' or some phase of the moon, and the tarpaper I wanted to wrap _my own hive_ with for the winter was not acceptable for the other person because it was black and didn't match the dark brown tarp on his hive next to it.  Too many ideas clashing, so in reality it's winding up just being people emailing each other on occasion to share updates or info. Just relating one experience on that from one person though.

I'm only one person, but starting with 5 hives would have been way too much for me, and I researched beekeeping for months before getting a single hive. I'm glad I started with one, then two the next year, then split into 6 this year, now down to 5 again. That growth was great for me as my knowledge grew to keep up. If I had it to do over again I would have started with two, second year split to 4, 3rd year 5-8. My small yard can't really house more than 4 full size hives, ...or maybe 2 full and 4 nucs.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Omie, you gotta do what you think is right and what works for you. One of the things I've endeavored to do with my site is not not comment on things I don't have personal experience with, I try to do the same here. I do have personal experience in losing all of a small number of hives in the first winter, and I do have experience succeeding with a larger number of hives. So I can only recommend what I know works in my own personal experience.

Roland it seems would rather give all credit to the mite rather than the beekeeper or the bees. Funny he forgets to mention that if we are breeding weak mites then he must be breeding strong ones. Thanks Roland!


----------



## deknow

Everything about beginning beekeeping is problematic.

You have to know 1000 things....to understand these 1000 things you have to know 1000000 more things....then you realize that there is barely 1 of those 1000000 things that beekeepers agree upon...so for each of these 1000000 things, there are 100 opinions.

How is a new beekeeper to learn (much less understand) anything?

In some ways, these forums are very helpful...but in others they add to the confusion. One of the things that tends to get lost is a whole system....instead, we have thousands of disparate facts, techniques, and ideas. They are not of equal value, and more importantly, they are not all compatible. 
For instance:
If you aren't using foundation, you don't want to put a new box full of new undrawn frames on top of the hive (you want to use some bait comb, a sheet of foundation, or put the new box under the bees rather than over the bees)....but if you are adding a box of foundation, you can place it right on top. I think it was here on beesource where someone reported that the bees drew plastic much more readily than foundationless...this seems at odds with the experience of most of us...turns out it was a mixed box of foundationless and undrawn plastic frames placed on top of the bees...if the box had been placed under, I expect the opposite results would have been obtained. The common "bees only work up" only works in hives with foundation or comb....left to their own devices, bees only work down.

An integrated approach is important. Understanding an integrated approach requires understanding a number of integrated approaches...this is to say, I don't know how you can really learn this stuff without reading a number of books. Not all books offer an integrated approach.

deknow


----------



## Omie

Solomon Parker said:


> I do have personal experience in losing all of a small number of hives in the first winter, and I do have experience succeeding with a larger number of hives. So I can only recommend what I know works in my own personal experience.


Sol, yes I do understand what you are saying. I was given a single hive my first year, and it promptly died over the winter- that's 100% loss. The next year I started with two new nucs, and lost one over that winter- that's 50% loss. This year I'm going into winter with 5 colonies (2 are nucs) and I am 'hoping' for less than 50% loss this winter. But my point is that it _does_ jive with your experience of 100% loss first winter, and I suspect if I had gone into that very first winter with 5 hives instead of one, as you suggest, odds are I would have had maybe 2 survivors and thus would _not_ have had 100% loss that first year.
So in that sense you are totally correct about beginners getting better results from 5 hives to start. It's only that I don't think I could have managed that many very well that first year! Now 2 yrs later I can handle 5 hives just fine.
So what you and I are saying really doesn't negate each other, it's simply a matter of practicality for me.


----------



## honeyshack

This is making beekeeping to complicated for beginners. Keep it simple
Start with two hives, scrap the nucs, start on clean equipment, and start with packages. No old wax, no larva which might already have some breeding varroa

No wintering nucs...Just two hives to learn on. The curve is steep, the cost is expensive, the results could not be good come the following spring. Thus leading to a discouraged beekeeper who just laid out a ton of cash on your 5 hive system.

No need to re invent the wheel here Solomon...start small, start fresh, and go from there


----------



## Barry

I'm still partial that beginners start with packages. Keeps someone else's comb out of their new hive that were most likely treated, and allows the beginner time to prepare for things as the hive increases at a slower rate than a nuc.


----------



## Roland

Omie wrote:

Roland, you've lost me there- sorry maybe I'm stupid but I can't even tell what is sarcasm and what isn't- would you clarify or reword please so I can understand what you're saying? I truly don't get what you are trying to say.

No Sarcasm intended. I TRY to write concise comments. I must have failed. The point I was trying to make is that mites make it hard for a beginner(neophyte), and that someone complained when a poster suggested that the beginner treat for mites. It is possible to use the "Treatments" that appear in the forum rules as 'Not Treatments" to control mites, such as brood breaks and drone frame manipulation. You can be "Treatment Free" and still treat for mites using the second group.
Any clearer?

Sol reread my comment to Mr. Clemens, I believe I gave him credit. It does take work to create a weaker mite, if that is what is happening. 

Sol wrote that I must be breeding stronger mites. What facts do you have to support that statement? We have not seen mite issues in five years, and have treated with methods you defined as "Not Treatments"

Crazy Roland
Linden Apiary, Est. 1852


----------



## Solomon Parker

Roland said:


> Sol wrote that I must be breeding stronger mites. What facts do you have to support that statement?


I'm only using your own logic. IF by letting bees die, a weaker mite is selected for, THEN by treating and keeping hives alive, stronger mites are selected for. We already know that mites, like most pests, are automatically selected by pesticides to produce individuals immune to the pesticide. But you know all this, you're an expert. You just need to be consistent.


----------



## Omie

Roland said:


> No Sarcasm intended. I TRY to write concise comments. I must have failed. The point I was trying to make is that mites make it hard for a beginner(neophyte), and that someone complained when a poster suggested that the beginner treat for mites. It is possible to use the "Treatments" that appear in the forum rules as 'Not Treatments" to control mites, such as brood breaks and drone frame manipulation. You can be "Treatment Free" and still treat for mites using the second group.
> Any clearer?


Yes, it's completely clear now- thanks! I'm glad I asked you to clarify, I was getting a totally different message from misinterpreting your words. I totally agree with what you are saying. My mixup is that I don't think of brood breaks, splitting, drone frames, etc as 'treatments'...I plumb forgot that they are considered 'treatments' in this forum's guidelines. sigh.... well hey I'm glad I asked you about your post!


----------



## Solomon Parker

Omie said:


> My mixup is that I don't think of brood breaks, splitting, drone frames, etc as 'treatments'...I plumb forgot that they are considered 'treatments' in this forum's guidelines. sigh.... well hey I'm glad I asked you about your post!


Um, no, they're not. Check Unique Forum Rules.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> IF by letting bees die, a weaker mite is selected for, THEN by treating and keeping hives alive, stronger mites are selected for. We already know that mites, like most pests, are automatically selected by pesticides to produce individuals immune to the pesticide.


Roland has made it clear that he doesn't use pesticides.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I said 'treating'. Pesticides are used in a different sentence providing background information.

The forum definition is different from my definition, however, some assume that the forum is 'mine' and the rules thereof are also 'mine.' Such is not the case.


----------



## Omie

Solomon Parker said:


> Um, no, they're not. Check Unique Forum Rules.


D'OHHHH!!! lol

Ok I re-read the non-treatment forum rules. I am now _informed_! ;D

I also can now call myself a treatment free beekeeper! 

P.S. A beekeeper acquaintance I know really annoys me when he proudly crows (every time I talk to him) that he never uses any treatments at all. He uses Mite away formic acid pads twice a year every year routinely, but when I remind him of this he merely flips it off, saying "formic acid is all organic!, it's not a chemical treatment!" Rather exasperating.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Omie said:


> Rather exasperating.


*Sigh* yep.

But anyway, back to a plan for newbees. What about having more than one hive makes it so exasperating? Could it be thinking that they need checked too often? I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing because I don't remember that 20 was overwhelming at all. The only thing I remember was overwhelming was during my first inspection when I discovered that all the foundation was falling out of the frames. That was 195 frames! I was overwhelmed! I was near to having a panic attack. 

If you want to go back and check, you can probably find the post that my girlfriend posted for me while I was out in the yard throwing a fit. I eventually pulled myself together (and got rid of her too, she was crazy) and since I had done my research, I had some knowledge about swarm ketching frames. I also had access to rubber bands and was able to learn how to put comb into frames. I also got to design and use a new wax melter which produced fantastic looking wax made from all the loopy comb.

But I don't remember that having 20 colonies was overwhelming. But maybe I have a more relaxed management style. Tell me what you think.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I agree, once you put the bees together with their woodenware, you never really have to touch them again unless you have a reason(s) for doing so. Such as you plan to manage for and harvest honey, or manage for and raise queens and/or bees. What can be less stressful than that?


----------



## hpm08161947

Pretty sure it is a matter of individual style.. or maybe just how relaxed the person is. I feel like I know several who would have no trouble with 5 new hives.... and I know others would would struggle with 1. Your 6 month prep time should help to answer that for the individual. Of course the one unchangeable factor would be space... even that could probably be taken care of with creative thinking.... and desire. (Out Yards)


----------



## Roland

Sol wrote:

IF by letting bees die, a weaker mite is selected for, THEN by treating and keeping hives alive, stronger mites are selected for.

I do not assume that the above statements are true. I believe that the size of the gene pool for the mite has more effect on it's virility than whether or not the bees that they inhabit live or die. I breed for a weaker mite by encouraging inbreeding of the mite. I let the GENES of the bees die, not the bees them selves. You can kill the genes of a hive by replacing the queen without losing the hive. I am accomplishing a very similar result to yours without the death of the colony. 

The bottom line is that we do not know what all the mechanisms of change are. I have a hunch that they are way more interrelated than we wish to admit.

Barry - Thanks for the defense.

As for neophytes, everyone learns in a different manner, beekeeping is local, so it may be difficult to develop a "best " plan.

Crazy Roland


----------



## jim lyon

Wow! Lot of information in post #32 Sol. Getting back to your original post, though, I gotta give you high marks for your tenacity. While I may not agree some of your points most notably the whole premise that its best that bees should be allowed to die I didnt come here to debate that. I do feel though that a post like yours was long overdue. I fear far too many people who are infatuated enough with bees to begin a beekeeping endeavor make a decision to be treatment free because it fits their whole notion of the naturalness of bees and their environment without understanding the difficulties that lie ahead of them to reach that goal. I'll bet I am approached a couple of times a year by someone who wants to buy a hive or two for a whole variety of reasons. I always feel bad talking them out of it by warning them of how much the initial investment would be and how dedicated you have to be to them if you want them to live longer than a year, but I would feel worse taking their money without sharing what I have learned. I have had a success story or two along the way but they are the exception. In any case I think your well thought out post deserves a read for anyone who is considering owning a few hives and to being treatment free. I would also, though, encourage them to read up on the choices others may have made and the successes or failures some folks may have had with some of the more natural treatments that are available.


----------



## Omie

Solomon Parker said:


> What about having more than one hive makes it so exasperating? Could it be thinking that they need checked too often? I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing because I don't remember that 20 was overwhelming at all....
> But I don't remember that having 20 colonies was overwhelming. But maybe I have a more relaxed management style. Tell me what you think.


I remember how I felt with my first hive, and also the second year with my next two hives. Yes I was thrilled and yes I had been reading up on beekeeping and taking BK classes too. 
But I was also somewhat terrified. Terrified of failure, terrified of killing my bees somehow, terrified of being stung all the time, terrified of my neighbors reporting my (probably not legal under zoning) hives. 
Mind you, I'm usually calm and confident when jumping into new activities, and I've studied and enjoyed insects all my life, kept many types as pets over the years, millipedes, snakes, snapping tutles, tarantulas...but beekeeping was different. I worried, fretted, and every time I needed to go into my one or two hives I sort of had to work myself up and get prepared in advance. I just felt like if I made a mistake while I was in the hive it could be really bad.
I realized this was not very logical, but that didn't prevent me from feeling a huge sense of relief when I had closed up the hive and nothing awful had happened. This year, starting again with two colonies, and after splitting and moving queen cells and making nucs, it was the first time I really felt confident and not nervous at all about going into one hive after another. For a while i had 6 colonies this year and it was no problem to methodically go from one to another very calmly. I finally did not feel nervous or worried this year any more. But it took a couple years.

The other thing is money. It cost me _hundreds_ of dollars to start out right with my first two hives that I purchased, starting from nothing. I'm no carpenter. I can't imagine what 5 would have cost me! I have bought more equipment slowly since then, spread out over several years now, so that's more manageable and less shocking of an investment.


----------



## Delta Bay

I remember years ago when I took a course to learn to become a farrier (horse shoeing) there was 45 students. Out of the 45 students only two of us actually went on to make a career and living at it. Some of them looked after their own horses for a while but most gave that up within a year. This really wasn't anything out of the ordinary in past years courses or future ones. It's just the way it goes. I don't see beekeeping as being any different. Many think they want to do it but few will be committed to go the distance.

The point as I see it is, The Parker Plan or any other plan to go treatment free at least will give the beginner something to follow with a good chance of having bees the next year. I don't see any reason why the starting number couldn't be adjusted slightly to fit with ones finances. I've started a few beginners with one nuc early in the spring then broke it down into nucs later in the summer for over wintering. They all had bees the next year. Even with that I still think it is better to start with more rather than less.

The same with M. Palmer's videos. We know he is commercial with around 1000 hives but that doesn't mean use small guy's can't scale it down to suit or needs. I just don't think getting hung up on the numbers is important.


----------



## rwurster

I started with 10 hives, 2 absconded, I recaptured 1 and moved it near a river. We did everything except #3, we bought packages. Quite honestly, the nucs that were available were so far out of our price range they were unrealisitic. I don't think your new page is too difficult but i think it might assume that a new beekeeper actually prepared one's self before starting out (#3 is a hard rule to follow). The year before I started out I read several books on the subject and I built 20 deeps w/frames and 30 mediums w/frames the winter before the endeavor. I agree that one can't half heartedly approach beekeeping or treatment free beekeeping for that matter or you will more than likely fail. I would say that a good mentor would be invaluable but to approach clubs/mentors cautiously because my experience was that clubs tend to push their products on you and would be mentors sometimes feel if you're not doing it their way, you're doing it wrong.

I started out foundationless with top entrances and intended to be treatment free from the beginning. I completely expected to lose at least 80% of my hives to disease or noobie mistakes or whatever and I'm still not out of the woods of my first year yet. Honestly, I hope we don't suffer many winter losses, but if there's a complete loss I'm not really worried about it. In the meantime I've learned about catching swarms and lures so even if we lose everything there is still a chance of starting over by catching feral bees to re-populate empty hives.

I must say this though about not checking hives. I forgot about the '9th' hive that I recaptured and put by the river. 8 hives had my full attention all summer and I had completely forgotten about the 9th hive until we went out hunting last week. They spent all season long in a single deep, no inspections, no treatments, no feeding, nothing. They had a 5" top entrance with a sbb, and without intervention they cross combed across every frame in the hive. To my surprise they were still alive, were clustering, (we've already had 4 snow storms) and the box weighed maybe 70 pounds. We'll see if they make it through the winter. 

From what I have learned during my first season the only thing I would have done differently would be to build 5 frame deep nucs to start my packages as opposed to starting them in 10 frame deep brood boxes. So #3 isn't too unreasonable but finding treatment free bees might be. Treatment free to me means anticipating your first year losses and not giving up even if you lose everything because you need to find that one hive, or multiple hives, that survive.

I am a first year beekeeper so maybe I'm full of it, but its the only time anyone will ever get my first year opinion.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I'm very interested in hearing how your story continues.


----------



## oblib

I had already decided to do this almost exactly as you put it down. You saved me the trouble of writeing up my plan as I can just print yours out. Yes I like to have solid plans and I know the bees will try to break me from that but, I know plans have to be adjusted so the bees and I can come to an understanding.:gh: 
I picked up my wood today and start making my woodenware this weekend. Can't wait for spring. Don't even have bees yet and I'm already hooked just from all the studying I've been doing over the last few months. My GF told me today that she hasn't seen me so excited about anything in years .


----------



## Benthic

I too am planning to start beekeeping in the spring and I'll be starting out (mostly) as you suggest. 

I decided that I wanted to do this back in May of this year, and I've been reading and studying ever since. I'm planning to get bees in the spring of 2012 to begin my colonies. One place we differ is in number of hives. I'll be starting with two, not five. It seems that everywhere I look people suggest that a newbie not start with just one hive, so I made plans for two. Going with five is not entirely out of the questions, but my biggest concern would be where to put them. I've already gathered the woodenware I'll need for two eight-frame, medium hives, with four bodies each. At this point I still need to assemble and finish it, but I've got it all on hand. And I've found a supplier of small cell, treatment free bees (Wolf Creek in my case, although Dixie Bee is still around) and have made plans to buy two nucs from them in the spring. I'll get up and going early next year. I plan to take no honey and, if I can get one hive through the first winter, I'll declare victory. Both would be better, although losing both won't be catastrophic. I'll just buy more bees.

I must admit that I could probably have made five nucs work as a starting configuration, if I had seen your plan earlier on. I'm not sure how I would have accommodated five full size hives, but it's likely not all would have survived the first winter. In any event, I'm far enough along at this point in my plans for two eight-frame hives that changing course would be difficult (read: expensive). So I'm going to try and make the best of it. I'm sure I'll be around with lots of questions in the spring. And, come spring of 2013, you may see me eating crow and buying a sheet of plywood. 

Brian


----------



## Delta Bay

Off Topic
This drives me crazy also Omie



> He uses Mite away formic acid pads twice a year every year routinely, but when I remind him of this he merely flips it off, saying "formic acid is all organic!, it's not a chemical treatment!" Rather exasperating.


Formic Acid is a chemical! It is an organic acid because it contains a -COOH or carboxyl group like acetic acid, lactic acid and all fatty acids as opposed to inorganic acids which contain an inorganic constituent (one without carbon). It has nothing to do with the current use of of the term organic to mean "natural".


----------



## Solomon Parker

Good point. I work with the scientific term 'organic' all the time. Organic simply means molecules containing carbon. In that sense, formic acid is organic. IT IS NOT ORGANIC in the sense of natural, chemical free, or treatment-free. Education is the key. If we work to educate, our honey will sell for more. The taste and the pollen content in comparison to store-bought honey helps though.


----------



## Roland

Yes, Formic acid is an organic acid, just like water and sugar(sucrose) are chemicals. It impossible to be chemical free. We are all composed of chemicals. We are missing an adjective, like "synthetic" that will differentiate between chemicals that are used in concentrations found in nature, and chemicals that are manmade, or used in concentrations not found in nature. Formic acid is a good example. Yes, it is found in honey, but not in concentrations that are present when using it as a miticide.

Sorry , I went off topic also.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Acebird

I have a friend that went bee less this season. He refuses to pay money for bees and has always relied on catching swarms. Well his hives died out last winter and he didn't get any swarms. Now mind you this guy has been doing this for a long time. He is one of the original beekeeper in our local club. You would describe him as a natural beekeeper because he doesn't intervene at all. I guess now you would call him a veteran bee haver. I myself don't know what the answer is for successful beekeeping but for newbies who are thinking natural I definitely would not start out with 20 hives unless you have the paycheck to gamble.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Acebird said:


> I myself don't know what the answer is for successful beekeeping but for newbies who are thinking natural I definitely would not start out with 20 hives unless you have the paycheck to gamble.


Please re-read the plan. It calls for starting with 5 nucs and then expanding from there if the person can swing it. They could just as easily move in the direction of larger hives rather than more numerous nucs. The expansion is to build resistance and buffer the effect of losses.


----------



## Acebird

I understand the logic behind multiple hives but I also know that most ventures fail because of overextending. (shooting your wad at the beginning)

I contend that it is better to start with one hive then never to start. If it fails your character will be tested to try again. If five nucs fail your character may not be that strong to try again. Both involve 100% loses but one is easier to take. Most importantly, both cases are realistic.


----------



## NY_BLUES

Wow has this thread deviated a lot from where it started. Solomon, I applaud your effort for the article, I wish I had read it when I started. I basically did the same thing, but I used 8 frame mediums instead, basically the same size as a 5 frame deep, comb surface wise. I started with 3 packages and built to 8 hives before winter, by way of cut outs and swarms, never using a "synthetic chemical treatment" to control mites.

That following spring I had 1 hive survive the winter, out of 8, an 87% loss. The survivor was a nasty tempered hive from a cut out. Some folks would pack it in right there, but I didnt, I took that hive that survived, split it, split it again, and again, raised queens from it, and came up to 10 hives and 2 nucs. The nucs were an expierement to see if they would survive the winters here. I requeened the nasty tempered hives, and squished the queens that had bad brood patterns, chalkbrood, or had daughters that were "HOT". This could be seen as a type of treatment I feel, so I guess I cant be "treatment free". 

I do "treat' for mites though, if you consider brood cycle breaks to be treatments. I do not use "synthetic chemical treatments" for varroa. I feed sugar syrup when needed, so I guess I cant say I am 100% treatment free, agian, as one could say that the syrup is a treatment for lack of stores. 

I dont think in this era that a person could be 100% treatment free, as anything someone does to a colony could be construed as a treatment by someone else. Heck even wrapping for winter and proping the inner cover could be construed as a treatment. Sometimes people are way to critical of others without thinking for a while before hand. 

Solomon, again great article, and I do hope you publish it somewhere, I like the insight that you have shown.


----------



## MichaBees

Joseph,

A few years back, Randy Oliver share lots of ideas with beekeepers in Santa Fe. He told the group, that somehow, varroa mites were present in the southwest, but were not overwhelming the hives. He said that regional bees or conditions in the southwest, were not allowing mites to be a big problem.


----------



## jim lyon

NY Blues: Just read the definition in the sticky at the top of the forum. After much debate by the "founding fathers" that is the "constitution" of the treatment free forum, love it or leave it.. I'm not sure if Sol wants to be considered George Washington or not but he has related a few experiences that could be considered his Valley Forge moments. The real question going forward is how many of the fledgling republics on here will survive? Stay tuned.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Ha ha, Jim, thanks for that. But in the grand scheme of things, I'd say I'm more like FDR than a founding father. Dee Lusby is Jefferson, Michael Bush is Lincoln, I came along later and brought about an era of growth and change. Just kidding. Maybe Barry is Washington. I don't know.

But actually, the definition was decided by all users of the forum, INCLUDING those who who have no intention of being treatment free ultimately. Fortunately, they were outvoted in the long run.

And though I am a purist and don't feel like I should need to do things like maintain screened bottom boards or freeze drone brood, I'm comfortable with our current definition of treatments as substances and not 'anything we do in the hive.' Defining it as such only serves to water down the definition and allow affronts to the very idea of being treatment free. That's why we lost 'organic'. It's why there are chemicals, feeds, additives and pesticides which are 'legally allowed to be labeled as organic.' Treatment-free is different. It defines a thing by its philosophy rather than a list of items. We believe that bees should be able to take care of themselves without our intervention at all. We just intervene from time to time to manage them to get them to make more honey for us.

But I digress.

I've read a lot of good info in this thread, and I am very happy to hear stories of people who have tried out methods similar to the one I've come up with. And I'm not saying this was all my idea, I just think it would be easier for beginners to start with nucs and forget about honey production until they get some semblance of a sustainable apiary. I realize it may be difficult, but this is not general beekeeping, this is treatment-free beekeeping and it requires a bit more ability to absorb loss, and that requires a bit more ability to increase. It is my view that a second year beekeeper should be producing his or her own queens, if by no other method than by using swarm cells. We NEED self sufficient, self starting, self reliant, and self confident beekeepers. The standard 'have a couple of hives and requeen every year with commercially produced queens' method is one of the reasons beekeeping is in the state it's in today. Millions of viable queens have been simply killed for no other reason than it was just that time of year. It's a travesty. I'm young and I am to do my best to change that ideology a little before I die.


----------



## Acebird

LOL, the young are always in a hurry and the old who don't have much time left are not...

Nucs require much more involvement and have critical timing issues that full size hives don't. If I encourage 5 more people to keep bees because I show how easy it is and you discourage 5 more people because you chose a more difficult course. Who is covering more ground? I don't see that one is less treatment free than another.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Acebird said:


> If I encourage 5 more people to keep bees because I show how easy it is


Because you have so much experience keeping bees treatment-free all these years?


----------



## rwurster

Your plan is sounding better and better. We didn't harvest any honey this year and we planned our first splits and to start rearing our own queens next year (from surviving, strong stocks). I was going to use one of the guy's methods on here where he doesn't use cups for rearing but pieces of cut comb. I have it bookmarked but I'm really short on time this afternoon, I'll edit it in later tonight. Your two year plan for beginners is almost the exact plan we are on or have considered and assuming at least one hive makes it through the winter, we will follow it until we get up to a maximum of 50 hives. I suppose I should add that our bees are carnis used solely for the purpose of the pollination of (at max) 75 acres of water melon crops.


----------



## Acebird

Solomon Parker said:


> Because you have so much experience keeping bees treatment-free all these years?


What experience? How does someone starting out have experience?

In your first post you asked for thoughts and ideas. I expressed my thoughts and ideas.
Apparently you were just looking for praise. Sorry I didn't see it that way.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> Nucs require much more involvement and have critical timing issues that full size hives don't. .


Doesn't the above quote imply experience??


----------



## Intheswamp

> Nucs require much more involvement and have critical timing issues that full size hives don't. .
> Doesn't the above quote imply experience??





> =hpm08161947;726130]Doesn't the above quote imply experience??


I dunno...some things can be learned from reading other people's writings and experiences. Everything doesn't have to be experienced to have knowledge of. I wasn't at the Battle of Gettysburg, I didn't experience it, but I know that was one of the bloodiest battles of the War Between the States. I've heard of people putting diesel gas into their gas burners and screwing their vehicle's engines up big time....I'm careful not to do that, not because I've done it before but because I've seen and heard of other peoples' experience doing it.

If we can't use someone else's knowledge and experience do we need to burn all the books and pull the plug on this forum?

Ed


----------



## Solomon Parker

It's my position that you can learn all you need from books and the rest from doing. However, you do need experience in order to know what's "easy."

I have experience in treatment-free beekeeping and you all know that I very regularly express my view that it isn't easy, especially if ease is defined as not having hives dying. So if I discourage new beekeepers who aren't looking at beekeeping as more than a passing interest, so be it. We don't need more fodder for those who say that starting treatment-free is impossible.

I don't want to disparage anyone's experience or lack thereof but every once in a while, someone pops up who types of things for which they have no business typing. I think we can stop feeding the troll now.


----------



## Acebird

Solomon Parker said:


> I don't want to disparage anyone's experience or lack thereof but every once in a while, someone pops up who types of things for which they have no business typing.


Solomon, that is called talking out of both sides of the mouth. I got your drift. You are looking for praise. I will learn from someone else.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> Solomon, that is called talking out of both sides of the mouth. I got your drift. I will learn from someone else.


I think the problem is... you are trying to teach before you learn. To be a good teacher you need both experience and knowledge.


----------



## Acebird

If kicking around ideas is teaching then I guess we are all teachers. My idea of a teacher is someone who is paid to instruct people on proven concepts. I haven't seen too many proven concepts in bee keeping that aren't already taught by individuals that get paid to do so.


----------



## rwurster

I couldn't edit this into my #55 post, spose I was offline too long for the edit timer but I am going to use old timers method of producing queens next year for any potential splits we do. This is the thread I was referring to: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?249478-Raising-Queen-Cells-Without-Grafting.


----------



## Solomon Parker

That's a fantastic method, Oldtimer knows his stuff. I haven't yet tried it, but it's on my list. It simplifies several pertinent aspects of producing queens, no worries about finding the right age larvae or how to scoop them out of the cell. It's a straightforward method, but there are still many things to learn about timing, and recognizing what are the best conditions for queen cell building. After I try it, it will appear on my website. I don't want to write about things with which I don't have experience.

I want to try grafting first because I can make daughters of several queens at the same time. Also, I don't want to cause too much disturbance in the mother hive. Michael Palmer says leave your production colonies alone, let them do their job and produce honey for you.

In the future, I think this will be a great method given the right timing and more hives among which the new queens can be spread. With the few hives I have now, I don't want to replace many queens with daughters of one mother. Actually, I'm not in the habit of killing queens at all, just relegating them to nuc duty unless they're just unbearable.


----------



## Okraeater

Well, I've read this whole thread now, as a total newbie, and after getting past all the "stinging" remarks, I've found the thread helpful, both Solomon's ideas and the feedback from others. Thanks for the thread!


----------



## Bee-Sarge

honeyshack said:


> This is making beekeeping to complicated for beginners. Keep it simple
> Start with two hives, scrap the nucs, start on clean equipment, and start with packages. No old wax, no larva which might already have some breeding varroa
> 
> No wintering nucs...Just two hives to learn on. The curve is steep, the cost is expensive, the results could not be good come the following spring. Thus leading to a discouraged beekeeper who just laid out a ton of cash on your 5 hive system.
> 
> No need to re invent the wheel here Solomon...start small, start fresh, and go from there


Well said!! I completely agree!


----------



## Solomon Parker

Thank you both Sarge and honeyshack for your inputs.

It's not my intention to reinvent the wheel, but if I thought doing the same thing everyone else is doing was working, I wouldn't be suggesting something different. I don't think it's sustainable small. I know at least two single colony beekeepers whose bees died this year, and it's not even winter yet.

And it's just a plan, not a system, I'm not selling it. Nobody is _laying out a ton of cash on my system._ I think that makes a huge difference.

Thanks for your time.


----------



## Acebird

Bee-Sarge said:


> Well said!! I completely agree!


Funny, when I commented on the idea it was acting like a teacher. Are you guys certified?


----------



## RiodeLobo

Soloman,

Nice write up. I like the approach. Would you modify anything for those of us in northern/or mountain environments? Particularly the nucs versus hives.
I am taking this approach. I added 5 hives this year, up from 1 last year. I have lost one (a split that never took off and lost the queen late in the summer). All Tx free.

Thanks for the time you took on this.
Dan Hayden


----------



## Solomon Parker

RiodeLobo said:


> Would you modify anything for those of us in northern/or mountain environments? Particularly the nucs versus hives.


What sorts of modifications would you suggest? What sorts of concerns should be taken into account?


----------



## Roland

Our honey flow and build up may be shorter and more intense than yours. The balance between not enough bees in the cold of late May, and 5 frames of brood and swarms from crowding in late June is difficult for an experienced beekeeper. A nuc in this environment would require much more management than a 2 lb package installed in 3 deeps. They have enough bees to keep warm in May, and enough room not to swarm in June. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## Solomon Parker

Is a swarm a bad thing for someone not making honey?


----------



## Beregondo

Solomon, 
I think your article will be very helpful for those it is targeting.

I also think that a swarm is likely very much a bad thing, even if one is not managing for honey production:
I am managing for increase, and not for honey. I would certainly be disappointed to lose a substantial part of the livestock in my hive to a swarm!

I think that the only beekeepers who would not be disappointed with swarming would those who intentionally let hives swarm to encourage a particular genetic line in local feral colonies, and those who keep bees only for the entertainment the activity provides and don't care if they produce anything.

But I also think that if one is going to learn to keep an apiary in a sustainable way, nucs are essential, particularly for those of us who live in the north. 
It surely may require more diligence to prevent swarming and be more challenging, but it is important, IMO.


----------



## Solomon Parker

In my treatment-free philosophy, swarming is not a bad thing. Healthy hives swarm.

Rather than being strictly prevented, the swarming impulse should be channeled to produce increase or honey. Frankly, I believe that the idea that swarming must be stopped is simply an untenable position and further selects bees that are reliant on human intervention for survival and propagation of the species. A hive that doesn't swarm or won't swarm is a hive that cannot reproduce, and is like one of those thanksgiving turkeys which must be artificially inseminated to lay an egg.

Naturally, a 'swarmy' stock is also a bad thing because all drive is pointed toward reproduction and none to honey production and that's the sort of thing that is consequently reduced if we breed for honey production. But a newbee as a learning experience needs to see a swarm, they need to be able to identify swarm cells vs. supersedure cells, and they need to properly contextualize the reproductive urge of honeybees. 

One of the things that I see as detrimental to freshman beekeepers is the idea that they must from day one operate like a commercial beekeeper. They are supposed to prevent swarms and kill their hives and requeen with commercial stock and space nine frames per box and make honey and feed protein patties and syrup and reverse brood chambers and do all sorts of things that they don't need to do and that the bees don't need done to them. And they're supposed to do all these things before they've had time to assimilate and observe exactly what bees do. The methods of a beekeeper must come from an understanding of the natural ways of bees, and how to cope with them, manipulate them, and subvert them to do what is useful for humans. 

Further clouding the issue are arguments over terms like 'beekeeper vs. bee-haver vs. bee-meddler.' I find it most useful to have bees first without trying to keep them too hard. _"I wanna KEEP BEES, I wanna KEEP 'EM, so they DON'T GET AWAY!! I want them to go get honey and COME BACK HERE!!!" - Eddie Izzard_

My plan focuses on having them first and increasing them so as to have a better chance of survival over the first winter treatment-free. It gives the newbee a chance to get their hands dirty, to get in and look at the hives all the time which with normal hives is a detriment, but more necessary with nucs. And if they do swarm, so much the better. There needs to be more swarms. We're low on bee population in this country, remember?


----------



## Beregondo

Yep, I remember hearing a lot that we are low on bee population in this country!

But isn't the subject of this thread feedback on your educational article? The existence of the article kinda implies a desire to increase the population of successful bee _*keepers*_ in this country.

One who loses a substantial part of his bee population to swarming is one with a motive to add to the population of _former_ bee keepers.

Most of us keeping bees are not absolutely altruistic about it: we want something, whether it is honey, nucs to sell, more colonies, or something else.

Roland presented a challenge he perceives we up north are likely to face that is a little different to raising nucs in Arkansas. Your response is asking if swarming is a bad thing of you are not raising bees for honey, instead of directly addressing the concern.

To be more concise than my first observation on that question:

"Yer darn straight it is! If I wanted bees in the trees, I'd hollow out trees and leave bees alone."

No matter how we manage there will always be population loss to swarming among inexperienced beekeepers. It's been said that bees make better beekeepers than beekeepers make bees. If Man died tomorrow, creation would still function to promote increase, and the bee population would recover. (It's not dependent on poor management inducing swarming.)

A short intense flow does present a challenge that requires more management than a less intense one to prevent swarming.
Perhaps an observation to that effect with an exhortation to increase awareness of the sign that a colony may be nearing swarm commitment would make your article more valuable to northern beeks and others likely to encounter intense flows.

Neither buying packages nor being content waving good-bye to swarms are acceptable if one is beginning to build a sustainable apiary that is as self sufficient as possible.


----------



## Roland

Sol asked:

Is a swarm a bad thing for someone not making honey? 

1. You have just lost your queen that was of a known quality, and the genetics that you worked to establish. Her replacement may not be of the same quality.

2. You just lost a large number of bees. This resource could have been ussed for other purposes, what ever your goal is. 

3. You have just polluted the feral gene pool.

4. There is a potential that the swarm will become a nuisance in someone's residence. Is that socially responsible?


Swarming is not to be stopped for it's own sake. With proper management, the bees will be worked in such a manner that the total population of the Apiary can be greater that if the bees are allowed to swarm. Giving the queen plenty of room to lay keeps the bees away from the swarm impulse. In the end, you will have more of something, bees or honey or both.

Sol wrote:

There needs to be more swarms. We're low on bee population in this country, remember? 

Agreed, so lets all try to manage out bees the best, to make increases. If the feral situation was the best chance for survival, we would have more feral bees than managed colonies.

Crazy ROland


----------



## jim lyon

There it is in a "nutshell" folks, read posts #74 and #76. Two entirely divergent viewpoints. Read them and decide for yourself who you agree with more. I know which side I am on. Yes I am a "commercial guy", my goal is to be treatment free and we have made huge strides towards that end in recent years, another goal I have is to be profitable. I am not knocking the decisions that many have made to be treatment free, I'm just giving my perspective. Be treatment (or in this case management) free if you choose, but if another goal is to try to make your investment give you a monetary return, then be prepared to face the reality that there are times those two goals can be mutually exclusive.


----------



## deknow

One thing that is apparent to me is that most endeavors are not immediately profitable. Especially given that most who are treatment free have been through significant losses on some scale...this may help explain why those that are treatment free say it's possible (they were willing to take losses to get there) and why those that are focused on short term profitability don't seem to see it as viable (note that I'm not against short term profitability).

There are other ways to fund a breeding program other than making it immediately profitable.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Beregondo said:


> Roland presented a challenge he perceives we up north are likely to face that is a little different to raising nucs in Arkansas. Your response is asking if swarming is a bad thing of you are not raising bees for honey, instead of directly addressing the concern.


I haven't avoided it completely, I just haven't answered it yet, preferring to ask questions to gain information and context before addressing the issue directly. The direct answer is, I don't know yet. I would like to, but I'm not there and I won't likely get the chance to keep bees in widely divergent climes. I see Michael Palmer wintering 4 frame nucs and so naturally, I believe it can be done, and in depths of snow that I personally have never seen on my hives.

On the other hand, raising bees in Northwest Arkansas (not like the rest of Arkansas) may be more similar than you might imagine. There are no commercial beekeepers around here, nobody that sells honey wholesale that I know of. And the reason is that there isn't much. Prime nectar season ends in June. Then it's a long hot summer where hives are run dry of honey by efforts to cool the colony. Finally, there's a short flow in September and October that nets a few frames of honey per hive. I have every need to have bees out collecting as early in the season as possible, just like you do. The main difference is that I have a shorter winter but in truth, my net nectar flow is less than most of the country.

The other thing is that I haven't gotten to writing year two. Year two is when we start becoming a real beekeeper. Year one is getting your feet wet and deciding whether or not to press the abort button.


----------



## Solomon Parker

At this point, I'm not entirely sure (very fuzzy on this one) whether or not it is possible to operate as a commercial migratory beekeeper and be treatment-free. I won't put it past the realm of possibility, but it seems to me that it may very well be just too stressful for the bees to do on their own at this point in time. I know it is done for honey production, but in no way in nature were hives ever meant to move that far and that often. So my focus is not on commercial beekeepers (please don't any of you think that I'm against you because I am not but the issue keeps popping up) my focus is on backyard beekeepers, hobbyists and stationary sideliners.

It's one of my goals as well to become profitable. But I don't have to spend money on treatments, and less so on sugar (optimally none). So I have a low overhead, especially if I quit buying things I don't need yet. Ultimately though, it's not about profitability so much as sustainability. Personally, as a hobbyist, I'm not doing this as a career or with the intention to make a wad of cash. But I would like to get it to the point where it doesn't cost a wad of cash.

You make a very good point Deknow, I guess I'm saying I'm also not against short term profitability, it's just not my primary focus, nor would it be that of a newbee either.


----------



## deknow

..the cost of treatments and sugar are the least of it...the real cost is labor.

I don't think feasibility has much to do with being migratory or stationary...I know treatment free beekeepers that do both....and I know of both kinds of operations that can't possibly run without treatments....not because of the bees they use, but because of overhead. If you have employees (especially if they are treated as you would want to be treated), vehicles, facilities, etc....you've _got_ to bring in the money consistently....any risks or short term setbacks affect everything and everyone involved.

When your overhead is low (no or few employees, modest vehicle and facility expenses), you can afford to rebuild from a moderate disaster. In the scheme of things, keeping bees has almost no overhead when compared to virtually any other business or agricultural persut. Our friend Andrew Munkres grew one nuc to 70 colonies in three years (there were a small handfull of cutouts as well, but only 3 or so). He got the nuc in exchange for labor. He is a skilled woodworker and I'm sure built all of his equipment from scrap and cheap lumber. I don't remember what he did for foundation, but this was likely his largest expense (I know he does some foundationless). He does do some winter feeding to make such increases, but remember he now has 70 colonies for almost free....without having to own or lease a farm.

Working alone (without labor) has limitations. With a spouse or close partner you can probably run 2000 colonies or so if you are using minimal management...you won't have time to retail honey with this many colonies, so it's important to find a way to sell your honey at a premium. 

The bulk of the industry makes their money buying and selling the lowest quality product at commodity prices. Their interests are poorly served when the market becomes stratified....when consumers are willing to pay a premium for a higher quality product (think of a class with grades...those getting a D will vote to have the grading be pass/fail rather than letter grades...they will be in the same catagory as those getting an A....OTOH, those getting an A want to be set apart and recognized as superior).

So, in a poor year, no seasonal help is hired, overhead is small, and the small crop that goes for a premium can pay the bills and support you....you simply can't do this if you have a crew that gets a paycheck or the expense of running a large facility. In a good year, a bit of help is hired to handle the load, and an extra large crop allows for upgrades...and nothing says you can't simply store the surplus in barrels.

deknow


----------



## deknow

I don't know about the plan in general. Ideally it is perfect...this is what I would do if I were starting over with new everything with a limited budget...but I have a few years of experience under my belt. Any start to beekeeping is hard....in some ways I like Michael Bush's argument that you could start with an observation hive the first year....you will learn so much even if the bees do die.

Kirk Webster is currently building out his organic farming/beekeeping school. It is a very nice plan....a 3 year program where you build your own equipment, raise your own bees, and leave the school with 2-300 hives to start your operation with. The downside of this system is that it requires a near 100% time commitment for 3 years....it's hard for most of us to find time to dedicate to beekeeping, but something like this where a new beekeeper helps an experienced beekeeper make and raise splits this year for the new beekeeper next year.

deknow


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> Kirk Webster is currently building out his organic farming/beekeeping school. I
> 
> deknow


What is the name of this school? Is there information available about it? Not that I want to go (Too Old), but I do get asked about such things. Sounds like a fascinating concept at any rate,


----------



## Solomon Parker

deknow said:


> Kirk Webster is currently building out his organic farming/beekeeping school. It is a very nice plan....a 3 year program where you build your own equipment, raise your own bees, and leave the school with 2-300 hives to start your operation with. The downside of this system is that it requires a near 100% time commitment for 3 years....it's hard for most of us to find time to dedicate to beekeeping, but something like this where a new beekeeper helps an experienced beekeeper make and raise splits this year for the new beekeeper next year.


That's incredible. I just wish he was a little more active online.

It could work, if Kirk paid you as an employee while you were doing all that. Maybe do it like Sam Comfort.

By the way, who does migratory beekeeping treatment-free? I'd love to learn about them. I like being proved wrong in the good way.


----------



## Roland

Sol wrote:

At this point, I'm not entirely sure (very fuzzy on this one) whether or not it is possible to operate as a commercial migratory beekeeper and be treatment-free.

Before mites, we where all pretty much treatment free, and alot of beekeepers migrated. I believe that should solidify your views.

Crazy Roland


----------



## hpm08161947

*Sol wrote:

At this point, I'm not entirely sure (very fuzzy on this one) whether or not it is possible to operate as a commercial migratory beekeeper and be treatment-free.*

I can not speak for the Almond guys... but here in the blue berries you are in such close proximity to other guy's bees - that I am sure we exchange a pile of bees.


----------



## deknow

Solomon Parker said:


> I just wish he [kirk] was a little more active online.


...if he were, he would not be Kirk. Personally, I don't think his life would be enhanced by being online.


> It could work, if Kirk paid you as an employee while you were doing all that.


It's more of an apprenticeship. You live onsite, grow/raise all the food for those at the school, and learn an integrated beekeeping/farming method while you grow your own stock to start your own operation. FYI, none of this will be compatible with online activity, as Kirk sees farming and the modern communications/lifestyle as fundamentally incompatible...that the patience and time scale one needs to farm/raise bees properly is completely different from cell phones and the internet. This is not likely to change no matter how much online chatter there is saying it should change. I doubt we will see someone blog about their experience there.



> Maybe do it like Sam Comfort.


I love Sam, but he is not training commercial beekeepers...he is teaching beekeeping for beekeeping's sake...which is beautiful, but most people want some honey as well.




> By the way, who does migratory beekeeping treatment-free? I'd love to learn about them. I like being proved wrong in the good way.


Chris Baldwin is pretty darn close. But there are lots of people that move bees once or twice a year that are certainly "migratory beekeepers". Just because you are migratory does not mean you need to do almonds or 20 stops in a year....there is middle ground.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Chris Baldwin is pretty darn close. But there are lots of people that move bees once or twice a year that are certainly "migratory beekeepers". Just because you are migratory does not mean you need to do almonds or 20 stops in a year....there is middle ground.
> 
> deknow


I believe you have mentioned Chris Baldwin before. Can you tell us more about him and how he does what he does?


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> FYI, none of this will be compatible with online activity, as Kirk sees farming and the modern communications/lifestyle as fundamentally incompatible...that the patience and time scale one needs to farm/raise bees properly is completely different from cell phones and the internet.


:scratch: I don't know if Kirk would phrase this as you did for him, but I don't follow this line of reasoning. For _anyone_ to do their profession well, requires patience and time. If one's work consumes all of their time however, their life is out of balance. Online communities are not here to replace our work, but to offer another avenue/dimension to it. In fact, for most, it's a diversion from work. A place to socialize with those of common interest. If you don't have time for that, well . . . Cell phones and Internet are merely tools. Tools that can work for you or against you. We are well aware of the Amish and their view of such things and as a result have remained an isolated group within society.

Time is an important issue to be aware of when it comes to beekeeping. I'm aware of commercial beekeepers who vary greatly in the amount of time they give to their work. On one end, I know some who spend all their waking time, day after day, working the bee business. Not the kind of life I want to live. Other's put in a hard day but balance it with time off spent with family, friends, hobbies, etc.


----------



## sqkcrk

Kirk Webster is more of a Homesteader/Non-Amish Type Amish than most of us on beesource.com. He's a simpler life style version of Michael Palmer. He's not interested in E-Communication. He follows and teaches a life style. What little I know of him.


----------



## sqkcrk

[Edit]
I see Kirk Webster as someone like what some of us thought we wanted to be like back in the '70s. Back to the land subsitance farmers. I don't know if Kirk sees it that way or not.


----------



## Solomon Parker

deknow said:


> ...if he were, he would not be Kirk. Personally, I don't think his life would be enhanced by being online.... FYI, none of this will be compatible with online activity, as Kirk sees farming and the modern communications/lifestyle as fundamentally incompatible...that the patience and time scale one needs to farm/raise bees properly is completely different from cell phones and the internet. This is not likely to change no matter how much online chatter there is saying it should change. I doubt we will see someone blog about their experience there.


I've heard about him before. I respect his point of view, but it's not for me. My life is enhanced immeasurably by the sheer volume of information I have at my fingertips, and not just in beekeeping. It's the most efficient option for sharing, teaching, and gathering information. If it weren't for the internet, I would have never even heard of treatment-free beekeeping.

He doesn't have to chat or post in the forum, but it would be great if he could write more often on his website. His articles are fantastic, but I've read them already, some twice.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Solomon Parker said:


> What sorts of modifications would you suggest? What sorts of concerns should be taken into account?


I was thinking in colder climates that perhaps starting in single deeps vs. nucs for wintering may improve survival. Just thinking out loud as we have cold and clear winters. Basically we do not deep snow to act as an insulator.
Thanks


----------



## deknow

...I highly recommend a book called "Technopoly" by Neil Postman for a discussion on how our technology effects what learning is...suffice to say here that there is a reason every new beekeeper is encouraged to find a local club or mentor...the process of learning and what is learned is very different depending on if you are reading a book, watching a film, participating in a discussion, or learning from a teacher.

I think I characterized Kirk's attitude quite well...."incompatible" is a word he often uses in discussing this. I am rather reluctant to argue in someone eases defense....Kirk is entitled to his opinions, beliefs and feelings.

Of course, you all have a right to an opinion on why we or he would benefit from following our advice to be part of the online world....his advice to you would be to unplug everything.

It should be obvious that I'm not an "unplug everything" kind of guy...it doesn't diminish my respect and appreciation for him, or the ideals he holds.

deknow


----------



## Daniel Y

As a newb desiring to start treatment free. I have read about half this thread. Sorry short on time this morning. I read to the point that the thread took on a "What will newbs be willing to do" sort of flavor. All I can say is that if a newb is only going to do what they are "Willing" to do. then they will likely fail. I actually appreciate this attempt to lay out what is "Necessary" not easy, not convenient. not well fit to my pre assumed notions that I can do this in my back yard with two hives.
First of all I realized when I thought of being treatment free I was accepting a challenge. I realize that experience may have proven that the average person does not measure up to this challenge. I have a long history of proving that I do. At least in other things I have attempted. If I am given honest accurate information I am then able to make the determinations that are mine to make.
Treatment free takes what it takes to be successful. what the average new beekeeper can and cannot do should not have any effect on that information.

I am just warning you all not to make it about what a person is willing to do. but keep it about what they must get willing to do.

Nice write up by the way.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel,
first you should be willing to get some bees.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Daniel Y said:


> I am just warning you all not to make it about what a person is willing to do. but keep it about what they must get willing to do.


This is a penetrating statement.

I read an article on treehugger.com recently about starting out in beekeeping. It was the same old stuff. In their list of requirements, they actually included a queen catcher clip and a queen muff!!! What on earth is that all about?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but keeping a single hive treatment-free from the beginning is going to end in the death of the hive. If you're okay with buying new bees, that's fine, but I don't think that's fun for anyone. Two newbees I know lost their single hives this year, and it isn't even winter yet. I want to make professional hobbyist beekeepers, people who can keep a handful of hives sustainably and get the best knowledge of all beekeeping has to offer.


----------



## Benthic

Solomon Parker said:


> <snip>
> He doesn't have to chat or post in the forum, but it would be great if he could write more often on his website. His articles are fantastic, but I've read them already, some twice.


Where is his website? Do you have a link you could post?

Brian


----------



## Solomon Parker

http://kirkwebster.com/


----------



## Acebird

Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not saying it can't be done, but keeping a single hive treatment-free from the beginning is going to end in the death of the hive.


Do you have proof in what you are doing is not going to result in death of the hive / hives? I don't think so.
Being treatment free is the easiest thing for a newbie to do. Been there done that. I think for some people it is the least expensive and most rewarding thing a newbie can do. Following your plan requires great expectations which is easy for a newbie to adopt but the sizable losses that may result are not so easy to take as a newbie. I think location has everything to do with the survivability of the hive or the apiary. If you are a back yard beekeeper you can have one or two hives in a bad location but you can't have an extended apiary.

Starting out in treatment free beekeeping is a piece of cake. Just don't buy any chemicals. It's simple and anyone can do it. Nine times out of ten you will get a return on investment from the honey, wax, pollination or pleasure of the bees in the first year (minus the equipment expense). I have never been in a hobby that gave such a return.

Now if you are saying "starting out in treatment free commercial beekeeping" I say go for it. I like your plan.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> I will only ever recommend small cell or natural cell.


I think this is your only reference to cell size. I'm curious, is this no longer seen as an important element in treatment free beekeeping? I know in another thread some feel SC has been shown with several studies to be ineffective, and you haven't put much emphasis on it as well. Perhaps you should expand a bit more on this in your writing.


----------



## sqkcrk

Does one make ones' bees conform to small cell? Or does the regression to small cell occur naturally through making the bees draw comb w/out foundation? If you make bees do something they don't normally or naturally do on their own, isn't that as much of a treatment as anything artificially applied?

Just asking for my own edification. Not arguing one way or t'other.


----------



## Barry

Does one make ones' bees conform to large cell or any cell size for that matter? Aren't bees free to build what they want even with foundation? Aren't bees free to leave a hive (swarm) if conditions are not suitable for them?


----------



## Solomon Parker

You're very perceptive Barry. 

I did de-emphasize small cell without eliminating it all together. I believe it works, and others I know believe it works, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it works, but the studies say it doesn't. There are also those who are treatment-free without it. I guess that's why I include it as a recommendation rather than a requirement. It is included on my "Natural Size Considerations" page, so it's not like I left it out completely.

I totally believe in it. I really started being successful in beekeeping when I was able to get completely regressed small cell nucs. I haven't looked back.


----------



## sqkcrk

Hair splitting is what I do, but that wouldn't be swarming. And I don't know that bees like or dislike.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> And I don't know that bees like or dislike.


Maybe you should get some more beekeeping experience under your belt.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> I believe it works, and others I know believe it works, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it works, but the studies say it doesn't. There are also those who are treatment-free without it.


And this is where the tension/confusion comes in. Where are the studies that show one can be treatment free on "standard foundation" (cell size 5.4)? I'll be the first to ditch SC and go back to the other, but that was why I went the SC route to begin with. All my hives were crashing on the larger size.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> anecdotal evidence that it works, but the studies say it doesn't.


 The only studies I familiar with say only that it doesn’t reduce varroa. Please send me a link to a legitimate study that says ‘it doesn’t work’.


Barry said:


> Where are the studies that show one can be treatment free on "standard foundation" (cell size 5.4)?


This is, in my opinion, where we get in trouble. There haven’t been any studies conducted that say one can’t be treatment free with small or conventional sized cells. The impracticality of creating such a study and limiting variables to make the results significant…..is just overwhelming. 
The scientific honey bee research community has taken the time, expense and energy to test the sc proponents primary claim, varroa control, and the results weren't favorable. Those same sc advocates now demand some impossibly grandiose experiment to prove them right. 
As I said on another such thread, if you can finance or conduct a study of your pet theory….then that is what you should do.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> I did de-emphasize small cell without eliminating it all together.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I really started being successful in beekeeping when I was able to get completely regressed small cell nucs.


So the obvious, why de-emphasize it?


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> The only studies I familiar with say only that it doesn’t reduce varroa.


You know that's just a straw man. In practicality, everyone interprets it to mean SC doesn't work. You're the only one who has pointed this detail out on here. Study after study get referenced by some regarding SC and their comment is, it doesn't work.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> And this is where the tension/confusion comes in. ... All my hives were crashing on the larger size.


I know. I am under that tension too. I want to be able to say that small cell is the answer, or at least part of the answer, but those ****able studies get in the way of my scientific mind saying it with certainty. Fortunately/unfortunately I never got to experience the conventional way, and that stands in the way of my offering my experience as well. I don't feel comfortable offering advice about regressing or switching over because I've never done it myself. More tension. I leave that to you and Michael.



beemandan said:


> Those same sc advocates now demand some impossibly grandiose experiment to prove them right.


This is absolutely false. I'm not trying to be proved right. The study I suggest would be no different at all from the ones already done, just for an extended period of time. I want a study that proves something in a real world situation. It would be nice if I were proved correct over the long term, but I'm not looking for my answer, just _the _answer and I haven't seen it.



Barry said:


> So the obvious, why de-emphasize it?


More tension. Like all of us who have been doing this for a while, I've come to my own conclusions why it works. While I have had few if any hives die of varroa in the last several years (that may change this winter with one hive that I have), I do still have hives with varroa. I see several mites over the course of the year. I usually have a couple hives with DWV and crawlers in the spring. But it clears up and they survive despite. I think that clean wax is just as important or even more so than small cell. And bees that are hygienic (or have other traits that allow them to survive) is important as well, or maybe even more so. That's why I put so much emphasis on reproduction. There's little doubt that the _right _cell size is smaller than conventional. However, in my view, the whole attitude toward beekeeping, the management, the bees, and especially clean wax are all equally important in successfully keeping bees treatment-free.


----------



## Acebird

Solomon Parker said:


> There's little doubt that the _right _cell size is smaller than conventional.


You are getting ahead of yourself, no? If you have no proof that small cell is the answer your statement doesn't make sense. 
A tension I have is everyone is claiming feral hives die out, can't survive. Isn't that where the idea of small cell comes from? Another tension I have between natural cell and foundation. Do the bees regress into a smaller size because they have to work harder and are more stressed? Why did humans get bigger (before the growth hormone deal) easier life, no?


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I want to be able to say that small cell is the answer, or at least part of the answer, but those ****able studies get in the way of my scientific mind saying it with certainty.


Ha Ha I love this place!











Solomon Parker said:


> I think that clean wax is just as important or even more so than small cell.


 You may be on to something. Nearly all LC foundation is made from contaminated wax.

But it must be about management too. When varroa arrived in my country, the wax was contaminant free as until then it was illegal to use any medication whatsoever, in a beehive. But the hives dropped like 9 pins when varroa arrived. So more is needed than treatment free wax. I read a case study about a guy in the US who bought into the SC idea, before varroa arrived in his area, he converted all his hives over to sc, to be prepared. But when varroa arrived, he lost virtually all his hives. More so than his neighbors, because they treated.

A management aspect of being treatment free that has been mentioned, is constant reproduction. And indeed, when I read TF literature there seems to be much refence to making splits and replacing deadouts. So being TF might be about cell size, might be about uncontaminated wax, and might be about management.




Solomon Parker said:


> Michael Bush doesn't seem to be around to address this himself...
> 
> He's been unable to keep close eye on the bees due to work assignments for the last couple years, but last time I spoke with him he was planning on semi-retiring and focusing on bees full time this coming spring. In the past, he has had more than 200 hives.......
> 
> Currently, I'd estimate that he has somewhere in the range of sixty, but that was in June. We did a lot of splits.


I found it interesting that now M Bush has been too busy to put much care into his hives, his hive numbers have dropped from 200, to 60. These kind of losses would have been inconceivable pre varroa, even in unmanaged hives. What's presumably happened to the Bush apiary is he has small cell, and chemical free wax, but the management aspect has been removed due to time constraints, and that's obviously had a huge effect.

It can't just be about small cell alone. And that's what the studies have concluded also. I see no contradictions.

I think over the next few years the small cellers will become more aware that it's not just about small cell alone, and take a harder look at what else is involved. I'm trying to be a part of that, as are others, and we can only win, by gaining greater understanding.


----------



## Acebird

Unfortunately I think it is about changing the environment back to what the bees had before varroa and that isn't going to happen by any beekeeper / beekeepers. Over time genetics will overcome the threat of varroa but the resulting traits may not be so desirable as they once were.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Study after study get referenced by some regarding SC and their comment is, it doesn't work.


Just like the Cell Towers kill bees theory. Misquote a study often enuf and it becomes the truth.


----------



## Oldtimer

Very good point Ace. That's why, in my humble opinion, it's important we actively manage the breeding process rather than let it be pure natural selection. They had pure natural selection in Russia, look what they got.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> A tension I have is everyone is claiming feral hives die out, can't survive.


What? When did I ever say that? Most feral hives have died. Just as almost all the people who have ever lived have also died. Just like the feral COLONIES, not hives, have died. Just not allo of them at the same time.

Since knowledge is the easiest thing I can give that doesn't cost money, let me give you some. A HIVE can't die. Hives have never lived. A COLONY of Bees, whether living in a hive or not, can die, being live animals.

Acebird and Oldtimer,
There is no such thing as uncontaminated beeswax. Even if the bees make their own way and produce trheir own comb. Studies show that bees will bring chemicals into the hive w/ them. Dr. Maryann Frazier bought package bees and put them in foundationless framed hives. After the bees drew comb, the wax was analyzed and found contaminated. One source was the environment forage upon by the bees. The other source could have been where the package bees came from.


----------



## beemandan

Acebird said:


> A tension I have is everyone is claiming feral hives die out, can't survive. Isn't that where the idea of small cell comes from?


Nope. Dee and Ed Lusby in Arizona dreamt it up.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> A HIVE can't die.


Actually, it can.

hive |hīv|
noun
a beehive.
• the bees in a hive.
• a thing that has the domed shape of a beehive.


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> dreamt it up.


Wow, I've thought more of you Dan. You jump over people for badmouthing researchers, but I guess well intentioned beekeepers are open season.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> You jump over people for badmouthing researchers, but I guess well intentioned beekeepers are open season.


I would never suggest that the Lusby's were or that Dee is dishonest....which is what frosts me when folks accuse researchers without evidence.
You think that 'dreamt it up' is inappropriate? 
In my opinion, Dee has done a good job of documenting the fact that humans increased the size of cells during the development of foundation. But how could she connect that 100+ year old change with the collapse of bee colonies under pressure of an exotic parasite that was introduced 80 years later? If you can provide a logical path that she followed to come to that conclusion....I'll be happy to reword my statement.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Actually, it can.
> 
> hive |hīv|
> noun
> a beehive.
> • the bees in a hive.
> • a thing that has the domed shape of a beehive.


A hive of bees can die. A bee hive, being the boxes or cavity that bees reside in can't die and more than your house can die. When you die, the house you once occupied doesn't die.

The trouble is that some people refer to a HIVE when they mean the set of boxes making up the structure honeybees may occupy and then use the same word to refer to the COLONY residing therein.

I really thought you would support more clearly defined terminology.


----------



## Barry

It's all about reading words in context to know how the word is being defined, since many words have several definitions.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> The trouble is that some people refer to a HIVE when they mean the set of boxes making up the structure honeybees may occupy and then use the same word to refer to the COLONY residing therein.


I've had this same argument on several occasions. What can even be worse is that some folks will use both terms interchangeably. And one moment they are referring to the bees as a hive and a sentence later as a colony. And then...what really makes me crazy is when the same people call the boxes a colony. 
I'm thinkin' that you may just want to leave the semantics alone here....for the most part, when I've complained I've only gotten blank stares.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> The trouble is that some people refer to a HIVE when they mean the set of boxes making up the structure honeybees may occupy and then use the same word to refer to the COLONY residing therein.


Welcome to the English language or any spoken language. It is not a science. It changes over time and it changes from location to location. Spelling changes and meanings change. That is why I laugh when people get hung up on perfection when it comes to language.

Are we going off the deep end here on Solomon's thread? Sorry Solomon, didn't mean it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> ....for the most part, when I've complained I've only gotten blank stares.


*blank stare*

I leave to go play LEGO Batman with my wife and this is what happens while I'm gone?

It's a wonder I ever leave at all.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> this is what happens while I'm gone?


Yes..and on the eve of a holiday, no less. You should stay close!


----------



## sqkcrk

Sol,
LEGO Batman w/ the wife? Is that what you kids are calling it these days? Oh my.


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> Sol,
> LEGO Batman w/ the wife?


That is the correct terminology when there are 13 year olds on the Forum.


----------



## jim lyon

hpm08161947 said:


> That is the correct terminology when there are 13 year olds on the Forum.


Havent heard that one. Can I assume it might be similar to one of the many definitions of "taking ones talents to South Beach"?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Was playing on the Wii.


----------



## Michael Bush

>There are also those who are treatment-free without it (small cell).

I haven't had any Varroa issues since regression. I don't know of any large cell treatment free people who have had that experience. They still seem obsessed with Varroa.

>I found it interesting that now M Bush has been too busy to put much care into his hives, his hive numbers have dropped from 200, to 60. These kind of losses would have been inconceivable pre varroa, even in unmanaged hives. What's presumably happened to the Bush apiary is he has small cell, and chemical free wax, but the management aspect has been removed due to time constraints, and that's obviously had a huge effect.

Just to clarify, that's two years where I did not even SEE them (was not even in the same country as them)--no splits to make up for any winter losses and swarms going to the trees. Plus I'm sure there were less than two hundred when I left. Probably more like 100 hives and 50 nucs at that point. We had -27 F (-33 C) for about a month last winter and that always makes for some losses and these had not been fed, worked, split or otherwise touched in more than a year at that point. I would guess that was about 25% losses each winter for the last two which with no feeding or balancing or even adding supers is higher than I would like but not all that bad considering. If you figure the swarms in I would say there are actually more bees than when I left, they just aren't in my hives.  Certainly pre-Varroa, pre- N. cerana, pre-Tracheal mite, pre-DWV, pre-other viruses etc. I would have expected better. Obviously management would have helped a lot in keeping those swarms in my hives instead of the trees and insuring less winter losses by making sure they all had a full pantry going into winter. Not to mention that the wind that took out six of my mature trees in my yard (spread out over three occasions) also toppled some of them in the beeyards, which I would have caught had I been there...


----------



## Solomon Parker

Sorry Mike, I should have let you explain things. But you know how you get deified! 

I have a similar sort of occurrence in my beekeeping history. Some here have questioned my going from 20 to 5 in five years. But I didn't even _see _them for 2 1/2 years of that time, and I didn't do any splits because I had overstretched my finances and couldn't afford boxes. So I allowed the hives to die off that were going to die off because I was expecting it anyway. Then I consolidated equipment so each hive had a full compliment (plus some after 2.5 years.)

_"These kind of losses would have been inconceivable pre varroa, even in unmanaged hives._"
Yes, but we're not pre-varroa. I don't understand why people still feel the need to say things like "We were all treatment-free before varroa." We're not. Being treatment-free when there's nothing to treat is not a virtue, it's normal. Leave 200 commercial hives alone for 2 years and see how many of those are left. There won't be many. The last conventional beekeeper I saw go cold turkey _one year_ lost about 38 out of 50. I think Mr. Bush did pretty good. 

I did the math. In 27 generations, a queen has more direct ancestors than there are base pairs in the DNA of the honeybee. Nothing that far back matters. There simply isn't the storage space for the genetic information. We must work with what we have today, not some imagined optimum pulled out of the way back machine.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Was playing on the Wii.


Sure. 




Solomon Parker said:


> I did the math. In 27 generations, a queen has more direct ancestors than there are base pairs in the DNA of the honeybee. Nothing that far back matters. There simply isn't the storage space for the genetic information. We must work with what we have today, not some imagined optimum pulled out of the way back machine.


Sol I can't agree with what you are trying to say there at all. The genetics that were around 27 or more generations ago are not some "imagined optimum pulled out of the way back machine". They are the genetics that were there. Whatever maths you did doesn't change that.


----------



## Solomon Parker

My point was that there's nothing special about then that applies to now. It's like saying how great the peaches were in 1966. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh, well that's different entirely. What's special to you, is a matter of your opinion.

Some people do think genetic diversity matters.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Some people do think genetic diversity matters.


Not sure if you're referring to me or what, but I do think genetic diversity matters. That's why I buy a couple of new queens from somewhere in the country every year. It's part of my methodology in beekeeping. Additionally, I don't kill queens, or at least I haven't yet. One of the biggest disservices done to the beekeeping industry is the wholesale killing of queens that goes on every year and especially with swarmed queens.

People say their survival rate is 95% or whatever, but they killed and replaced all their queens. Their survival rate was 0%.

Let's see how that stirs up the hornet's nest.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ok well your back on track, partly anyway.

So you don't kill queens, (except when you let all the bees in the hive die), presumably as a claim to preserving their genetics.

So what was back then does matter now?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> So you don't kill queens, (except when you let all the bees in the hive die), presumably as a claim to preserving their genetics.


With as tough as survival is, I think killing queens is a disservice to our genetic diversity and survivability. At the very least, acceptable (gentle, etc.) survivor queens should be utilized for nuc duty or drone mother duty or something like that. 



Oldtimer said:


> So what was back then does matter now?


Methods. Get on Michael Bush's website and read all his old beekeeping books. Very little has changed in how to actually keep bees once you remove all the hullabaloo involved in feeding and treating and preventing and coddling. I read Jay Smith's "Queen Rearing Simplified" and "Better Queens". Both great books. But I find whinging about how great it used to be, to be particularly useless. Not that you do that too much.


----------



## jim lyon

Sol: We kill queens every year...lots of them. We also bring in new genetics and breed from our own hives that have the most desirable traits. The thing is, though, the drones in all those hives carry on their genetic lineage through their matings, that's really the big difference between letting hives die and operating in a manner that allows us to not just maintain our numbers but to increase them if we choose.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sol. When you started talking about what was back then, you were talking about genetic material. Now it seems to have changed to books.

No need to tell me to "get on Michael Bushes web site and read all his old beekeeping books". I read (and owned) Jay Smith's books, before you were born Sol. Bushes web site didn't exist then, nor had his beekeeping journey even begun. There's a world outside just what you know, Sol.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Some things change, some things stay the same. Young guys disrespect the old guys because things aren't the way they used to be. Old guys disrespect the young guys because things just aren't the way they used to be. Such is life.

We don't speak the same language and so you think I insult you. So you insult me because of my youth and inexperience. Such is life.


----------



## MARBIS

Solomon Parker said:


> We don't speak the same language and so you think I insult you. .


I believe there are very few people who speak or understand your language Mr. Parker.
With that barrier present I don't think people get insulted with your "talk".


----------



## Oldtimer

Agreed .


----------



## Solomon Parker

Anyway, as far as genetics go, dead queens dont contribute anything. In my experience, poor performers usually die over winter so they get pretty well weeded out. The purpose of my plan is to help the newbee get enough hives so as to weather that first winter without losing everything.


----------



## Oldtimer

There can be many reasons why they die over winter and some of them are beekeeper related rather than the bees fault.

If they go into winter healthy, properly housed, and enough feed, they'll survive.


----------



## Acebird

Solomon Parker said:


> The purpose of my plan is to help the newbee get enough hives so as to weather that first winter without losing everything.





> If they go into winter healthy, properly housed, and enough feed, they'll survive.


:thumbsup:
Why do you assume they will die in the first year? If they were a good package, or nuc to start with they are not going to die without some help from the beekeeper in the first year (leaving out weather conditions). That first year gives the newbie a chance to make all his detrimental mistakes and learn from them. For some it might take two tries. When you hit that mark of successfully getting the colony (just for Mark) to make it through one year then I say you are ready for expansion. Not before.


----------



## BeeCurious

Acebird,

Why would you assume that healthy bees from Georgia would "naturally" survive the winter in another area?

Utica NY just wont have that down-home feel that those Georgia bees are accustomed to.


----------



## Acebird

I am not in favor of taking bees out of their area. I am sure Soloman isn't either. Although I don't believe getting *healthy* bees from the south to live in the north means instant doom either. I believe the bees will adapt if they are healthy. I think the real question is are they healthy?
We were told our queen came from Hawaii and the sperm came from Europe. I killed the first colony and the second and third are still thriving and they likely came with SHB. As a newbie and a hobbyist I do not want to rear queens. I may do a walk away split but I feel an expert should raise queens or it should be left to nature. I feel I am as much treatment free as Solomon is. He has his plan and I am happy with mine.


----------



## sqkcrk

You do know that your bees originally originated from the Mediteranian and from other parts of Europe, don't you. So, they have already been taken out of their area.

Bees from the south have thrived in the north for ages. There may be some slight advantage of locally raised bees, chosen for wintering ability, but, everything being equal, bees from FL, Hawaii or CA should survive the winter in NY just as well.


----------



## hpm08161947

A little BBQ Sub will greatly enhance the chances of a southern bee surviving in the North. :banana:


----------



## Solomon Parker

I recommend newbees purchase bees from a local treatment-free beekeeper. If that doesn't work, try to get bees from somewhere north of you. Michael Bush is about 7 hours directly north of me, so he's the perfect source since I'm willing to drive that far. This last year, I purchased queens from Zia, some of which they source from UP Michigan. We'll see how they winter.


----------



## sqkcrk

Two Growth Zones?


----------



## Roland

From an earlier post:


So, is it possible that during the conversion to small cell, following the collapse, the only bees that will be successful are the genetically smaller bees and that those bees, as a result of their reduced size have a shorter pupation period?

This line of thinking seems to have merit, that it is not the immediate environment effect on the bee of being in a small cell , but rather the accumulated selection process that has favored a smaller bee, and the favorable genetics, what ever they are, that are associated with the smaller bee. 

CRazy Roland


----------



## Michael Bush

>So, is it possible that during the conversion to small cell, following the collapse...

There were not survivors to breed from when I went to small cell with commercial stock. There were no losses to Varroa after I regressed even with commercial stock. The model that small cell beekeepers are breeding from survivors, and, in this scenario, breeding from smaller bees just isn't consistent with my experience. It's a nice theory if you assume small cell beekeepers all have big losses and that genetics is the key. But many of us did not have significant losses and were using commercial stock.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmmm.. Well I hope that's true for the sc ones I'm starting.

But I got to say, nearly everything I've read on that by sc folks has said you do have to have big losses. It's certainly the impression I've gained since being on beesource.

Maybe it's not nessecary to have big losses. But since some folks had big losses anyway, they assume that's part of the process.


----------



## Fusion_power

Just wanted to post a couple of thoughts about moving to small cell and going treatment free. I was using chems until 6 years ago. When I converted, I moved just the center combs of the brood nest to small cell and I purchased some queens from Purvis and I found some feral stock that happened to be varroa tolerant. Long story short, I credit genetics with being a major part of keeping my bees alive over the last 6 years. I converted to all small cell over the last 5 years. An inspection of my colonies shows very very few varroa mites. Whether it is genetics or small cell, I could care less. I care that my bees are making it just fine without any treatments.

Did I have any losses? Sure did. I lost about half of my colonies and replaced them with splits each spring. Do I still see losses? Yes, but way less than 10% and when I do have losses, it is almost always things like queen failure or other things that can go wrong.

DarJones


----------



## Acebird

Fusion_power said:


> Did I have any losses? Sure did. I lost about half of my colonies and replaced them with splits each spring.


How do you do the splits? Do you walk away or add a commercial queen to the queenless hive?


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Nope. Dee and Ed Lusby in Arizona dreamt it up.


That isn't quite accurate. Dee and Ed noticed that looking through equipment from different eras that the cell size seemed to change. Despite the fact that this has always been documented in the ABC and XYZ, it seemed to take the research community by surprise that this is the case.

More of this video is forthcoming, but here is the first few minutes of Dr. Erikson (Director of the Tucson Bee Lab at the time.....years before AHB was found in the area) talking about the process of "dreaming up" small cell.


----------



## Fusion_power

I have not purchased any queens in the last 6 years except the original 10 gold line queens from Purvis. I raise a round of queens every other year to requeen the occasional colony that needs it and I make a few nucs up each spring to replace die-outs. I have deliberately avoided restricting the genetics by using all queens for breeding so long as their mite tolerance is very good. Please note that at this point the Purvis genetics is less than 40% and the feral genetics is about 60%. I found the feral queens to be significantly better honey producers and just as mite tolerant as the Purvis stock.

DarJones


----------



## Roland

Mr. Bush wrote:

There were not survivors to breed from when I went to small cell with commercial stock. There were no losses to Varroa after I regressed even with commercial stock. The model that small cell beekeepers are breeding from survivors, and, in this scenario, breeding from smaller bees just isn't consistent with my experience. It's a nice theory if you assume small cell beekeepers all have big losses and that genetics is the key. But many of us did not have significant losses and were using commercial stock.

I agree with your conclusions, my hypothesis does not fit your observations. the real test would be to now go back to regular sized cells with a few hives, and see how they compare to your small cell hives. If the genetics are comparable in both groups, you will prove me wrong if the large cell hives fail.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Michael Bush

I'm satisfied that Dennis Murrel's experiment doing just that is sufficient for me. I want to continue forward. I don't have time to go back over the same ground and nothing to gain. Natural comb is less work for me than large cell foundation. Small cell is no effort at all with PF120s and PF100s. I have no reason to undo what it took me a couple of years to do. If no one will take Dennis Murrel's word for it, why would they take mine?


----------



## Mark Donathan

I very much agree!!! There is much to learn before you can go completely treatment free....I am in my 10th yr and it took me 7 yrs to get where I am now. Lost a lot of hives getting here and am now close to 90% to 95% survival for 3 years in a row. Use and replace from your own resources and you will succeed.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Attempting to bring this discussion back to the OP (though some of the digressions have been interesting and informative) I've previously posted that I started keeping bees with a friend - we each had our own hive. While we did it that way because we didn't have the courage to get started on our own, we inadvertently did well. The ability to compare hives, share labor and other resources (my friend had a huge bag of pine needles while I had none) gave us a serious leg up. And two people doing research and sharing results with each other was great. Sure there was some "blind leading the blind" but we were involved with two local clubs which helped keep our rookie mistakes to a minimum.

Another thought: Attempting to define a universal way of starting with bees seems ambitious if only because regional differences in conditions make a one size fits all methodology unlikely to be successful everywhere.

And the final chapters to the "raising bees in nucs" strategy have yet to be written. Mike Palmer is doing great stuff with them, and I appreciate and use some of his evolving techniques. Mike posts here and can speak for himself - but put the emphasis on evolving - he tests his system and works to improve it - And then people like me take his ideas, tweak them a bit, and see what happens.

The premise of your first two points are right on! Though if I could change anything, I might make the year not a calendar year but a beekeeping year. I think it reasonable for someone who decides to keep bees in January to have done the research, gathered equipment, and assembled a support system to be putting bees in a box come spring.

Thank you Sol for starting this thread!


----------

