# Treated first time today



## tanksbees

The Internet definition of TF is stupid.

In nature most hives swarm repeatedly every year, the new swarms leave with low mite load, the old hive is left to die out from mites.

Later, another swarm moves into the old hive. The bees have successfully outsmarted the mites by doing what they do naturally. The circle of life continues.

Now, you add in a TF beekeeper, who removes honey, squashes queen cells whenever he sees them, checkerboards, etc. with the result of preventing swarms. He is an interventionist, yet is no good at keeping bees alive.

The hive dies later that year, infested with mites, because the beek thinks he is smarter than the bees.

If you really want to be TF you have to let the bees swarm, and know that you will not always have bees in all your boxes.

In a way you are renting them to nature and hoping they return.

Let them swarm like crazy, put out lots of swarm traps, and you will be TF.

As to your particular situation, once I see decline my success rate is about 1 in 4 for recovering mite infested hives by just treating them, and it takes a long time before they are back running at 100% - 6 months or longer.

Personally, I would shake any hives that show decline into new equipment with no brood, treat immediately with oxalic acid, and combine as many hives together as necessary to make strong bustling hives. Freeze the old brood and give it back to them in a few days for cleanup

The hatching mite infested brood is a death sentence. 

Packages are usually fine for the first year, and the mites get out of control in year two


----------



## tsamis

I like TanksBees post . let nature do it's thing.


----------



## mike bispham

tanksbees said:


> The Internet definition of TF is stupid.
> 
> The hive dies later that year, infested with mites, because the beek thinks he is smarter than the bees.
> 
> As to your particular situation, once I see decline my success rate is about 1 in 4 for recovering mite infested hives by just treating them, and it takes a long time before they are back running at 100% - 6 months or longer.
> 
> Personally, I would shake any hives that show decline into new equipment with no brood, treat immediately with oxalic acid, and combine as many hives together as necessary to make strong bustling hives. Freeze the old brood and give it back to them in a few days for cleanup


Its always nice to be told you're stupid, and that what you do on an ongoing basis is impossible, by someone who has never done it, and clearly has no idea how to go about it.



tanksbees said:


> Packages are usually fine for the first year, and the mites get out of control in year two


That's probably true - unless you buy bred resistant bees.

Whether bees fall to mites is entirely dependent on how resistant to mites they are. The need to swarm is a canard.

Mike (UK)


----------



## tanksbees

mike bispham said:


> Its always nice to be told you're stupid, and that what you do on an ongoing basis is impossible, by someone who has never done it, and clearly has no idea how to go about it.


Mike, their is a difference between calling you stupid and calling internet advice stupid. At no point before I posted were you involved in this thread.

Lots of people on the internet brag about how their package bees survived for 2 years TF (likely meaning they installed them in april and overwintered one year), tricking the newcomers into going TF like varroa is no big deal.

You never hear them talk about it again once you hit year 3, all they want to know is where to buy new packages cheap.

I've helped a few people clean up their hives after the mites start to take over. They had big booming hives and then all of a sudden all their hives start declining. It's an expensive and unnecessary waste of bee life.

Frankly, TF is a made up term be people who don't like chemicals. Somehow brood breaks are not a "treatment". Changing queens is not a "treatment". 

In my mind those are all "treatments". 

The bees wouldn't need "treatments" if you left them in the trees where they can swarm. Instead you rob their honey, prevent them from swarming, and induce mite overload.

I think it's great to breed mite-resistant bees. But that's a "treatment" in my mind. Your bees are GMOs. You have been messing with their genetics and somehow that's not a "treatment". I'm fine with that.

Unfortunately the poor newbeek in the thread is probably going to learn an expensive lesson because he thought if he stuck all the bees on small cell foundation they magically wouldn't have varroa problems. Most don't understand that going "treatment free" has a list of caveats a mile long.


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham said:


> That's probably true - unless you buy bred resistant bees.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Do tell, where in the World are these bees for sale? Who sells them?
I hear those that get bred resistant bees lose them as well without proper management.


----------



## mike bispham

tanksbees said:


> Mike, their is a difference between calling you stupid and calling internet advice stupid. At no point before I posted were you involved in this thread.


If you looked through this forum you'd soon see that no such advice is offered here. The generally accepted position is that outlined by Randy Oliver, which I've pasted below. This is very clear about the futility of trying to keep package bees without treatments. 



tanksbees said:


> Lots of people on the internet brag about how their package bees survived for 2 years TF (likely meaning they installed them in april and overwintered one year), tricking the newcomers into going TF like varroa is no big deal.


Maybe they do. Again, not here.



tanksbees said:


> Frankly, TF is a made up term be people who don't like chemicals. Somehow brood breaks are not a "treatment". Changing queens is not a "treatment".


TF is a term that has evolved with the understanding of the nature of the problems, and as the lessons have been learned. There has been plenty of argument about just what should and shouldn't be included within the practice. In broad terms it has been recognised, here, that the problem of mites, now, is a problem of adaptation. That the solution is breeding. Some work at breeding themselves, others buy in bred bees; some do both. 



tanksbees said:


> In my mind those are all "treatments".


Artificial brood breaks: I agree. Changing queens from a package to a bred resistant queen is not a treatment. Its a husbandry measure.

In broad term: any action that tends to raise resistance in _a population_ is good TF practice; and vice versa.



tanksbees said:


> The bees wouldn't need "treatments" if you left them in the trees where they can swarm. Instead you rob their honey, prevent them from swarming, and induce mite overload.


That's your theory. It doesn't match the experience of many here who keep bees, multiyear, without swarming issues or mite issues. Or those who see their mite issues improving year on year. 



tanksbees said:


> I think it's great to breed mite-resistant bees. But that's a "treatment" in my mind. Your bees are GMOs. You have been messing with their genetics and somehow that's not a "treatment". I'm fine with that.


All livestock are bred. if you don't breed you very soon have sickly livestock. That's 9/10ths of what husbandry _is_. Try to get that straight. GMO is something else entirely. 



tanksbees said:


> Unfortunately the poor newbeek in the thread is probably going to learn an expensive lesson because he thought if he stuck all the bees on small cell foundation they magically wouldn't have varroa problems. Most don't understand that going "treatment free" has a list of caveats a mile long.


You haven't been here long, or looked around much. You've simply jumped in, ignorant of the facts of husbandry and with a set of assumptions about us that are plain wrong. Don't worry, you're not the first and you won't be the last.

Mike (UK)


QUEENS FOR PENNIES

Randy Oliver

American Bee Journal, March 2014, 273-277

Page 273 only

I've been encouraged in recent rears by the number of beekeepers who appear 
to be successfully keeping locally-adapted stocks of bees without treatment 
for varroa. I am a strong supporter of their efforts, and see them as the 
wave of the future.

Unfortunate1y there is also great deal of confusion as to what 'treatment 
free' beekeeping really means.

Allow me to use an analogy to explain:

Dairymen prefer to keep Holstein cattle. Holsteins are thin-skinned. 
thoroughly domesticated cattle se1ected solely for milk production. Their 
normal care requires shelter, supplemental feeding. routine vaccinations. 
and treatment with antibiotics. If a dairyman turned his Holsteins out on 
the range to fend for themselves without care, and half of them died each 
year he would be accused of having committed animal neglect -- the failure 
to provide the basic care required for an animal to thrive.

Yet this is exactly what thousands of recreational beekeepers do every year. 
Under the misconception that they are practicing [sic] 'treatment free' 
beekeeping, they are in actuality simply neglecting their domesticated 
animals. The reason for this is that they are starting with commercial 
package bees -- bees akin to Holstein cattle, in that they are bred for high 
brood and honey production under standard management practices (notably mite 
management, but also supplemental feeding or antibiotic treatment if 
indicated). Most commercial bee stocks should be considered as domesticated 
animals. There is absolutely no reason to expect that your wishful thinking 
will miraculously transform your newly-purchased 'domesticated' bees into 
hardy survivor stock able to survive as wild animals without standard care 
and treatment.

Now don't get me wrong. I am no more criticizing the commercial queen 
producers than I would criticize the dedicated breeders of Holstein cattle. 
The queen breeders are producing the best breeds for beekeepers willing to 
provide their colonies with the 'standard' degree of husbandry (which 
includes at this time, treatment(s) of some sort for varroa). I have no 
problem whatsoever with that; but my crystal ball says that someday the 
market will dwindle for bees that require regular treatment for mite.

Do not disillusion yourself. Allowing domesticated package colonies to die 
year after year is not in any way, shape, or form a contribution to the 
breeding of mite-resistant stocks. There is a vast difference between 
breeding for survivor stock and simply allowing commercial bees to die from 
neglect! By introducing commercial bees year after year into an area, and 
then allowing those package colonies to first produce drones and then to 
later die from varroa, these well-meaning but misguided beekeepers screw up 
any evolutionary progress that the local feral populations might be making 
towards deve1pping natural resistance to varroa. Not only that, but those 
collapsing 'mite bombs' create problems for your neighbors. Referring to 
yourself as a beekeeper confers upon you a responsibility to the local 
beekeeping community. Allowing hives to collapse from AFB or varroa makes 
you a disease-spreading nuisance!

A SOLUTION

Enough scolding. I strongly support those willing to actually practice [sic] 
selective breeding for treatment-free (or minimal treatment) locally-adapted 
stocks of bees. But let me be frank (try to stop me); if you start your hive 
with commercial stock, then by all means care for them as domesticated 
animals! If you want to go treatment free then start with survivor stock 
bred to be naturally resistant to mites and viruses, such as VSH, Russian, 
or locally-adapted ferals. Do not kid yourself into thinking that allowing 
innocent domesticated bees to die a slow and ugly death is the same thing as 
breeding for survivor stock -- 'breeding' instead means the propagation of 
bees that don't die -- the key word bring propagation. And this is a 
frustration for many well-intentioned beginners -- no one in their area is 
propagating survivor stock for sale. That is why wrote this article.

To me, it is a crime against nature not to breed daughters from that 
fantastic survivor colony. But most beekeepers think that it is beyond their 
scope of ability to raise queens. Nonsense! Let me show you how to raise 
about 10 queens at a time for pennies apiece. This is not the way we do it 
commercially, but this method can be easily practiced by most anyone.

The rest of this article (4 pages) is an illustrated guide to artificial 
queen breeding.


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> Do tell, where in the World are these bees for sale? Who sells them?
> I hear those that get bred resistant bees lose them as well without proper management.


I hear those who keep ill-bred unadapted bees also lose them regularly. 

If you asked that question nicely, stating your location, somebody might offer you guidance. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## beemandan

dkofoed said:


> I was stunned by how quickly the mite count could escalate.


Here's a similar thread that is current. 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?312043-Mite-crash-before-Main-Flow
You said yours was a mix of small cell and foundationless. I would suggest that if that foundationless is largely drone sized cells and your hive is producing an abundance of drones....they are also making a truckload of mites.
Even Dee Lusby, a coinventor of the whole small cell concept has said that she culls any frames with an excess of drone cells.


----------



## Oldtimer

The mite numbers you quote are very high, it is possible the hives will not survive even with treatment because of the amount of time it takes to get a cycle of healthy bees through. MAQS is also not the best treatment for a severely infested hive (in my opinion) because formic acid is quite harsh on bees already sickly with varying levels of DWV. However you have done it, so it's now just a case of wait and see, hope it works out. 

NZ bees are not mite resistant, Canadian purchasers will normally get a good first season out of them but after that the hive is likely to be lost unless treated. A fall treatment can ensure they go into winter in good shape, then follow that up with something in spring so you'll be up and running strong for the next season.

I've seen a few Canadians post about being treatment free, the diehard ones who won't adapt in the face of need seem to disappear from Beesource eventually, others who treat keep going. Seems like there is not a lot / any of mite resistant bees in Canada. Despite the impression some like to convey that it's just a case of dialling a few up on the phone.


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham said:


> I hear those who keep ill-bred unadapted bees also lose them regularly.
> 
> If you asked that question nicely, stating your location, somebody might offer you guidance.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I'm not looking for guidance, just a source for these bred resistant bees. Since there is so much talk about them Surely someone knows where to puchase and from whom.

My location is in the heading, like everyone elses. Maybe you have some thin skin like those black and white Holstein milkers you mention and are overly defensive, or maybe you just don't know the answer to the question. If the latter is the case, then just say you don't know.


----------



## MartinW

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?262775-Varroa-tolerant-queen-breeders-for-2012

You may also want to consider purchasing queens from non-treatment advocates such as Anarchy Apiaries or Michael Bush.


----------



## AHudd

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what TanksBees says.
I have been thinking about the process of splitting as opposed to swarming. With a swarm the bees fly away to start a new colony with new wax giving them a natural brood break. Meanwhile, back in the original hive, they are waiting for the virgin queen to emerge, get mated, begin laying eggs, giving them a natural brood break as well. 
When a hive is split, capped, mite infested brood, and bees, are put into boxes and shipped across the country.
The government has taken notice of, for lack of a better term, this situation with pollinators. I hope they don't arrive at the conclusion I have outlined and decide to save us and the bees. I am sure they would take a heavy-hand, big picture approach none of us would like. The sound we will hear will not be of thunder, but the slamming of the cash drawer.
I also think the term TF is simplistic. To me, the intent of the definition is, non blanket treatment of all hives for pests and diseases my bees may or may not have. I'm sure others may have other definitions, but this is mine.
If my bees start crashing this year I will combine them all in new equipment, including foundation, and distribute their honey stores according to need. I will then freeze all brood comb and examine them to be sure if mites were indeed the problem. I will then decide in the fall whether to begin treatment or not.

Alex


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> just say you don't know.


I don't live in the US so I haven't bothered tracking them. There was a thread here a little while back in which several sources were mentioned, and doubtless from those leads you could find more. I could track that down for you, but I'm not going to.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Those are good links posted by Martin in post #12, but realise Dkofoed is in Canada so needs a Canadian source. A link, if there is one, would be more practical use than a 1/2 page lecture.


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I could track that down for you, but I'm not going to.


Ha that's funny! 

Helpful as ever!!


Or could it be, reality trumps theory.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Ha that's funny!
> 
> Helpful as ever!!
> 
> 
> Or could it be, reality trumps theory.


Beekeeping in late May is a busy business. Building a beekeeping business is pretty demanding too. Generally speaking I don't go far out my my way to help people who can't be bothered to be polite. Its pretty simple.

Mike (UK)


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham said:


> Beekeeping in late May is a busy business. Building a beekeeping business is pretty demanding too. Generally speaking I don't go far out my my way to help people who can't be bothered to be polite. Its pretty simple.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I think you should re read my post#6.
If you still think it is not "polite", then the problem isn't only a thin skin, as I mentioned.
Amazing to me how quickly some become a victim when they are presented with something they don't agree with or
don't know the answer to. Maybe there are no bred resistant bees and that's why they are not for sale.
Makes me think you have been caught in your own web

By the way, Your schedule in late May is no different than anyone elses in the N Hemisphere that keeps any number of bees, same demands as well. Don't flatter yourself by thinking my question was one asking for "help", it was asked to further the conversation, of
which you are incapable of doing.
clyderoad


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> Don't flatter yourself by thinking my question was one asking for "help", it was asked to further the conversation, of which you are incapable of doing.
> clyderoad


So which conversation is that? The one where you claim there is no such thing as a bred resistant bee then continue that line despite having been shown a list of such bees for sale, together with an outline of the attributes that lend them resistance. 

Shall we just go straight to panto?

'Oh yes I can...'

Your turn.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike, you have been quick to claim others are rude......

Bear in mind Clyderoad is a commercial beekeeper and this is a world you do not understand. Many of the commercial beekeepers on Beesource have tried various treatment free queens such as Beeweavers, and found they get mites like the others.

It's because commercial bees can be subjected to way more stressors than bees such as your own. A commercial beekeeper would consider bees mite resistant when they can use these bees in their operation and they won't need help against mites. which for most thus far has not happened.

Yourself and Clyderoad are simply on different pages that's all.

Here's something for you to ponder. If there really were fully treatment free bees, it would just be a matter of putting some in a hive, any hive, and problems over. Instead, there are thousands of pages on the internet and in fact whole web sites about the do's and don'ts of treatment free beekeeping. None of which would be necessary if truly, fully, treatment free bees were readily available.

Now before you send the hate mail, realise saying what I have is not an attack on the concept of treatment free beekeeping, it's just summarising the current reality. Myself and I'm sure Clyderoad would like nothing better than to see genuinely treatment free bees become available. And if they were, every commercial beekeeper WOULD be using them, it would save a bundle of work, and money.


----------



## tanksbees

The post above is along the lines of what I was trying to convey as well when Mike decided to argue with me.

As far as I know, their is no such thing as completely treatment free bees. They can all succumb to mites under certain circumstances, especially in proximity to other hives. The VSH cleaning behavior seems to be rather time and resource consuming for the bees and does not eliminate the varroa problem.

I do have one hive that has not needed treatments. An unproductive Russian nuc with a 3 year old queen which I have split repeatedly over the past couple years. They have had a lot of brood breaks, and that may be part of the reason.

The offspring of this hive lose their all black coloring, and produce well, and seem to have no resistance.

Even if you could find the perfect bees, if they ever swarm or supercede, the resistance is gone.

All my bees are on small cell. Doesn't seem to make much of a difference, they will draw big fat drone comb anywhere in the box they can fit it


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Mike, you have been quick to claim others are rude......
> 
> Bear in mind Clyderoad is a commercial beekeeper and this is a world you do not understand.


I agree, that contextualisation helps. Discussions about treatment free in a less than full-on commercial context are different.

But my point is: most of the discussion that are held here on the tf forum are in that freer context. They are between hobbyists and sideliners and people wanting nothing more than to try tf beekeeping, and understand what might work best and why; who have scope to experiment and take losses. That's the whole business and reason for the ft forum. So charging in like a bull in a china shop and pouring cold water on the entire idea of a 'resistant' bee from the perspective of a full-on competitive commercial outfit is not only inappropriate, its bad manners. When it comes from somebody whose management practices are the chief 
cause of the difficulties we all face, it grates a little.



Oldtimer said:


> Many of the commercial beekeepers on Beesource have tried various treatment free queens such as Beeweavers, and found they get mites like the others.


But not you Alistaire because a) you're not a commercial beekeeper and b) you can't get them. I accept you have been a commercial beekeeper and respect your experience. But it isn't experience as a successful non treatment sideliner.



Oldtimer said:


> It's because commercial bees can be subjected to way more stressors than bees such as your own. A commercial beekeeper would consider bees mite resistant when they can use these bees in their operation and they won't need help against mites. Which for most thus far has not happened.


I agree 100%. I'd go further: the American commercial, low regulation maximised-gains competitive environment positively compels commercial beekeepers to follow the veterinary model, which is, in an open-mating animal, fundamentally unsustainable. Its the industry and its practices and drivers that cause untreated bees to founder as much as lack of a good bee. 



Oldtimer said:


> Yourself and Clyderoad are simply on different pages that's all.


Yep. And I keep untreated bees in a sensible well thought through tf manner designed to raise resistance. He doesn't and he never will for the simple reason that the veterinary management model outperforms sustainable beekeeping. I'll carry on picking up the mess of those who do the same.

[


Oldtimer said:


> Here's something for you to ponder. If there really were fully treatment free bees, it would just be a matter of putting some in a hive, any hive, and problems over.


That's looking at a cog when you need to be looking at the machine as a whole. It isn't that the cog is weak; its that it was never intended to function inside that sort of machine. The machine continually damages the cog. Its no good blaming the cog.



Oldtimer said:


> Instead, there are thousands of pages on the internet and in fact whole web sites about the do's and don'ts of treatment free beekeeping. None of which would be necessary if truly, fully, treatment free bees were readily available.


What 'truly, fully, treatment free bees' means to you is some sort of miracle bee, in which every individual is identical; which an maintain its defences against ever-evolving micro-predators without itself changing, which can mate with any other bee and still remain as strong and productive.

Its a fantasy. And instead of living with the realities of livestock husbandry you commercials try to eliminate the vagaries, to maximise your cost/profit ratios, by behaving as if you already have such bees - except they need medicine poured down their throats every five minutes. 

And then your unadapted, unadapting bees go out and mate with perfectly good bees, and take away the life-chances of their offspring by injecting them with human-dependent genes. 

And you have the nerve to come to me and tell me my bees are no good?

This is the tf forum. Its a place where people interested in tf are allowed to talk about the hows and whys. Period. 



Oldtimer said:


> Now before you send the hate mail,


What on earth is that? Give a dog a bad name and hang it? 



Oldtimer said:


> realise saying what I have is not an attack on the concept of treatment free beekeeping, it's just summarising the current reality. Myself and I'm sure Clyderoad would like nothing better than to see genuinely treatment free bees become available. And if they were, every commercial beekeeper WOULD be using them, it would save a bundle of work, and money.


Again; your 'genuinely treatment free bees' is a fantasy. 

Everything that flows from that is flawed by its detachment from reality. Commercial beekeeping, as currently configured, cannot work within sustainable methods. That's the real problem. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

tanksbees said:


> Even if you could find the perfect bees, if they ever swarm or supercede, the resistance is gone.


There's a little nugget you could usefully focus on. Why is that? How have beekeepers - and other kinds of husbandry - coped with that problem in the past?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Re your reply to me Mike, fair comments.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Re your reply to me Mike, fair comments.


Appreciate your saying so Alisdair

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

I'm a cool guy.


----------



## AHudd

As a relatively new member of BeeSource, I would like to give my perspective as an outsider. I have been following some of these discussions and by reading some old threads from their start is like going back in time. I am assuming these discussions are a fair reflection of what is happening elsewhere. I have read comments about how these discussions would become threatening. I have read some myself that have become very heated and degenerate into name calling. The attitudes seem to be moderating somewhat.
When I was in the construction industry there was always one craft or another holding up the job. The main part of my job was to get things moving again by whatever methods it took. Sometimes, things would pretty heated, and face to face things can escalate quickly, but 99% of the time all it took was the simple acknowledgement to the offending foreman or foremen that you see their point and it is not their fault WE are in this predicament and what can I do to help us all to move forward, meaning what do you want from me to get you out of my way. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, when mites first appeared, if I was faced with the probable loss of everything I had worked for, not only the capital investment, but the prospect of failure, especially if I had been a multi-generational beekeeper, you can bet I would have jumped at the offer from someone giving me options and I would be very defensive towards someone second guessing my decision. I don't believe all honey bees would have perished, but most would have. How long would the road back have been, 100 years, maybe 200. No one knows. I feel confident that because of them we have bees to work with. I think we owe them a debt of gratitude.
There are also those that took the bold step to not treat and saw their bees perish. We owe them also, for did they not erect a signpost saying don't turn this way.
There are many people trying to help bees to become better bees, such as Mike & Squarepeg, and a lot of others who I think deserve encouragement for their efforts.
From my experience in my youth, to what I read now, no one can convince me that bees are not in trouble. The current administration believes the bees are in trouble. Whether we agree with them or not does not matter. It is their reality. It is also the new reality of each of the Federal Agencies listed in the Appendix of the "Plan". I challenge anyone to raise your hand if not at least one of theses agencies touches your life.
I don't know if this is just one of those "feel good" policies or what, but these things seem to take on a life of their own when they become a part of the mission of these agencies. 
Whether the TF efforts can become a viable option for commercial operations or if all TF people have to resort to treating is yet to be seen. I hope the problem is fixed before the Feds fix it for us. I don't know if they are pro or con treatment or how this thing is going to evolve.
If the TF advocates fail, at least the discussions have been educational for me. If Mike Bispham is ultimately successful in his quest to breed a perfect honey bee, I want to be the first to purchase some and suggest the name "Apis Mellifera Bisphamus". 

Alex


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham: the bull that charged into this thread is you, post #4.

your lack of any true understanding regarding the methods of other beekeepers, their markets and business models is nothing more than gross ignorance and it clearly shows.

"This is the tf forum. Its a place where people interested in tf are allowed to talk about the hows and whys. Period."
the above is your quote. you should take heed and cease the attempt to control every discussion you "contribute" to, it's not
your place. All Your hot air can become stifling to those that have a greater understanding and a real contribution to make in a sensible manner.

breaking news: It ain't all about you.


----------



## Barry

I assume you're responding to post #22?


----------



## mike bispham

AHudd said:


> I don't believe all honey bees would have perished, but most would have. How long would the road back have been, 100 years, maybe 200. No one knows.


Some feral populations seem to have recovered -at least to a good degree - in as little as 10 years. 



AHudd said:


> If Mike Bispham is ultimately successful in his quest to breed a perfect honey bee, I want to be the first to purchase some and suggest the name "Apis Mellifera Bisphamus".


You're on the list Alex! It won't be perfect - it will be sufficient if bred well continuously. Just like every other kind of livestock in the whole world.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Commercial beekeepers always are portrayed as the bogeymen in these discussions. It should be remembered that arguably the biggest advances have been made by commercial beekeepers. Beeweaver have produced and are marketing queens that perform well, Dee Lusby started the whole TF thing, to mention a few there are many more contributing, and the beekeepers with the biggest vested interest financially to gain from TF bees would be commercial beekeepers.

Because of the abuse commercial beekeepers receive and the derision they are held in ( I will agree it is way improved than what it used to be) there are only a very few commercial beekeepers who venture into hobby forums.

In my own country hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested into attempting to breed a TF bee and I myself have spent more money than I care to think about in pursuit of that goal.

What goes wrong in these discussions is some small and new beekeepers believe themselves only to be the keepers of the true faith, and commercial beekeepers are the infidels. There is a tendency for commercial beekeepers to be told how they should be doing their jobs, by those who don't know. If a commercial person answers back as to why they do what they do, sometimes it is understood, other times things get ugly.

In my own country there in fact are TF beekeepers, and likely always will be, some of them getting on with it quietly and some of them following the model they see overseas and being very vocal in their attacks on everybody else. I only know of one who has been at it more than a year though.


----------



## clyderoad

Barry said:


> I assume you're responding to post #22?


yes. added addressee in post.
thanks


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Commercial beekeepers always are portrayed as the bogeymen in these discussions. It should be remembered that arguably the biggest advances have been made by commercial beekeepers.


You can't generalise like that Alisdair. Yes, sure there are some great commercial beekeepers (from a tf point of view). But there are also a great many that simply don't care, or are unaware of the damage they do, or know of that damage but feel that what they achieve outweighs it. Just as there are hobbyists and sideliners. A few good commercials doesn't mean all commercials are good! 

Where progress is made its being done by people who understand the nature of the problem, and want to work at fixing it. Period. Commercials, sideliners, hobbyists, academics, whatever. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> But there are also a great many that simply don't care, or are unaware of the damage they do, or know of that damage but feel that what they achieve outweighs it.


Perhaps one day you may meet a commercial beekeeper or two. Discovering how wrong your beliefs about them are would be quite a shock for you.

Let's say you are successful in your endeavours and become a successful commercial beekeeper. Would that make you uncaring, ignorant, or evil?

Commercial beekeepers are simply people who started out fascinated with bees, and became successful enough to do it for a living.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Perhaps one day you may meet a commercial beekeeper or two. Discovering how wrong your beliefs about them are would be quite a shock for you.


The single commercial beekeeper I know is a grasping lying toad, which might colour my views unduly. And the nonsense I've received here from some commercial beekeepers hasn't endeared the class to me. But I thought I just made clear that its wrong to generalise; that good beekeepers and well meaning beekeepers are found all over. I also made it clear a few posts ago that I understood that it is the system (economic, regulatory) that is the true problem. So you're rather shooting past me Alisdair. 



Oldtimer said:


> Let's say you are successful in your endeavours and become a successful commercial beekeeper. Would that make you uncaring, ignorant, or evil?


Nope. I certainly hope not. 



Oldtimer said:


> Commercial beekeepers are simply people who started out fascinated with bees, and became successful enough to do it for a living.


Some are. I'm pretty sure not all are.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Well, thanks for another useful opinion piece Mike.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Well, thanks for another useful opinion piece Mike.


Always willing to help Alistair. 


Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Yup, your cheerful demeanour and constant willingness to help is one of your most noticeable features. 



mike bispham said:


> I could track that down for you, but I'm not going to.
> 
> Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Yup, your cheerful demeanour and constant willingness to help is one of your most noticeable features.


Well we all have our off days (present company excepted). I always help you Alisdair, don't I?

Mike (UK)


----------



## WBVC

Who would have thought that a thought provoking post on how bees being bees may curb mite infections would bring out such attitude and nastiness


----------



## mike bispham

WBVC said:


> Who would have thought that a thought provoking post on how bees being bees may curb mite infections would bring out such attitude and nastiness


Nastyness my foot. This is the gave and take of beesource. I did rather take tanks' words: "The Internet definition of TF is stupid." a bit too personally, and things may have got out of hand thereafter and for those things I apologise. However: I've been mostly trying to iron out over-simplifications in order that more accurate and productive discussions can be had. For that I don't. 

Notice Janne you treat. What is it about the tf forum that interests you? Or did you just want to stand up for your fellow treaters by saying something unkind about me? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh you shouldn't be so easily offended Mike, because people assume someone who will dish it like you, would be expected to also take it. No?

If someone had said "The internet definition of treating is stupid", would I have taken it personally? Of course not, only a very few are that highly strung. Only one person has been blatantly offensive in the thread.


----------



## Harley Craig

Oh how I love the " they swarm the old colony dies off and a new swarm moves in" claim. If I may ask, If our swarms don't happen till the end of may and a feral colony starts bringing in pollen in since late Feb early march for 3+ yrs, when praytell did this imaginary swarm take over this supposedly dead hive? 

It the OP's situation, He had a weak colony with half the mites as his strong colony, he treated both, I would have split the strong colony to make more of them, they are the ones you want to keep. Mites are like the flu, everyone is exposed to it, and some people get sick as heck every time they are exposed, yet others never get sick. 

with that being said, TF isn't for everyone, but don't pretend like it's impossible and don't browbeat someone because they want to try. Give them FAIR warning and let them accept their own consequences


----------



## estreya

"... and don't browbeat someone because they want to try."

Along those lines, please don't tell us what we're doing (or trying to do) is the equivalent of having a sick puppy and refusing to take it to the vet. I love puppies. I do! And kittens too.


----------



## Harley Craig

estreya said:


> "... and don't browbeat someone because they want to try."
> 
> Along those lines, please don't tell us what we're doing (or trying to do) is the equivalent of having a sick puppy and refusing to take it to the vet. I love puppies. I do! And kittens too.


huh? if this is directed at me, I am coufused???


----------



## estreya

No no! Not at all, Harley Craig. Just a general statement, based on past personal experience. Nothing at all to do with you. I should have been more clear (or better yet, resisted pressing the "post" button!). Apologies.


----------



## Harley Craig

lol glad I asked instead of what I was going to reply  lol


----------



## Oldtimer

Ha Ha, must be something in the air today.


----------



## Oldtimer

Harley Craig said:


> Oh how I love the " they swarm the old colony dies off and a new swarm moves in" claim. If I may ask, If our swarms don't happen till the end of may and a feral colony starts bringing in pollen in since late Feb early march for 3+ yrs, when praytell did this imaginary swarm take over this supposedly dead hive?


Harley be aware this argument does go both ways. It can be used unfairly on people who do have genuinely long lived hives, but it is also used by people claiming "this hive has been there 20 years" when it has simply been re stocked.
I can give an example from my country where this was demonstrated. As part of a government funded program to try to breed a varroa resistant bee, they decided to identify and use reported long lived feral genetics. To do this newspaper advertisements were run asking people to report any long lived wild hives they knew of. Around 80 were reported claimed to have been there for several years. To verify they were not simply being re stocked by swarms, 30 of them were selected and cameras installed at the entrance. This monitoring showed that of the 30, all of them perished inside of one year, even though many of them had new swarms go in and to a casual observer it would appear the hive was continuous. End result was the govt. program had no feral bees it could incorporate into the breeding program.

Of course that's NZ, may be an entirely different situation in other places, but no side of this particular argument should be used to outright dismiss the other.


----------



## Harley Craig

That's fair OT and if anyone told me a colony had been in a tree for 20 yrs I'd tell them to pound sand. If they told me 5 I'd take it with a grain of salt hearing 3-4 is pretty common There are 2 known colonies by me that I am aware personally of one is in my mother's tree 10 ft from the back door I have watched it for 3 springs the other is a colony in a friend's old well house and it has thrown swarms the last 5 I'm sure there are others but those are the only 2 examples that I personally know of


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> ... a very few are that highly strung.


(Setting aside the fact that I've already apologised for that mistake, and in the knowledge that you're just trying to keep me ringing) I quite like being 'highly strung'. I may snap from time to time but I can hit high notes. Now can we (I'm looking at you Alisdair) stop making this thread about me please?

Everyone is right. You're right: swarms come in, die, are replaced (I wonder where all those swarms came from in your survey). The guy who said swarming creates brood breaks which aid resistance is right. A bit anyway.

But that isn't the whole story. Sometimes, in some places where varroa is endemic, feral colonies are long lived. I've witnessed this - indeed I can tell you of particular hotspots locally where multiple long lived ferals endure. I have untreated hives that make lots of honey and endure. They might well swarm. Some of them might swarm. They might die next winter. Other people bear witness to the same thing; scientific studies back it up.

And the claim 'oh they just survive by swarming' is tired man, tired. That's what's really tedious. Its also evidence of a failure to engage with the topic. And most importantly, its beside any point: the idea here is to acknowledge that resistance is not an on-off switch, but a place on a continuum. The idea is to keep bees in such a way as to continually raise the level. 

None of this is done much by 'commercials'. Or if it is they generally don't contribute here. All we tend see from 'commercials' is cold water poured on our sincere and often strenuous efforts. Since they, as much as anyone, are responsible for perpetuating the problem, the highly strung among us don't like it, and don't always check themselves quickly enough. 

You're right in saying we were on different pages. Next time this happens could you be a bit quicker please 
Alisdair? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> Now can we (I'm looking at you Alisdair) stop making this thread about me please?
> Mike (UK)


Mike if you want the thread to stop being about you it's easy.

Simply stop making it about yourself and your agendas such as commercial bashing, don't go there any more. Then refer to post one, read it, see what the question is, and answer it. Don't wander off topic to your same old favorites, and the thread will not be about you. 

Not that I'm bothered if you want it to be about you and your personal issues, I'm not a moderator and care not what you want to discuss. However if you feel the thread is about you, no point blaming alisdair, whoever that is.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Mike if you want the thread to stop being about you it's easy.
> 
> Simply stop making it about yourself and your agendas such as commercial bashing, don't go there any more. Then refer to post one, read it, see what the question is, and answer it. Don't wander off topic to your same old favorites, and the thread will not be about you.


I'm not living under your censorship or anyone else's (except Barry's, and he lives in the Land of the Free)

I don't know who made you the police of me.

The topic is treatment free Beekeeping. The way to get to that is to have resistant bees; therefore the ground, underlying topic is raising resistance. Anything that challenges that standpoint is fair game for objections. Pointing out that commercial/orthodox practice is the whole cause of the lack of resistance is unavoidable. 

Now: instead of attacking me attack that argument.

That argument replies, almost completely, fully, to the op's questions and position. He's right in concluding that answer is resistant stock. The bit that's missing is the bit you, the man on the ground, could fill in is: can he find such bees in NZ? Which I seem to remember you did, kind of.

The rest is trying to keep ignorance and misinformation from muddying the waters. And people objecting to people who have the gall to do that, and to tell them when necessary that they need to catch up a bit if they want their views respected around here.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Like I said, I'm not a moderator and do not care what you want to discuss or make the thread about.

However your question was about how to stop the thread being about you. I suggested a way. If you can't do that, like I say I'm not a moderator, do as you wish.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> no point blaming alisdair, whoever that is.


I thought that was you. I'm sorry if I was wrong?


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> However your question was about how to stop the thread being about you.


I didn't ask that question. I suggested you stop making it about me.

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> I thought that was you. I'm sorry if I was wrong?


Well you like using my real name instead of my user name, and enjoy spelling it differently all the time, amazing how many permutations you have thought up. My user name is Oldtimer and OT is a simple version that could work for those with spelling issues. Using a persons user name means other people know who is being referenced and is correct forum etiquette. Using a persons real name in an adversarial manner and intentionally misspelling it is considered trolling.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> Well you like using my real name instead of my user name, and enjoy spelling it differently all the time, amazing how many permutations you have thought up. My user name is Oldtimer and OT is a simple version that could work for those with spelling issues. Using a persons user name means other people know who is being referenced and is correct forum etiquette. Using a persons real name in an adversarial manner and intentionally misspelling it is considered trolling.


You've used your real name here in the past so I thought you'd got over that one. I thought I was being friendly. You shouldn't have pm'd me if you didn't like it. As to spelling, I thought you were a 'd' Alisdair, and I thought I always spelled it that way. The more common 't' spelling has slipped in now and then I see. I apologise; I tried to get it right. 

All a bit rich from someone who has repeatedly called me 'bispham' in the past. Still, water under the bridge, eh?

Mike


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> All a bit rich from someone who has repeatedly called me 'bispham' in the past.
> 
> Mike


You are confused.

As to my name, you will be quite aware you have spelled it many different ways. So many ways it is clearly an attempt to aggravate. If you really thought it had a d, you wouldn't sometimes spell it with a t. If you thought I should have pm'd you, perhaps you should have taken your own advice and then pm'd me. 

But don't, just let all this go. Back to topic, no need to be about me or you any more.


----------



## mike bispham

Oldtimer said:


> You are confused.
> 
> As to my name, you will be quite aware you have spelled it many different ways.


You clearly have a better view of my mind than I do.



Oldtimer said:


> So many ways it is clearly an attempt to aggravate.


Now who is highly strung?



Oldtimer said:


> If you really thought it had a d, you wouldn't sometimes spell it with a t.


I don't spend that much time thinking about you, and I certainly don't try to aggravate you. You're quite aggravated enough already!



Oldtimer said:


> If you thought I should have pm'd you, perhaps you should have taken your own advice and then pm'd me.


I didn't think that till 1/2 hr ago when I was considering your complaint!



Oldtimer said:


> But don't, just let all this go. Back to topic, no need to be about me or you any more.


You have the last word if you want. Then we'll both try to stick to the arguments eh? In the knowledge that those arguments may sometimes offend people, and there's nothing we can do about that except try to be a bit more careful in our phrasing, and remember we're highly strung at times (we're humans) and sometimes we have to say sorry? (I'm just trying to get it all in because I've committed to giving you the last word)

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike here is the topic.



dkofoed said:


> I'm a new beekeeper (got 2 new Zealand packages 1 year ago) with 2 overwintered hives. I went into this gig hoping to go "treatment free", started with small cell plastic foundation (and foundationless). I monitored mites through sugar rolls during the first year and they seemed manageable ... and they overwintered really well. I did a sugar roll very early spring and the numbers were still decent. I've been noticing however, that (especially in my weaker hive) that the bee numbers didn't seem to be growing as much as I'd like, and perhaps even dwindling if anything. I suspected mite levels, so I did a sugar roll today and found the numbers astounding:
> 
> Weaker hive: 22 mites from a 300 bee sample (taken from brood nest)
> Strong hive: 48 mites from a 300 been sample
> 
> I was stunned by how quickly the mite count could escalate. I was especially shocked at my strong hive which seems very active with a ton of bees ... those numbers seem like it could be on the verge of collapse. Even though I wanted to be treatment-free, I was not naïve enough to think there would be no mites and I also wanted to be open-minded enough to treat if it seemed necessary. Which it did after seeing those numbers.
> 
> so I treated with MAQs.
> 
> I guess those who are successful with TF beekeeping must have good survivor and varroa-resistant stock. I still want to pursue the TF dream, but will not sacrifice my colonies for that effort at this time.


I noticed you have offered nothing to the OP. Right from the first sentence of your first post (post 4) you were straight into arguing, which is obviously more important than the topic. Something like my first post (post 10) is directly dealing with the OP's issues. If you could be more like that instead of turning every thread you are in into an off topic slanging match, you would probably not feel that all the threads are about you. Which once you get into them, they do tend to be.


----------



## Harley Craig

Holy crap you two ....sheeesh get a room


----------



## rwurster

mike bispham said:


> Now can we (I'm looking at you Alisdair) stop making this thread about me please? Mike (UK)


When you stop making it about yourself others won't have to remind you of it. I also noticed mike has been calling people by their first names and not their forum names. It makes things hard :s

Too bad being a petty blowhard didn't make one's bees resistant. If that was the case Mike would be exporting super bees world wide lol


----------



## AHudd

mike bispham said:


> the idea here is to acknowledge that resistance is not an on-off switch, but a place on a continuum. The idea is to keep bees in such a way as to continually raise the level.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Mike, you do make some good points, but they tend to get lost in the chatter.
"Commercials" do what they do because there is a need for the service they provide. They began treating for mites because they had no better choices. To point the finger of blame at them is wrong, in my opinion.
Move forward, Please.

Alex


----------



## Solomon Parker

I see this situation as very sad.

This is how I'm interpreting it:
1. I wanted to be treatment free.
2. I started keeping bees.
3. The bees got mites.
4. I treated.

That's the end of it right there. So unfortunate that this person didn't really try to be treatment-free at all.

Not using treatments involves losing hives that cannot survive without treatments. That's a major part of the point. That's kinda the whole point.

Could those bees have survived without treatment? We'll never know, because it was never tried.

Very sad to me.


----------



## mike bispham

AHudd said:


> "Commercials" do what they do because there is a need for the service they provide. They began treating for mites because they had no better choices. To point the finger of blame at them is wrong, in my opinion.


I don't think I'm blaming them Alex. And as I've said I do my best to recognise there are different kinds of 'commercials' and some are more sympathetic to the desirability of adapted bees. I've specifically pointed out in this thread that its the system that is at fault. That's a criticism that goes much further than beekeeping - but commercial beekeeping is caught up in it.

I get enough stick from commercial beekeepers already. Please try not to make things worse by misrepresenting what I've said. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

My apologies all for getting dragged into this stupidity. (blush).


----------



## AHudd

mike bispham said:


> I don't think I'm blaming them Alex. And as I've said I do my best to recognise there are different kinds of 'commercials' and some are more sympathetic to the desirability of adapted bees. I've specifically pointed out in this thread that its the system that is at fault. That's a criticism that goes much further than beekeeping - but commercial beekeeping is caught up in it.
> 
> I get enough stick from commercial beekeepers already. Please try not to make things worse by misrepresenting what I've said.
> 
> Mike (UK)


 My apologies to you Mr. Bispham. I was merely trying to point out where these discussions become unhinged. That is why I said, "in my opinion".
I think I will now rejoin the ones who go about their business quietly.

Alex


----------



## clyderoad

FWIW: While I appreciate you guys stepping away from this chaos gracefully, there is no need for an apology except from
he who derailed the thread in post#4. The apology should be made to the OP.


----------



## mike bispham

clyderoad said:


> FWIW: While I appreciate you guys stepping away from this chaos gracefully, there is no need for an apology except from he who derailed the thread in post#4. The apology should be made to the OP.


The sardonic 'Do tell' from you in post #6 wasn't all that helpful either. Your insistence on judging matters from the perspective of a commercial beekeeper made things worse.

I've apologised, and decided to cease opening Old Timer's posts permanantly should he start trying to police me again. We have a long history, and it never works out.

Two issues are outstanding to my mind. First: Tanksbees notion that there is a "The Internet Definition of treatment free beekeeping". There's lots of scope for a discussion there - and my response citing Randy Oliver's view is I think as good a place as any to start. Its kind of old hat here, but its something that needs saying over again and again for the benefit of people who are unfamiliar with Beesource TF's prior discussions on the topic.

Second, Tanksbees notion that feral bees invariably survive by swarming regularly. I think that occurs sometimes, but not invariably. There are bees that can be kept, in reasonable manner (not probably the commercial-intense manner) without treatments or monkey business with a reasonable expectation of a decent bell-curve of survival and productivity.

The two topics are obviously linked.

I think the op had got this far before the end of the first page.

Mike (UK)


----------



## cristianNiculae

Solomon Parker said:


> I see this situation as very sad.
> 
> This is how I'm interpreting it:
> 1. I wanted to be treatment free.
> 2. I started keeping bees.
> 3. The bees got mites.
> 4. I treated.
> 
> That's the end of it right there. So unfortunate that this person didn't really try to be treatment-free at all.
> 
> Not using treatments involves losing hives that cannot survive without treatments. That's a major part of the point. That's kinda the whole point.
> 
> Could those bees have survived without treatment? We'll never know, because it was never tried.
> 
> Very sad to me.


It's interesting to see people arguing on this subject. In my country these kind of topics does not come in anyone's mind. If ever mentioned it is ignored.
Kirk Webster has great documentation on the subject.

You cannot go TF(selection) with only 2 hives. The nucleus apiary backup is the key.

I'm pretty sure that I could manage to keep bees without treatments cause I survived a major varroa year and a very bad bee keeping year in terms of bee nutrition (2014) with only one oxalic dribble. I went into winter with low populations and had 40% losses but those that recovered are booming now(from 5 frame nucs to 2 story hives and still growing).


----------



## Solomon Parker

dkofoed said:


> I'm a new beekeeper (got 2 new Zealand packages 1 year ago) with 2 overwintered hives. I went into this gig hoping to go "treatment free", started with small cell plastic foundation (and foundationless).


I wonder what the OP really planned to happen here. It appears that the small cell plastic foundation (and foundationless) was intended to be some sort of treatment. Of course, you can get most around here to tell you that these don't work in combating mites.



dkofoed said:


> I guess those who are successful with TF beekeeping must have good survivor and varroa-resistant stock.


Hmm? Oh, I guess that's me. Yes, that's true. But how is it obtained? To my knowledge, you can't buy it in NZ, so you have to make it. And I promise you, that can't be done with two colonies. Furthermore, I guarantee you can't do it without "sacrificing your colonies for that effort." Firstly, you must not treat. Secondly, you must multiply your hives. Thirdly, you must allow sick hives to die (or kill the queens yourself). Fourth, you must multiply from the surviving hives. Fifth, you must repeat the process for at least two to three years before you reach a sustainable population. In my 12 years of experience, I have found that these five steps are empirically guaranteed absolutely necessary to succeed. Contextually speaking, you also need small cell (and not foundationless). Though I have on occasion built back from two, you need more than that, at least five hives.



dkofoed said:


> I still want to pursue the TF dream, but will not sacrifice my colonies for that effort at this time.


At this time you are not treatment-free, nor have you taken any step in becoming so. I don't say this to be in any way insulting. It's a simple fact.


----------



## mike bispham

cristianNiculae said:


> You cannot go TF(selection) with only 2 hives. The nucleus apiary backup is the key.


Unless you have feral - or other local beekeeper backup. Obviously 4 hives would be better than two even then; and six better still... But you're halfway there already. If you can get some bred resistant bees that would help more. 

If your drone space is dominated by unadapted (treated) bees you have a much tougher fight on your hands, and (unless you have access to better mating grounds) need to go considerably larger to sustain and improve resistance. 

You almost certainly need better than package bees as starting - or converting - stock in any situation. 

All situations are different, but you can recognize what sort of situation you are in and plan accordingly. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## D Semple

Solomon Parker said:


> I see this situation as very sad.
> 
> This is how I'm interpreting it:
> 1. I wanted to be treatment free.
> 2. I started keeping bees.
> 3. The bees got mites.
> 4. I treated.
> 
> That's the end of it right there. So unfortunate that this person didn't really try to be treatment-free at all.
> 
> Not using treatments involves losing hives that cannot survive without treatments. That's a major part of the point. That's kinda the whole point.
> 
> Could those bees have survived without treatment? We'll never know, because it was never tried.
> 
> Very sad to me.



Maybe, but for a guy with only 2 hives and not wanting to see his bees die and lose his investment in time and money it's most likely the right decision.



Don


----------



## Solomon Parker

D Semple said:


> Maybe, but for a guy with only 2 hives and not wanting to see his bees die and lose his investment in time and money it's most likely the right decision.


I could never agree that treating is the right decision.


----------



## clyderoad

mike bispham said:


> The sardonic 'Do tell' from you in post #6 wasn't all that helpful either. Your insistence on judging matters from the perspective of a commercial beekeeper made things worse.
> 
> I've apologised, and decided to cease opening Old Timer's posts permanantly should he start trying to police me again. We have a long history, and it never works out.
> 
> Two issues are outstanding to my mind. First: Tanksbees notion that there is a "The Internet Definition of treatment free beekeeping". There's lots of scope for a discussion there - and my response citing Randy Oliver's view is I think as good a place as any to start. Its kind of old hat here, but its something that needs saying over again and again for the benefit of people who are unfamiliar with Beesource TF's prior discussions on the topic.
> 
> Second, Tanksbees notion that feral bees invariably survive by swarming regularly. I think that occurs sometimes, but not invariably. There are bees that can be kept, in reasonable manner (not probably the commercial-intense manner) without treatments or monkey business with a reasonable expectation of a decent bell-curve of survival and productivity.
> 
> The two topics are obviously linked.
> 
> I think the op had got this far before the end of the first page.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I will gracefully back away from this as well as I'm bored with all of the hot air, excuses, mis representations, finger pointing, blaming, insecurity, intolerance and disrespect for others, school boy smart remarks etc., etc., that are included in each and every one of your posts.
I had hoped you had something to contribute but that does not seem to be the case and I have decided to cease opening your posts.


----------



## snl

Solomon Parker said:


> I could never agree that treating is the right decision.


Even if the choice is between losing your hive(s) or treating?


----------



## squarepeg

D Semple said:


> Maybe, but for a guy with only 2 hives and not wanting to see his bees die and lose his investment in time and money it's most likely the right decision.


yep.



Solomon Parker said:


> I could never agree that treating is the right decision.


you could, but you won't, because your view on beekeeping methodology is that one size fits all, but it doesn't.


----------



## Harley Craig

snl said:


> Even if the choice is between losing your hive(s) or treating?


I'm obviously not him, but if you follow his FB group or his blog, that is exactly what he does and preaches


----------



## snl

Those that expose TF for beginners (and how righteous it is without disclosing how very difficult or impossible it may be) do a great disservice to those follow in their philosophy.


----------



## squarepeg

snl said:


> Those that expose TF for beginners (and how righteous it is without disclosing how very difficult or impossible it may be) do a great disservice to those follow in their philosophy.


not to be argumentative larry, but it's neither difficult nor impossible here. your point is well taken though given the reports we see coming into the forum each fall/winter about beginners losing their only hive or two after attempting to manage commercially bred bees off treatments.

in my opinion the best path to tf is to locate someone locally who is successful with it, get bees from them, and follow their management practices. i think there is a reasonable expectation that one should achieve similar results. 

the problem is that is not everyone has access to a tf supplier, and there may even be parts of the country where the conditions don't allow for keeping bees off treatments. in these cases one has to be willing to roll the dice and accept losses while going through a winnowing process like bispham and parker advocate, and there may be those who are willing to do that.


----------



## Solomon Parker

snl said:


> Even if the choice is between losing your hive(s) or treating?


Yup. 

1. That is a false dichotomy. As we all know, treating is no guarantee of survival. 

2. If you do not exercise the proper methods, how can you expect success? 

3. Many find my methods to be harsh. And they are. But that is what is needed to resurrect from the beekeeper imposed mediocrity and unfitness that is plaguing apis mellifera today. My focus is the species. The only cure is treatment free. That's not going to change. There is only to wait until the rest of the world wakes up to that fact.


----------



## Harley Craig

squarepeg said:


> not to be argumentative larry, but it's neither difficult nor impossible here. your point is well taken though given the reports we see coming into the forum each fall/winter about beginners losing their only hive or two after attempting to manage commercially bred bees off treatments.
> 
> in my opinion the best path to tf is to locate someone locally who is successful with it, get bees from them, and follow their management practices. i think there is a reasonable expectation that one should achieve similar results.
> 
> the problem is that is not everyone has access to a tf supplier, and there may even be parts of the country where the conditions don't allow for keeping bees off treatments. in these cases one has to be willing to roll the dice and accept losses while going through a winnowing process like bispham and parker advocate, and there may be those who are willing to do that.



Well said, I don't know anybody that has led anyone to believe that being TF is easy. Most warn against it if starting with commercial packages, even though I know people that went that route, but they had big losses untill they started incorporating swarms ( from areas with no beekeepers around) and cutouts into their yards.


----------



## mike bispham

deleted on second thoughts


----------



## mike bispham

Harley Craig said:


> I'm obviously not him, but if you follow his FB group or his blog, that is exactly what he does and preaches


I do too. But then I have thriving ferals around and can replace them free. Perhaps Solomon does? If I couldn't, if I had to buy packages and buy new queens to go with them I wouldn't have got going. But then some people have more money than me, and might consider it a worthwhile experiment. 

There isn't a one-size fits all solution - your environment makes a huge difference, and you have to plan accordingly. If you don't have ferals and you can't keep more than a few hives I think you have a hobby that absorbs money. That's ok, you're doing good by putting resistant genes in the air, and all hobbies cost money. But that's what it is, not an investment. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

squarepeg said:


> ... the reports we see coming into the forum each fall/winter about beginners losing their only hive or two after attempting to manage commercially bred bees off treatments.


Beginners also lose hives after following orthodox instructions. That's what small scale beekeeping is like. Livestock die, often in dismaying numbers. It isn't pet keeping, and those who think it is should be set straight. Of course those who flog them hives and gear and bees at extortionate cost, telling them we need more beekeepers in the holy battle to feed the planet, who are too often their primary contact, kinda play that down. Even experienced amateur beekeepers are generally far too focused on keeping every single one alive. Which would be fine - if they went about it the right way.

Keeping bees well is something learned after lots of failure. Unless you count treatment management as 'keeping bees well'. 


Mike (B)


----------



## rwurster

snl said:


> Even if the choice is between losing your hive(s) or treating?


This guy wouldn't even treat his bees if one of his hives had AFB. "The bees can deal with it." So any ferals or kept bees that would rob out a hive he might possibly lose to whatever will also be "dealing with it". Just the kind of beekeeper I would want near my apiary. 

And I don't mean SNL


----------



## Solomon Parker

mike bispham said:


> I do too. But then I have thriving ferals around and can replace them free. Perhaps Solomon does?


I haven't caught a swarm in 2-3 years. I am not dependent upon swarms to keep my operation alive.


----------



## bucksbees

Does intervention count as treatment?
Does using a natural occurring compound count as treatment?
Does a tray of mineral oil below a sbb count as treatment?
Does using plastic foundation count as treatment?
Does using a Langsworth count as treatment or a Top Bar Hive?

I am wondering on want is or is not counted towards being treatment free?


----------



## Solomon Parker

bucksbees said:


> Does intervention count as treatment?
> Does using a natural occurring compound count as treatment?
> Does a tray of mineral oil below a sbb count as treatment?
> Does using plastic foundation count as treatment?
> Does using a Langsworth count as treatment or a Top Bar Hive?
> 
> I am wondering on want is or is not counted towards being treatment free?


If you had read the forum rules, you'd know.


----------



## cristianNiculae

mike bispham said:


> Unless you have feral - or other local beekeeper backup. Obviously 4 hives would be better than two even then; and six better still... But you're halfway there already. If you can get some bred resistant bees that would help more.
> 
> If your drone space is dominated by unadapted (treated) bees you have a much tougher fight on your hands, and (unless you have access to better mating grounds) need to go considerably larger to sustain and improve resistance.
> 
> You almost certainly need better than package bees as starting - or converting - stock in any situation.
> 
> All situations are different, but you can recognize what sort of situation you are in and plan accordingly.
> 
> Mike (UK)


I use foundation less frames. This leads to many many drones. The chances that my queens mate with drones from my apiary are high. Maybe this is one of the key factors in the equation. Anyway... I'm not yet decided to go entirely TF.


----------



## c10250

I think I can summarize what I've read, and agree to by stating that if are TF, and you don't want to lose your bees, you need to start out with bees having hygienic traits or they will die. For me, I select my bees for their gentleness and their ability to produce large amounts of honey. (My hive just put on 34 lbs in a single day). I live close to my neighbors, so those are the two traits that I look for mostly. I do not select my bees for hygienic behavior, and so I need to treat. If I don't, they die. 

As an analogy, I selected my dog because of his gentle behavior, and because he doesn't shed (golden retriever/poodle mix). Because he doesn't shed, the dog needs to be groomed periodically. If I decided for some reason, that I wasn't going to groom the dog, then I should have selected a dog having different traits.

Just like the situation where you don't buy a dog that requires grooming, and then decide not to groom . . . you don't buy bees that require treating for mites, and then decide not to treat. It's irresponsible.


----------



## bucksbees

Solomon Parker said:


> If you had read the forum rules, you'd know.


If you were interested in teaching people you would not have been rude?

Seeing how there is over a decade worth of information in this one website alone, along with the meanings of things change over time, well whats the point in asking a civil question?


----------



## Faith Apiaries

bucksbees said:


> Does intervention count as treatment?
> Does using a natural occurring compound count as treatment?
> Does a tray of mineral oil below a sbb count as treatment?
> Does using plastic foundation count as treatment?
> Does using a Langsworth count as treatment or a Top Bar Hive?
> 
> I am wondering on want is or is not counted towards being treatment free?


Hi Buck. I'm not sure all your questions are included here but I think you'd find this post very informative.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?253066-Unique-Forum-Rules&p=643774#post643774


----------



## bucksbees

Thank you very much.


----------



## mike bispham

bucksbees said:


> Does intervention count as treatment?
> Does using a natural occurring compound count as treatment?
> Does a tray of mineral oil below a sbb count as treatment?
> Does using plastic foundation count as treatment?
> Does using a Langsworth count as treatment or a Top Bar Hive?
> 
> I am wondering on want is or is not counted towards being treatment free?


Its not a simple question Bucksbees. I personally take the view that anything that artificially aids the colony is a 'treatment'. I do that because my sole strategy for raising resistance is genetic - breeding - and I want to be able to see clearly which are doing best unaided.

Not treating or fiddling at all to help against mites is just part of a larger strategy, including things like no foundation in the brood nest. But where things make, in my judgement, no difference to my core aim - like using wired foundation in higher lifts, or stimulative feeding and replacement of stores following honey removal, I do them. 

I'm trying most of all not to disrupt the natural process of health seeking through natural selection for the fittest strains, helping and speeding that process where I can. The definition of what a 'treatment' is is governed, for me, by that strategy. 

Anything other than self sufficiency that works to disrupt mites is in that system is a 'treatment'; and the better it works the more I'll avoid it. I want mites - they are essential to my process. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## bucksbees

Thank you mike. I was looking over the link Faith provided, and it seemed to be a black or white approach. I also noticed that Parkers seemed to be the only one that set down what he felt was and was not treatment free. 

I was hoping to get what other people felt as well.

What do you or others feel is the end game goal when it comes to a gene shift in the bee?

From what I remember about cows, the Braham breed of bovine came about in India due to they were worshiped by the people that lived there. They were not allowed to hurt nor help them in any way. Over the thousands of years it produced a cow, that could handle heat, good milking, had a high resistance to disease, and produced a mean offspring when crossed with other breeds.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

bucksbees said:


> I was looking over the link Faith provided, and it seemed to be a black or white approach. I also noticed that Parkers seemed to be the only one that set down what he felt was and was not treatment free.


That link that Faith provided in post #94 was to a post written by Solomon when he was the _Moderator _of this Treatment Free forum. That rules/definition has since been modified slightly by moderator _Barry_, but is 'the' definition of treatment free for the purpose of this Treatment Free forum. 

Individual beekeepers are free to adopt whatever treatment or 'non-treatment' practices they wish for their own bees, but as those rules note, the definition of 'treatment free' for the purposes of this Treatment Free sub-forum is not open for discussion, at least in this sub-forum.


----------



## Faith Apiaries

bucksbees said:


> Thank you mike. I was looking over the link Faith provided, and it seemed to be a black or white approach.


Hi Buck. I've been watching this thread from the start and well, it's been a wild ride. I think the people who run this forum were wise in that they took the initiative to DEFINE, at least for the purpose of discussion in this forum, what "treatment" is. I'm sure this definition is different for each beek and it seems where things break down, other than blatant personal attacks, is when arguments arise due to differing PERSONAL definitions of "treatment". I think it's great that people like Mike Bispham can and will chime in with a clearly stated personal definition of "treatment" and their personal philosophy on the subject. In the end, personal definitions do not add to or take away from the definition stated for the forum...that's the common ground we must all start from, regardless if we personally agree with it or not. Telling someone they are wrong because they disagree with another opinion is just silly.

As I understand it, even though "organic" has an official definition in the real world, one cannot produce organic honey without "treatments". I was surprised to learn that the two were mutually exclusive, and are practised with very different goals and values in mind.

This thread got so wild that I promised myself I wouldn't get involved but, here I am, I hope I don't inflame any arguments, no disrespect or malice is intended by my comments. I'm glad things have gotten back to a healthy level of conversation.


----------



## bucksbees

Thank you both very much for ya'lls input. I am not trying to debate what is or is not treatment; I am asking questions so that I can better wrap my mind around a subject matter that may or may not be used in my yards or only used in a portion of my yards.

I would rather hear/talk to 20 different people that feel strongly about their approach then read one cookie cutter definition.


----------



## Faith Apiaries

bucksbees said:


> I am not trying to debate what is or is not treatment; I am asking questions so that I can better wrap my mind around a subject matter that may or may not be used in my yards or only used in a portion of my yards.


I'm with you! It'll be an interesting journey.


----------



## squarepeg

bucksbees said:


> I would rather hear/talk to 20 different people that feel strongly about their approach then read one cookie cutter definition.


very wise. i would also consider seeking out other beekeepers say within 100 mile radius of your location and find out what is and is not working for them. the old adage that 'all beekeeping is local' really rings true particularly when it comes to how the feral population (if any) is coping (or not) with mites. here are two resources that have been especially educational to me:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com

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


----------



## mike bispham

bucksbees said:


> What do you or others feel is the end game goal when it comes to a gene shift in the bee?


I wouldn't characterise it as a 'gene shift' Bucksbees, though I suppose you could. 

The goal is a strain that can produce well on the whole without treatments, provided you carry on raising selectively.

Anything better is impossible. Life just works like that. That's what 'husbandry' means - 'husbanding the genes down through the generations'.

Mike (UK)


----------



## bucksbees

I try to follow the 6 P's, Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Then again bee's will do as they see fit, so I might just be playing catch up with them.

Local beeks appear along the lines of treatment. I understand why they do, and there is a large amount of swarms in the area, so there maybe a balance to the whole thing.

Gene shift is wrong, and I went with that due to not knowing what the right words were to describe my line of thought.


----------



## Hill Top

I'm a new beek but I've lived on a farm and raised livestock and dogs all my life. I heard and read on here that Varroa are to bee's what wolves are to sheep. This is a completely wrong analogy, wolves are predators. Varroa are parasites. I raise sheep also and raise a variety that are parasite resistant. Not parasite proof just resistant. As long as the host has a physical makeup that is inviting to the parasite they will get them. I raise Dexter and Zebu cattle, Zebu are much more resistant to external parasites than are the Dexter by nature of a thicker hide. The better analogy for the Bee-Varroa relationship would be dog's and fleas. Now a dog can learn to live with fleas to a certain extent if he is not confined by changing his habits and moving when an area becomes too flea infested. But confine him to a pen or a small yard and the flea population will escalate to the point where the dog will cease to thrive and eventually die if you do not intervene. We have bee's sorta that are like the confined dog as as they are confined to having to return to a hive whether infested with Varroa or not. Would you or I put ten dogs in different pens never treat for flea's and see which one's survived? Of course not. The same thing would happen that is happening with new bee packages. The strong robust dogs would survive the first winter because the winter's cold would give relief from the fleas for the dog but by year two the flea population would be such it would kill him. I have seen this very thing happen to careless people. As long as nothing happens to break the life cycle of the parasite the parasite will continue season by season to increase it's number's until it kills it's host. The mutt bee will be more resistant and tougher just like the mutt dog is more resistant and tougher, but either will succumb if parasite population becomes high enough. I don't want to treat my bee's and am not planning to do so but I see no evidence that bee's are being bred with a trait that will completely break the life cycle of the mite so even "survivor stock" will succumb to mites albeit not as soon as the commercial bred variety. If you turned a Holstein cow out with my zebu and managed them the same the Holstein would die slowly. If you put a pure bred poodle in a flea infested pen with my cross bred cowdog the poodle would die from the fleas rather quickly. But the cowdog would die eventually if I did nothing too. I see the same thing happening with the bee's it seems if not treated at some point they swarm which helps but eventually the colony succumbs and is replaced by a split or a swarm from a stronger hive the life cycle being broken in the dead hive and basically being replaced to start over again. Perhaps you don't treat and are raising "tougher bee's" which can survive longer but if you do not manage them or the hive is not replaced naturally by a swarm at some point you will run out of bee's.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Hill Top,

Where your analogy (which is not bad by the way) breaks down is that unlike fleas and ticks on dogs and cows, mites are much larger in proportion to the bee (maybe like a dog with fleas the size of mice) and unlike dogs, bees have quite a number of built in mechanisms for dealing with and getting rid of the mites. You don't seem to allow for that. If the dog has a habit of bathing in gasoline or dust, or whatever, then that dog isn't going to be killed by fleas because he continually is reducing the population below the fatal threshold. 

That's what my bees do.

As I have posted here on numerous occasions, all my bees have mites. They always have, and likely always will. In fact, I've posted photos of mites in brood cells, both drone and worker. The difference is, acclimated and successful TF bees actively remove (or disrupt the breeding cycle, or whatever) the mites so that they don't reach the threshold of killing the hive. Hives that cannot do that, die. That's treatment-free beekeeping as it relates to mites, but the same goes for other diseases, even the dreaded AFB for which I take all sorts of flack on, simply due to the facts that I have the audacity to repeat.


----------

