# Would love to be chemical free but……



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

First I should probably let you all know that this will be my first attempt as raising bees. I have spend more then my allotted free time reading up on the subject and feel I have a small grasp on the subject. I don’t see the challenges as being any tougher then when I set up a Salt water reef (living corals) aquarium. I think it comes down to learning the fine details on what works for most and fine tuning it to what will work for me. What works for Bob and John may not work for me as there are too many variables that can apply. Pick a path and try to follow it but be willing to take another road if you hit a dead end. 

My reef aquarium is set up in a way that 95% of the other reefers say will not work. But by asking the right questions you can learn sometimes better by how other failed. Being willing to look outside the box. And most importantly be willing to listen to what others say. 

I have on order three (maybe 4) packages of bees. Two of them will be the 4.9 bees and another package from a local supplier (I assuming the bees will be from California) here in Washington. My hives will all be 8 frame mediums and will be using small cell wax foundation the majority of the time. I am also going to take on the challenge of trying to regress the local package down to small cell bees and plan on using the Mann Lake PF-120 foundation. 

I do not see the smaller bees as a great advantage over the mite issue but as another tool that helps in the big picture of control. I would love to be able to go completely chemical free but at the present time I need to keep my options open

So its time for a few of my questions.

What treatments (chemical) are the best for mite control? Advantage/Disadvantage. In another word in what order would the advantages overweight the bad side. What chemical treatment is less dangerous?

Would it be best to treat a package from the start? I see this as the same as treating a dog with flees before I allow it in my house for the first time. A preventive steep.

Should I also do preventive treatments for the other issues when the packages are installed?

More questions I am sure will be heading your way.

Thanks
Mark


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Much depends on your local conditions. If AFB (American Foul Brood) is a problem in your area than you might want to treat - oxytetracycline is the most commonly used drug though there are others. If you are concerned about Nosema there is always Fumagillin. As for Varroa, there are a bunch of things that you can treat with - your best plan will be to check with other beekeepers in your area to see what they are using. My preference would be to use a "soft" chemical rather than a hard one - but everything has advantages and disadvantages. I try not to treat without a reason. But then I think the spending of any kind of a premium on small cell bees and small cell comb/foundation to be a waste of money too.


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

You are going to be accused of handling snakes and treating your worts from stumpwater collected in a graveyard because you went small cell. Ignore it. You made the choice and it is relatively easy to live with if you decide it doesn't work. If it works, smile and enjoy the benefit. It will as you said be several things that tip the scale in your favor. 

Most folks agree that the bees that are the most resistant to mites are frequent swarmers. This means a brood break is a key element. mdassplitter.com is good for information on that. oxalic acid is a good way to knock down a heavy mite load and the vapor has no lasting deleterious impact on the bees and can be done when the bees are broodless and get virtually all the mites. When there is brood, at least half of the mites are in cells with the bees where it doesn't work unless you treat several times to try to kill a meaningful number of the mites. A broodless winter drench is effective when broodless. Strudy first! You can harm your bees. 

From there, carefully feeding carefully measured levels of Thyme, Oregano, Wintergreen and spearmint oils after honey supers are removed or very early for buildup will also knock down mite loads and not leave harmful residues. From there you have treatments I am not familiar with. 

As far as diseases, I do not believe in treating phrophalactically. If I get nosema which I do not mostly , I will treat the sick hive and probably requeen it. Chalkbrood, you requeen if it is bad enough. Foulbrood happens. You spot it, you shake off the bees and put the frame in the burn barrell. and treat with terrymiacin or tylosin. If it reoccurrs in that hive you bag and burn it, simple. If you managed a reef, you can do this. Attention to detail and pragmatic action is required, as required.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Hi Mark, Nice to meet a fellow reefer. 

If you can run a successful reef, you have what it takes to be successful with bees. Bees are a bit like a reef, it seems easy at first but it's learning as you go and how you cope with the various problems. You say you have a reef set up that 95% of other reefers say will not work, your'e not one of those skimmerless DSB nuts?

Anyhow here's a link to a small pic of my reef http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?214207-Face-to-the-Name-R-U-up-to-it/page15

If using chemicals to control mites, in one way, you can divide them into two catagories. Those that leave a permanent residue in the hive, and those that don't. Products like apistan are easy to use, and very effective except if the mites have developed an immunity. But they leave a permanent residue in the hive and this can have negative effects later. Then there's non residual chemicals, such as formic acid. But there is no mite treatment that is completely problem free, every one of them has some downside.

If you are going small cell, I'd suggest you don't use chemicals that leave a permanent residue. That would destroy some of the (supposed) benefits of small cell.

For me I don't use chemicals to treat nosema or AFB. I've had AFB, but burned the hives rather than use chemicals. But mites I use chemicals, except on my totally chemical free hives.


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> Hi Mark, Nice to meet a fellow reefer.
> 
> You say you have a reef set up that 95% of other reefers say will not work, your'e not one of those skimmerless DSB nuts? .


 :lpf:

My system was set as a reef only for 5 years and no skimmer with DSB (Deep sand bed). Sold off all the coral. Lost my shorts on that. Your aussi corals cost way too much here for a good size one. And I loved the Wilsoni’s. Was tried of the lack of movement and wanted some large angles and way more fish then a reef could handle. So now I run a skimmer and still have the sand bed. And one large Bio load.



Oldtimer said:


> If you are going small cell, I'd suggest you don't use chemicals that leave a permanent residue. That would destroy some of the (supposed) benefits of small cell.
> 
> .


How does using chemicals destroy the benefits of small cell? Not sure if I see that. Wouldn’t small cells just be a Natural tool (just like a chemical tool)? 





Andrew Dewey said:


> But then I think the spending of any kind of a premium on small cell bees and small cell comb/foundation to be a waste of money too.


I have not seen a big difference between cost of foundation whether it be small cell or normal (Wax). And the added cost of a package for small cell bees is small compared to the cost of everything else. It cost me $35 more for them and they are shipped to me verses I have to drive 20 miles to pick up a local package.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

NW_Mark said:


> How does using chemicals destroy the benefits of small cell? Not sure if I see that. Wouldn’t small cells just be a Natural tool (just like a chemical tool)?


The theory is that in a hive with clean wax, bees are much better able to sense problems and deal with them on their own. Plus it eliminates all the problems the messing up the microbiological balance in the hive and decreased queen fecundity and lifespan. Treatment-free beekeepers generally place a healthy emphasis on clean wax.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

NW_Mark said:


> :lpf:
> How does using chemicals destroy the benefits of small cell? Not sure if I see that. Wouldn’t small cells just be a Natural tool (just like a chemical tool)?


So I know the mantra is that small cell is the mites cant reproduce due to being too small for the mites but have you ever seen how small these mites really are????

So Apriguard is a very good control method for mites. The problem with using some of the older chemicals is they are so hard on the queens their production dips way low....

Apriguard is good. They are really touting Hopguard these days. Hopguard is way cheaper and both are natural. Some say that menthol will be given off into the honey but I have never noticed. 

Thinking outside the box is good. Maybe fully understanding the box before thinking outside the box is better. 

We as beekeepers dont fail with dying colonies. We just learn a new way to kill colonies!!!


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

BMAC said:


> So I know the mantra is that small cell is the mites cant reproduce due to being too small for the mites but have you ever seen how small these mites really are????


No, that's not the mantra, you're thinking of tracheal mites.


BMAC said:


> Hopguard is way cheaper and both are natural.


If it's natural, why don't the bees do it themselves?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

NW_Mark said:


> How does using chemicals destroy the benefits of small cell? Not sure if I see that. Wouldn’t small cells just be a Natural tool (just like a chemical tool)?


 OK well small cells are every bit as controversial as DSB's. ( Can you believe that LOL! ) People swear by them, or swear at them. 

The reason chemicals, if residual, can reduce the assumed benefits, is that when a hive has been treated by a residual chemical such as is in Apistan, the chemical is absorbed into the wax, and can stay there for years. The bee larvae spend the first 3 weeks of their life in a wax cell, and if chemical contamination is too strong, it is believed to slow their development, by as much as two days. It has not been proved, but this MIGHT give the mites in the cell better odds to reproduce.

One theory with small cells, is that the bee larvae develop faster. However this has not been studied properly, and like DSB's there is still debate over this. However, IF it's true, small cells could help keep mite populations low by giving the mites less time to reproduce. Using a residual chemical that would make larval development take longer, would be counterproductive to this.

As to some of the other arguments, such as bees being able to sense problems better with no chemicals, I don't really buy into a lot of that. Trouble is though, so many theories, so little definitive research. So definate answers to a lot of these questions are not available.

However, I would hazard a guess, that one way or another, you are better without residual chemicals in the hive. The reason they are still widely used, is that most of the non residual chemicals, are harder to apply, and less reliable. But if you've had the ability to do the research and run a successful reef, IMO you are qualified to not have to use the easiest chemicals.


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

NW_Mark said:


> How does using chemicals destroy the benefits of small cell? Not sure if I see that. Wouldn’t small cells just be a Natural tool (just like a chemical tool)?





Solomon Parker said:


> The theory is that in a hive with clean wax, bees are much better able to sense problems and deal with them on their own. Plus it eliminates all the problems the messing up the microbiological balance in the hive and decreased queen fecundity and lifespan. Treatment-free beekeepers generally place a healthy emphasis on clean wax.




I see how that applies to the theory of being treatment free. And that would apply to what ever size of bee. From what I read the small cell only gives some minor (non chemical) advantage over mites. What race the bee is also can give some (again non chemical) advantages. So by not using any chemicals, your statement would be true no mater what bee type/race you used.

But I don’t see how that answered my question. What benefits of not using chemical on small cell bees is there that would not also apply to any bee type?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Solomon Parker said:


> If it's natural, why don't the bees do it themselves?


Not a good argument. If 4.9 cells arer natural, why use foundation?
The bottom line is that varroa mites are not a natural predator of _apis melifera_ they were introduced via human intervention. So an unnatural pest may require an unnatural control. The bees often don't know how to do it as evidenced by the large losses of untreated hives.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I never had any luck with Varroa until I changed the cell size. But otherwise, it's much like your reef. A colony is an ecosystem both inside the hive and outside. If you let them have a healthy ecosystem, they can handle most things most of the time. If you disrupt the ecosystem with treatments (all of which will disrupt either the microbes or contaminate the wax) and the natural selection, then you end up with bees and a system that has to be propped up with treatments.

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


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

You're getting advice from guys that know a lot more than I...we need a little emoticon for a big grain of salt.

This past year I used Mite Away Quick Strips. It's formic that is about as easy to apply as you can get. The bees hate it, but they can cope. The mites can't. Even the mites capped in brood can't. Applied it when the high temps were high 70s, didn't lose any queens as some have noted when applying it during very high temps. Overall I'm happy with it.

I've personally begun to realize something that the really experienced beeks have probably known forever...this is all percentages. If you don't treat in any way, each of your hives will have a higher percentage of loss than if you do. Being a hobby beekeeper as I am means the goal is to have enough bees coming out of winter to recover to a sustainable level of bees. That's worse case. Commercial guys need to know not only that they can recover, but they need to make honey or fill contracts, they have so much more to think about (can't imagine). Anyway, if I have enough hives that I can recover from my losses via splits and maybe a swarm here and there, then I'm good. In good years I'll make honey. Not treating and having a higher chance of loss simply means that I need more hives in order to recover each year. So not treating is an option, but I think it means you better have quite a few hives.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Libhart: You just nailed it, couldn't have said it better myself. :thumbsup:


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

libhart said:


> this is all percentages.


A lot of wisdom in that statement.


----------



## Bee Bliss (Jun 9, 2010)

You might consider powdered sugar. There are threads on it on Beesource that you can look for.


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

> But I don’t see how that answered my question. What benefits of not using chemical on small cell bees is there that would not also apply to any bee type?


One purported way, proposed by Michael Bush, that small cell could decrease mite load is that bees develop slightly faster in smaller cells. It is known that mite reproduction increases with brood development time: hence the proliferation of mites in drone brood (drones take about three days longer to develop than workers). If small cell bees develop more quickly, then they would give the mites less time to develop, resulting in more immature mites dying as bees emerge (immature mites cannot move or feed on adult bees).

If chemical residues increase brood development time, then that would offset this particular advantage of small cell beekeeping. Hence the argument that chemical residues offset the advantages of small cell.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What benefits of not using chemical on small cell bees is there that would not also apply to any bee type? 

Small cell is not a bee type. It is a cell size.

There are quite a few recent studies on Fluvalinate, Cumaphos and Terrmaycin and the downside of using them. Try a recent search. In addition to direct effects recent research is looking at interactions with other things the bees are exposed to and the effects on their immune systems. Treating not only contaminates the comb, but destroys the entire ecosystem of the bee colony. That ecosystem involved multiple insects, 30 some mites and more than 8,000 microorganisms so far identified.


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> OK well small cells are every bit as controversial as DSB's. ( Can you believe that LOL! ) People swear by them, or swear at them.
> 
> The reason chemicals, if residual, can reduce the assumed benefits, is that when a hive has been treated by a residual chemical such as is in Apistan, the chemical is absorbed into the wax, and can stay there for years. The bee larvae spend the first 3 weeks of their life in a wax cell, and if chemical contamination is too strong, it is believed to slow their development, by as much as two days. It has not been proved, but this MIGHT give the mites in the cell better odds to reproduce.
> 
> ...


Now that answered the question




I guess what I am looking for is a way to run all the bees through a quarantine period before they are left on their own. Each Fish and coral was handled with either a chemical treatment or natural one, and were placed in a special quarantine tank for a period of 30 to 60 days. With a few exceptions, nothing went into my display tank without this. It’s much simpler (easer) to treat on a small scale. Treatments for fish can have a devastation affect on corals.

In the reef world we use a mixture of chemical and home treatments. Epson salts, Pickling lime, Baking soda, Road deicer, Dog heart worm medicine to name a quick few. Crap there is even arguments on what Reef salt is better or what type of lighting to use (and goes as far on what manufacture of light bulb). As Oldtimer has stated I am one of the NUT jobs that runs a Deep sand bed. (If you only knew how many times I hit myself in the head with a baseball bat for doing that.) You have too completely understand the biology aspects of this and what it entails to be successful at it. What animal life down to the microscopic level is required. 


So Chemicals in wax can slow down the development time in larvae. Understanding that now answered the question. But I think that could then also be a mute point. Because any (man made) wax foundation could have chemical residue already in it. And I do not see myself from the beginning going foundationless. Yes, its in my final plan that at some point to be foundation less but even Mr. Bush recommends using foundation (You can cut strips of regular foundation into 3/4" wide strips and wax that in the groove or nail it with the cleat.) to give the bees a guide on how to make straight comb. 

This tread was never meant to be an argument over Natural treatments –V- Chemical ones. I am looking for options and trying to find the chemical treatment that is the least damaging and at the same time the one that will give me the best results. I comes down to a cost/lost benefit. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Mark


----------



## Rusty67 (Mar 9, 2010)

In western Washington your major issue will be moisture control. Soggy bees do not do well.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

mark, if you haven't discovered it yet, here is a site sponsored by a phd and beekeeper. i don't think you will find an direct answer to your original question there, but it's the best source of information regarding all of the treatments i have found. there is a particularly good series on the ipm for varroa. hope this helps.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Solomon Parker said:


> No, that's not the mantra, you're thinking of tracheal mites.
> If it's natural, why don't the bees do it themselves?


If thats not the mantra about small cell then state the mantra about the fad.

Im not sure what you are getting at with your second comment. It would really help if you disagree that you write out your entire point of view. I don't think many of us are mind readers. After all ice is also natural but what does that have to do with keeping bees, set aside having ice in your colony isn't healthy for the bees in the winter months?


----------



## Dana (Mar 26, 2005)

Mark, I started keeping bees about 7 years ago. I just got a nuc from a local beekeeper and just started feeding in foundationless frames. I've never used any treatments. I've lost hives to my own incompetence, but not from disease. 

You mentioned the quarantine you use for what you bring to your aquarium. This really doesn't apply to bees since they are free flying. A better analogy is related to organic gardening. The key to organic gardening is healthy living soil ecosystem. If someone were to just spray some insecticide/fungicide (even "natural" ones) then they are throwing the whole system out of whack. Now the plants won't be as healthy and will be more susceptible to disease. 

You're starting with enough hives that you'll be able to spot problems fairly easily and then decide the best course of action. And, get yourself an observation hive! I just got one last summer and it's great. As much fun as staring at an aquarium. (I used to have a freshwater planted aquarium, it was significantly more work and more expensive than the bees, but I moved to a tiny house in the country and no longer had room.)


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

Rusty67 said:


> In western Washington your major issue will be moisture control. Soggy bees do not do well.


LOL. Thats one I never would have thought of. I guess they dont have webbing on their feet like the humans do around here


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

squarepeg said:


> mark, if you haven't discovered it yet, here is a site sponsored by a phd and beekeeper. i don't think you will find an direct answer to your original question there, but it's the best source of information regarding all of the treatments i have found. there is a particularly good series on the ipm for varroa. hope this helps.
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/


Randy has rightfully developed a pretty loyal following in my mind because he is one of the few people in this industry who combines such a well trained scientific mind with the real life experiences of the demands and challenges of actually making a living in beekeeping. From his well publicized statement about anyone who treats being part of the problem he has evolved into an excellent source of information on well run field trials of various treatments and analysis of the dangers and benefits of those treatments. Randy dosent have an argumentative nature and I can only assume that may be part of the reason he rarely posts on here anymore.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

I've been treatment free 7 years, but I started with treatment free bees. Continue your research, find a source of bees that have never been treated, and when it comes time to requeen, if you requeen, requeen with those bees, and you can discontinue treatments. 

From what we've seen here on the forum, the most expensive way to go treatment free is to stop treating hives that have been treated.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Mark, I have not read this entire thread as I am in a bit of a hurry this morning. But reading your original post a couple of points stood out to me.
Here is a list of the animals I have kept in t he past.
Dogs, lots of them. aquariums, multiple. rodents of many types. reptiles of all sorts. hogs, cattel, horses, Rabbits, chickens, worms, various other insects such as ants and even bees. I also have a logn list of animals I have attracted. they live wild an naturally but I intentionally attract them in greater numbers to a chosen location. Bird feeding for example.

For me there is a clear difference in how to manage and the issue involved in keeping a captive animal and a non captive one. Fish in a tank are captive, bees are not. I suspect some of your thinking is fostered by measures you would take with an aquarium. Quarantine for example. Quarantine works in an aquarium for two critical reasons. First is that only what you introduce to the environment is what effects the environment. and second any infection is devastating in a micro environment. Neither are true when keeping bees. Your bees once treated will instantly expose themselves to anything you treated them for upon release. At least potentially so. This increases the likelihood that treatment will only serve to develop resistance and that whole issue.
It is a better management technique in my opinion to treat when you need to not as a preventative measure in non captive husbandry. You are simply crossing otherwise sound management principals to applications that are not appropriate. That the bees can expose themselves makes the difference. You must manage this issue as well. and needless treatment has been proven again and again to be a serious factor.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Daniel is 99% on the money. Bees can't be treated or compared to just about any other type of livestock. They certainly can't be treated like pets. Such attitudes end up with newbees feeding syrup and pollen patties like they're feeding a hamster. It's totally unnecessary and it's likely at some point to end up with dead bees. The same can be said for treating bees like fish and coral. They are not, do not make the mistake of mixing up the two.

If you must treat, treat only for something that is already manifesting itself. If it is AFB, burn the hive. The only way to escape resistance is to not treat. I do the last two.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I think he knows a beehive is not an aquarium.

But as one who has kept a successful reef tank, I can tell you it is more complex than keeping bees successfully, much as that may surprise some.

There are differences, ie one is a closed system, one is not. But a person can ONLY succeed with a reef tank if they are prepared to do mega amounts of research, and give heaps of time to fine details. they also need a certain intrinsic understanding of living things, that some people just never have. Life skills that will stand a person in good stead if attempting to keep a beehive.

And freshwater tanks, sorry, There is just no comparison to the skill needed to run a successful reef. Not even in the same ballpark.


----------



## Dana (Mar 26, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> And freshwater tanks, sorry, There is just no comparison to the skill needed to run a successful reef. Not even in the same ballpark.


If that was about my comment mentioning a freshwater *planted* aquarium, please google reef vs planted. Apparently lots of folks think they're in the same ballpark enough to argue about it ad infinitum.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

Try breeding discus. Now there's a freshwater challenge. I've had some live rock aquariums in my day. When my wife and I hooked up I had 14 aquariums, salt and fresh. I'm still a recovering aquarium addict.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Is that as bad as being a honeybee addict? Or did you just trade one addiction for another? hmmmm might explain my own problems... 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

Going from reef to bees is just another step in the challenges I put my OCDed brain through. Learning how to fly fish was last year (still a big learning curve there) and before that it was taking many classes on glass blowing.

I am quite aware that comparing a reef tank to bees is a long stretch. But the understanding on how ALL of the marine life, from the bacteria to the large fish, from the type of rock used to the lighting requirements, and what the different biological and chemical process that accrue, must work together to achieve your goal. In simple terms you have to understand how a sewage plant (the ocean) works. I think I am more then prepared to understand how all the aspects in the bee world must work in the circle of life. And if anybody can make the “all natural” method work, it’s me. 

But what I see here is people that have a pampas attitude in that their approach is the only way. I would never recommend to anybody to set up a reef like I did. There is a very very high chance of failure and that last thing I would want to do is set up somebody to fail. You guide them on their chosen approach and do your best to help them down the path that THEY choose, not the one you think that should go down. 

Do I think that chemicals are good to use? I will not argue that point with anybody. Its one I could not defend. Do I think that chemicals at times have their place? Yep. I see people here that will not use any chemicals on there bees. My hat (and I don’t mean that as a slam) is off to you. You were able to tweak everything into a system that works for you. But do you take any chemicals (drugs) to make your life better? I know there are a small selective few that will say that they use no chemicals in their life, but the majority of people do, on a yearly basis. I, myself, am on one of the newer designer drugs (for a skin problem) and for no other reason that it makes my life (mental) better. Could I function with out it? I did for most of my life. And there are some major side affects that could shorten my life. But the quality of life to me is worth the chance. And I bet there are people on the board that take this same drug but for other reasons. To this day I have tried every type of treatment both natural and man made, but this one works for me. The same drug might not work for you as it does for me.

My original question was to learn about chemical treatments, which ones work, what the side affects are for each. What ones to stay away from. But most of the replies were that you must go natural and you must do it my way only. 

Let me pick my own path. You can still guide me, but help me out with the information I am seeking so I can make an informed decision. Most of all don’t preach


Mark
Flames can be directed to my personal email available upon request.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

All the bee supply catalogs have mite treatment products. Their use is described there too. I'd suggest you start there.


----------



## Dana (Mar 26, 2005)

Hey Mark,
You sound like you'd like Michael Bush's style. He posts here a lot and has written tons on his site (and book): http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm Whenever I'm in doubt I feel like I can trust what he says about stuff.

Dana


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

BMAC said:


> If thats not the mantra about small cell then state the mantra about the fad.


There's no mantra, and it's not a fad. Mantras are sayings that people repeat all the time. Fads are things that a bunch of people do for a short time. Neither is the case. There's no such thing as a natural treatment. If it's a treatment, it's not natural. You're thinking of 'organic' or 'certified naturally grown'.



NW_Mark said:


> But what I see here is people that have a pampas attitude in that their approach is the only way.


That's really not what went on here, but if it helps you motivationally, by all means believe it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

NW_Mark said:


> what I see here is people that have a pampas attitude


extensive, treeless plains attitude?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Really big grass attitude? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pampas_grass :wc:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> extensive, treeless plains attitude?


Now what would have happened were I to do what I often do? I'd get slapped. Thanks for the laugh Barry.

Oh how our educational institutes have failed us.


----------



## JohnAllen (Jul 2, 2010)

NW_Mark said:


> What treatments (chemical) are the best for mite control? Advantage/Disadvantage. In another word in what order would the advantages overweight the bad side. What chemical treatment is less dangerous?


Less dangerous for the bees or the beekeeper? Chemical treatments properly applied straddle a line between killing most of the mites and not killing too many of the bees. If you must treat then consider formic and/or oxalic acid. Both chemicals occur in nature and will not leave a long-lasting residue in your hive that would not have been there anyway. Both are hazardous to people and must be used with care. Neither is approved by the EPA as a pesticide except formic acid in proprietary packaging (MAQS).



NW_Mark said:


> Would it be best to treat a package from the start? I see this as the same as treating a dog with flees before I allow it in my house for the first time. A preventive step.


Don't treat at the start. As others have said it is pretty much impossible to keep parasites and disease out of your hives if there are any other colonies within flying distance. Concentrate instead on keeping your bees healthy so they will be resistant.

Learn how to estimate the mite load in your hive(s) and do a mite count regularly so that you will be able to best decide when and if to treat.



NW_Mark said:


> Should I also do preventive treatments for the other issues when the packages are installed?


Don't do preventive treatment for AFB. It may only suppress the symptoms for a while and can kill beneficial microbes that are helping to maintain a healthy colony.
Don't pretreat for nosema either. Fumagillin can also have bad effects on beneficial microorganisms. Do some study before you decide how you want to deal with nosema. You can test for nosema on a regular basis either by sending samples to the USDA lab or by doing it yourself if you have access to a microscope. If your nosema levels are getting high then you can either decide to treat or to wait and see what happens to the colonies with high nosema counts. Although nosema has been implicated as a contributing factor in colony death and decline there has also been evidence to suggest that treating for it may not make much difference. I think the jury is still out. Especially interesting I think is the recent idea that the average nosema spore count in a hive is not as important as the percentage of bees infected.

I'm sure that you have also checked out Randy Oliver's web site as others have suggested. You might also find useful information at HoneyBeeWorld.

P.S. A beekeeper with the skills to maintain a reef tank would probably really enjoy the discussions on the BEE-L mailing list.


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

Would love to be chemical free but...

Lose the but and start out chemical free. 
Or is there really no love here?

Your title suggests you'd rather be chemical free but you seem a little upset that some say to not use chemicals. You have to make the choice of your own beehive management. But, if you would truly love to be chemical free then start out that way from the beginning and keep with it. You won't be the first to have done so and make it work.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I'm with the others, don't treat for AFB or nosema. I don't think any small hobbyist should be running preventative AFB treatments.

I'd also favour no treatment for mites, BUT, this advice has led to a lot of heartbreak for a lot of new beekeepers. With just a handful of hives, only go mite treatment free if you have excellent mite monitoring skills plus learn to look out for signs such as deformed wing virus.

For a pretty straightforward way to treat with formic acid ( a non residual chemical ), here is a link to how I do it, written on our local NZ hobby forum.
http://www.nzbees.net/forum/threads/using-a-formic-acid-fumigator.615/


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

NW Mark wrote:

And if anybody can make the “all natural” method work, it’s me. 

That's a mighty tall claim. Do you really think you can beat the real CCD with "all Natural" methods? If you can, let me be the first one you enlighten.

Crazy Roland


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

Barry said:


> extensive, treeless plains attitude?





Solomon Parker said:


> Really big grass attitude? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pampas_grass :wc:




I am very surprised that 2 (should use “two” to be correct in sentence structure) of the moderators (and one is the owner of this board) felt it was worth their time to point out that I misspelled a word (pampas for pompous). I see that you have also taken on the roll of spelling/vocabulary/grammar police. Who thunk anybody was that smart.

I think I used the wrong word in my post that you were making fun of my spelling in. I think I should have used arrogant or condescending attitude. It might also work here.

From now on I will send every one of my questions to you first to make sure that my spelling/vocabulary/grammar is correct

Mark
And I bet this post will be removed.


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

Roland said:


> NW Mark wrote:
> 
> And if anybody can make the “all natural” method work, it’s me.
> 
> ...


And No Roland I don’t. That’s why I am looking at all options. Trying to figure out what chemicals would be best and if I want to go down that road. The people with a few hives have more to loose if a hive is lost when a chemical treatment could have solved the problem. The roll of the dice(s) could end up that I loose one, two, or all three in my first year. That puts me back at to start all over again. People that have many hives could loose 50% plus and still be moving on. (Think of playing craps and rolling a seven)Ya financially it would hurt them more them me. I get that. But nothing is worse then loosing completely the first time.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Hey, in this forum, I'm just a user!

If you'd rather be chemical free, then just be chemical free. No need to seek approval from either the treating or treatment-free crowd. If you think you can do it, then do it. Don't get upset because someone tells you that you should, shouldn't, or that you can't. It's not preaching, it's the answer to your question.

You don't get to claim others are being pompous for answering the question you asked in the way that seems best for them. This is a public forum and unless someone's breaking the rules (a situation the moderator takes care of) you get to say what you want and so does everyone else. You are completely free to ignore what you don't like. I suggest you avail yourself of that freedom and dare I say, responsibility. Sarcasm rarely looks good on anybody.

Newbees need to start by asking questions and listening to responses. That's all. After you've done it, then you get to talk about how it's done. Relax.


----------



## SRatcliff (Mar 19, 2011)

Yeah, I don't believe there is such thing as a hobby beekeeper. As it was said before, there are only part time and full time. If you want to keep bees (and keep them alive) it takes work. This seems true especially since the introduction of the Varroa mites. So if you're serious about keeping bees, you need to develop a plan for sustainability, and then hang on for the ride


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

NW Mark - Glad to see you understand the challenge of treating CCD without "chemicals". I believe you will have to dig very deep in the bag of tricks, but that there are ways(like irradiation) to treat CCD, just like there are ways to treat AFB without antibiotics. 

Seriously, enlighten we when you think you have a solution.

Crazy Roland


----------



## hoodswoods (May 15, 2009)

Mr. Parker,

I rarely (like) to agree with the moderators, but in this case I do. One will find as many pros & cons as well as methods to go one way or another - enough to desire euthanasia as relief. Everybody has THE answer. I used to raise hound dogs, but not sure that experience relates to bees.

I say figure out what feels good for your conscience, do some research and go with it - and then be prepared to change. Keep your bees fed, alive & as free from varroa and SHB as you can (or how).


----------



## NW_Mark (Jan 23, 2012)

Roland said:


> Seriously, enlighten we when you think you have a solution.
> 
> Crazy Roland


I will gladly let you know. But give me a few years on that please. I also want to thank you for your push. You lead me to the information I was looking for and that also made me realize why (the information) it was so hard to find.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

NW_Mark said:


> I am very surprised that 2 (should use “two” to be correct in sentence structure) of the moderators (and one is the owner of this board) felt it was worth their time to point out that I misspelled a word (pampas for pompous).
> 
> Mark


Lighten up Mark. It was funny when it was pointed out. Just because something is funny doesn't mean you were being laughed at. Just what you wrote.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

This thread was interesting for awhile but recently I seem to be loosing interest.  It's okay Mark, I recently made the observation some folks are good at beekeeping others may excel at spelling and grammar. I kind of doubt if one is related to the other. Laugh and the world laughs with you.........


----------

