# Treatment Free Beekeeping



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I would like to question treatment free beekeeping.
Is it practical on a commercial basis?
Is it sustainable as a beekeeping practice?
How do you define it?
How, if one is not currently treatment free, would one get started and incorporate it in ones commercial operation?



On another note.: "The Yin Yang of Beekeeping."? As it says in the heading of Bio Beekeeping. I don't know about that. How so?


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Mark, 

All very good questions that I look forward to seeing answers to. My initial answer to the questions is "I don't know". Maybe at some point in the future the treatment free approach may be feasible on a large scale, but right now I don't think so. I think we have a ways to go yet in our breeding programs. Currently we do appear to have some genetics in use that are somewhat resistant, and there are beekeepers out there who have played around with their own survivor stock and have bred some resistance into their own operations, big and small. But to go completely treatment free in a large operation today would be a scary thing to try, at least for me. The definition of treatment free is also all over the map. I'll have to think about this some more. John


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

"Is it practical on a commercial basis?"

It seems highly impractical to switch. It may be a five to ten year process. Almost none can handle a profit loss like that. And since there is only one commercial beekeeper on treatment free, it's not likely to spread quickly among established commercial beeks.

"Is it sustainable as a beekeeping practice?"

Depending on your definition of sustainability, current beekeeping is sustainable. However, Mr. Kretschman predicts a "tidal wave" coming in the future that will wipe out everybody. Treatment free beekeepers will probably be spared in my view. The main aspect of sustainability is that doing things today will not impair the ability to do the same things in the future. Since bees are not a finite resource in any respect (not currently anyway) and they don't consume large amounts of non-renewable resources, again I'd have to say beekeeping in its current state is sustainable simply because it doesn't fit the model. Is it healthy? No. Harsh chemicals in wax and honey are not acceptable to me. Food supplies are extremely important and keeping them clean is paramount to our survival as a species over the long run, and that's sustainability.

"How do you define it?"

I define it as doing nothing with the intention of killing something within the hive. Using chemicals, oils, acids, freezing drone brood, these are treatments. I have no problem with biological beekeepers using mechanical means, I just don't use them myself.

"How, if one is not currently treatment free, would one get started and incorporate it in ones commercial operation?

There are two ways. The first is to go cold turkey and do it like Dee Lusby. This will probably bankrupt you.

The other way is to keep one whole yard separated and go cold turkey. Increase as much as possible the whole way. Once you get a resistant stock on well drawn 4.9mm comb, you could begin to replace yearly deadouts with the resistant bees. You could supplement along the way by buying resistant queens. Overall, I can't say for sure, my whole operation has been basically that one little yard. Some (and I can't say I would blame you) would recommend weaning over on non-chemical treatments like oils, sugar, etc.

One of the main aspects that people forget is not relying on outside queens. Without chemical impregnated combs, replacing the queen every year is unnecessary. Outside queens won't be as good as one of your own queens that has survived a winter or two.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I thought this would be an interesting bit to bring into the conversation as it is being discussed in several of the current threads.

From a talk Dr. Erikson gave in 1989.

The colonies that we keep as beekeepers, the bees that are in the hives, and the hives themselves, are very abnormal. If you want to look at normal bees, you need to go somewhere out in the woods, some distance away probably, but perhaps not that far, we don't know yet, from domestic beekeeping and see what honeybee colonies are doing in the woods. If you live in the East where they live mostly in hollow trees, or if you live in this part of the country mostly in ground enclosures. We've done quite a bit of looking, I've talked to you before about the fact that we can go out here right now and show you areas where we have feral colonies of honeybees in Arizona that exist at densities as high as 15 to 20 colonies per square kilometers. I can take you to an area where there is 16 colonies between here and Phoenix in an area that's about a half a block wide by a block long. These colonies are surviving very well, but they're living under conditions very different than what we subject our bees to. Basically they're smaller bees, they're living in very well insulated cavities on comb they built themselves, buffered by the coolness of the soil in the summertime, or the warmth of the soil in the wintertime just as colonies in bee trees are buffered by the insulation of a living tree, most of them are living trees in some of the Eastern states. So the concepts here then are bees, beekeeper's bees in little white boxes, you know kids think milk comes in white cartons and I swear people think bees come in white boxes, but they don't, believe me. We put them in white boxes, we put them in uninsulated white boxes and now we've finally given them some foundation that's unusually sized in some cases, but we've also breed them for large size. You know, big bees, people like big bees, big queens, big queens make big workers, big workers big queens need bigger cells to raise their brood in so we get on this roller coaster. So what have we done to our colonies then, by way of stress by giving them these abnormal conditions?

http://vimeo.com/19816966


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

WiredForStereo said:


> Depending on your definition of sustainability, current beekeeping is sustainable.


Not sure what you fully mean by this, but I'd add that it's currently sustainable (commercially) only with the aid of treatments, and that doesn't offer a bright future. It sure looks to be sustainable for those who are treatment free, but it is still a young group with relatively few years under their belt. But with the experience the Lusby's have had, it gives rise to hope. I'm really looking forward to see if another commercial beekeeper can replicate the Lusby's success that is totally out of the AHB reach.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Very interesting Barry, thanks for digging that up for us. We measure a honey bee colonies success in how much surplus honey they produce for us, because that is just how commercial beekeeping works today. Even feral colonies today suffer from some of the same problems our kept bees encounter. We have unknowingly imported various pests into this country over the years that now wreak havoc in our colonies, new toxic chemicals are being invented by the day and bees are coming in contact with them in the environment. Feral bees probably still hold some advantages over kept bees, but even those advantages won't be enough to sustain them longer term very soon. John


----------



## brooksbeefarm (Apr 13, 2008)

I don't think commercial beekeepers will ever be treatment free. (migratory beekeepers) because of the chemical residues, mite loads and heavy shb areas they are exposed to from one location to another. Moving colonies from one area where they had to fight V mites and then move them to an area that have heavy shb loads and V mites every few weeks doesn't give them much time to set up a defense system and disorients and weakens the colony. Kind of like taking a country boy to NY. Harlem area without any money and telling him he has to make it on his own and not leave the area, or vise-versa. Jack


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Barry said:


> Not sure what you fully mean by this, but I'd add that it's currently sustainable (commercially) only with the aid of treatments, and that doesn't offer a bright future. It sure looks to be sustainable for those who are treatment free, but it is still a young group with relatively few years under their belt. But with the experience the Lusby's have had, it gives rise to hope. I'm really looking forward to see if another commercial beekeeper can replicate the Lusby's success that is totally out of the AHB reach.


I totally agree with you, sorry for the confusion. As an engineer, I have to work with a more literal definition of the word sustainable. In the culture however, sustainable has come to be synonymous with green, which it is not.

Basically the definition follows the idea that doing what you are doing now does not limit the ability of future generations to do the same thing. While I agree that treatments are the only way some can do it and the future is not bright, we cannot predict the future and must assume that things will go along in more or less the same way they have been going. Even with intervention, bees will still manage to die and therefore partake in the process of natural selection. I doubt there will be a crash of the scale that will the destroy species. That's why I say it's sustainable, simply because it keeps going and will likely keep going.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

I have wondered if any commercial beeks were requeening or repopulating their operations with "treatment free" queens and nucs/packages as the need arises? 

In my ignorance as a sideliner, and not commercial, it would seem logical that with the losses big operations sustain at times, when they repopulate with queens, nucs, or packages, if they made a habit of doing it with treatment free bees, in a few years their operation would be completely treatment free. And possibly without risk of bankruptcy? 

I met a quality commercial beek in Mississippi last spring (2010) and bought some queens from him. In conversation, I had the impression from him that most commercial beeks are trying to move in that direction, but it is extremely difficult. Personally, my heart goes out to them for all they have to endure, to feed their families and keep the bees going.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

I don't think that being "treatment free" is practical in commercial beekeeping unless you have so much money that you can start again each year with new bees. Being commercial means that you make your living or part of your living from the bees and what they produce. Will some of your hives survive treatment free...yes but the the majority won't, not two seasons anyway. To be a viable business and a successful one you have to be on top of what is going on with your bees. This means getting into the hives, watching their performance, and maximizing their productivity. I don't think you are going to be able to achieve these goals by just standing by and watching.

I am not treatment free, but I do consider myself "chemical" free. What I mean by that is that I do not place antibiotics or any manufactured chemicals in my hives. I do use EO's and I do replace my queens that start to fail or are not up to production expectations. My operation does very well and even with the stress of movement to holding yards, Calf. for pollination, etc. They remain very healthy and productive. I don't know any commercial beek that is completely treatment free, but I do know more that are becoming chemical free as they can see how well EO's and other methods of maintaining healthy bees works.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

alpha6, yes there is at least one commercial beekeeper that I know of on this forum that is treatment free, but like you say, he gets rid of his bees at the end of the season and starts over fresh every spring with packages. He makes his living from bees entirely as far as I know, runs over 800 hives, and gets a very high average production per hive in most years, so he is able to do it this way, it works for him. Not everyone could do it this way for sure. John


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm a sideliner trying to grow into a full-time commercial bee keeper. I am not treatment free, but like Alpha I use only essential oils in my hives. I continue to purchase treatment free queens with the hope that eventually I will not need any treatments. However, all my VSH hives died this winter. All my Carni's survived. Some Carni's did not need treatment but a few hives required treatment [oxalic acid vapor]. All survived the winter. I would like to never have to treat my hives but feel that is unrealistic since I am sometimes in close proximity to beeks who do treat their hives, some without even checking to see if the hive needs it. I notice higher counts when I bring hives back to their yards from these pollination chores. Some of the hives lower their counts without treatment and others require intervention. I've ordered a couple of breeder queens with Carni and VSH genetics. I'm going to take them through this next winter and if they survive, will raise queens from them. Time will tell if treatment free is possible for me in the future. At least I notice that my mite counts are manageable at the present.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

How do you define it?

Putting bees in a hive, of any kind, not looking at it untill you remove honey.
Any intervention can be view at "treatment"

Is it practical on a commercial basis?

It would only be practical if a profit could be generated that is equal to other methods.

Is it sustainable as a beekeeping practice?
That would depend on your ability to isolate your self.

How, if one is not currently treatment free, would one get started and incorporate it in ones commercial operation?

I can not answer that. I seek to generate a profit, and am thoughally(sp?)
convinced that physical manipulations(which are designed to be a treatment) are essential to profit generation.



One of the problems we seem to be having is definitions. In order to carry out any kind of meaningfull dialoge, we must agree on definition of terms. What can be done to "tighten up" these terms?


Crazy Roland


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

It would help to take the discussion from here:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248080
and arrive at some definitions that can be used here.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Just read that thread again and it seems impossible to come up with definitions that all agree on. I believe that essential oils/sugar/pollen supplements are "treatments" and if they are included I don't think it's possible for a migratory beek, even a local one like me who almost never leaves the state, to not treat their hives at some point or other. Too many pathogens to infect us, and I note that indigenous bees are now infected with some of the virus that have been brought in by migratory beeks, so even the stationary bee keepers are at risk these days.

To answer Roland's question. Is it practical? I think it's possible to move toward less treatments with selection and buying treatment free queens. But I don't think it's totally achievable at this point in time.


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries (Jan 16, 2010)

I have a local commercial beekeeper friend that I by stuff from and pick his brain from time to time. I will not mention his name. He is not treatment free but awful darn close. He uses formic later in the year. He has incorporated VSH traits into his stock, raises all his own queens, and makes all his own nucs. He is a firm believer in breaking the brood cycle to kill mites. Those are some ideas for starters. 

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Just gonna throw this out there to kick the can down the road a bit.

There was a time when no beekeeper used any treatments other than TM and then Tracheal and Varrroa Mites came along.

Were you keeping bees back then, 1984 and 1986, what would you have done, what did you do?

The late Steve Taber said that if we were serious about having mite resistant bees we would all have to stop keeping bees for thirty years and then the bees that were left would adapt and take care of the situation. This includes everyone all over the world. This is not just an American problem.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> The late Steve Taber said that if we were serious about having mite resistant bees we would all have to stop keeping bees for thirty years and then the bees that were left would adapt and take care of the situation.


That is a valid view. However, as we have discussed before it's not possible. For one, we wouldn't be able to eat almonds for thirty years. They would be too expensive.

On the other hand though, would it take thirty years? It didn't take Dee thirty years. And as in Dee's case, we wouldn't need to abondon beekeeping altogether just not expect a product for a few years. But that again seems to be an impossibility.

And to beleaguer the point, hasn't much of that collective time already passed? There have been bees dying of mites for quite a number of years now, and many would argue that at least pockets of the feral population are now somewhat resistant.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

It didn't take B. Weaver 30 years either. But I don't know how they survived those difficult losses. I'm just so glad they did.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Do you know if they use small cell or the like?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann (Feb 2, 2011)

The Weavers went treatment free as far as Varroa mite goes. They lost THOUSANDS OF COLONIES for several years before the few surviving colonies that were left were multiplied. The European stock that was left was not of the best temperment. Some of it was just down right intolerable. It took several years for the temperment to become manageable.This was a few years before Africanization of the area occured. Dee has lost hundreds of colonies also in the pursuit of treatment free...It was not achieved without the financial insecurities that come with such a loss. As a friend of hers, I know she struggled. The point is that the average commercial beekeeper does not have the deep pockets, say of the Weavers and thus cannot financially afford such a huge loss at one whack. I would rather take a dribbling loss every year. Yes, I know that many in the past three years, including myself, have had a big loss that we all had to overcome. Viruses you can not do anything for except bred off the surviving stock and hope you got a tougher bee that can cope with it. I kept bees pre 1984 commercially. We treated with menthol for tracheal mite AND split off what bees we had left in conjunction with the treatment. We bought Yugoslavian breeder queens and bought Buckfast stock from the Weavers for the resistance to help toughen up the remaining bees. It worked in my little corner of the world. Nationwide, The USDA is hard pressed to find tracheal mite. The bees have become resistant in the nation do to the efforts of many scientist and beekeepers alike. TK


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Ramona and I run (what is now an annual) treatment free beekeeping conference, and commercial beekeepers attend both as speakers and attendees.

This year Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, Chris Baldwin, Sam Comfort and Erik Osterlund are confirmed speakers who are commercial _and_ treatment free to a large extent (Erik is still weaning off some of the essential oils, Sam mostly sells bees in TBH without treatment, Chris is migratory and uses no treatments...most are familiar with Dee and Kirk).

There are other speakers as well including some with goals other than commercial beekeeping (such as Corwin Bell) and some research types...still waiting on a few confirmations. We will start taking registrations in the next week or so.

I doubt there is anyone that has attended (over 100 in each of the last 2 years) that wouldn't testify as to the quality of the program we offer (and the food!). Anyone interested in treatment free beekeeping would be missing out on an incredible opportunity, and an incredible value by not attending.

I'll post in the appropriate forum when we start taking registrations, and all up to date info will be posted here:
http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/conferencesevents/2011-treatment-free-conference

This event precedes EAS, which is only about 1.5 hours away.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Nice line of speakers. We had Sam Comfort as our main speaker, and entertainment, he played his ukelele and sang, at our ESHPA Summer Picnic. I guess the term "commercial" is relative. I'm sure most commercial beekeepers would find describing Sam that way would be entertaining. I like Sam and find him and his theories on beekeeping and his Anarchist views interesting. That's why I suggested inviting him to speak last summer.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...I included Sam in that list because his background includes more conventional commercial beekeeping in several states both as part of a team of employees, and making things work on his own. His TBH operation is how he makes his income these days, and is unique in that it is informed by his experience as a commercial beekeeper.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Makes sense. That seems reasonible.


----------

