# "treatment treadmill"



## squarepeg

in post #21, in the thread 'm bush on treatment-free', in the tfb forum, solomon parker writes:

"I do not want a first year beekeeper to start any way but treatment-free. Once on the treadmill, there's no good way to get off."

do any of you feel like you are stuck on a treadmill and can't get off?


----------



## crofter

Not in the least; I thought the logic there was a bit loose! A bees lifetime is so short and the genetics so easily replaced by requeening that previous methods can quickly be history. I like what some are doing by way of control and comparison in running both methods. Unless you are very isolated and have a huge number of hives, the feral background is much more influential than your bees so I dont buy the argument that having treated bees at large is compromising the treatment free experiment
In my opinion," on the treadmill, no good way to get off", are loaded with emotional barbs rather than appealing to rational appraisal of the topic on its own merrits. I try to keep my mind open and peer through the haze of confusion. It will be interesting in 10 years to look back with the clarity of hindsight and see how this played out. In the meantime I wont have all my eggs in one basket.


----------



## Lburou

*I'll bite.*

I believe in Integrated Pest Management, but do not assert that philosophy on anyone else. 

*My goal is treatment free*, but judicious use of 'chemicals' is on the table for a year or two until I get a good mite and disease resistant apiary. Soft treatments first, stronger only if necessary (hopefully never). Letting the bees die off does not make them stronger. My goal is to find strong and healthy queens with good characteristics and mite tolerance, then, step off the treatment treadmill. I'll keep the bees alive by whatever means necessary until we get the queen issues solved so we can leave them alone.

After a 20 year beekeeping hiatus, I've only seen a handful of mites in my three hives and three NUCS this summer. I've requeened with survivor genes from Bweaver (No, they aren't that defensive) and others, -there is a strong local/feral drone influence in my queens now: I'm optimistic!

Randy Oliver warns about the Beekeeping Taliban. I want to remain open minded and at the same time help beginners when they ask, even guide them some, but let them sink or swim on their own decisions. 

No offense to anyone intended with these statements, I know its a hot topic.


----------



## squarepeg

Lburou said:


> My goal is to find strong and healthy queens with good characteristics and mite tolerance, then, step off the treatment treadmill. I'll keep the bees alive by whatever means necessary until we get the queen issues solved so we can leave them alone.






crofter said:


> I thought the logic there was a bit loose! A bees lifetime is so short and the genetics so easily replaced by requeening that previous methods can quickly be history.
> 
> In my opinion," on the treadmill, no good way to get off", are loaded with emotional barbs rather than appealing to rational appraisal of the topic on its own merrits.


my thoughts exactly.

i think the implication for the beginner who aspires to keep bees healthy without treatments is that if you ever start treatments you are committed to them forever.

i would think the beginner would be best served by learning how to recognize a colony that is suffering (an understatement for sure) from mite infestation, along with learning how to clean it up and requeen with resistant stock.


----------



## JRG13

I don't like mites, nuff said. I could care less if the bees are survivor stock, vsh, or related to Chuck Norris. I'm killing mites because I don't want to see any around. That being said, I feel no obligation to treat if I don't see mites and I will not use a single method which may lead to resistant mites. I'm even going to see if I can do a Co2 mite drop type sample instead of an alcohol shake.


----------



## RAK

Sure, go ahead and be treatment free. You'll be buying nucs form me next spring.


----------



## WWW

I want to start off by saying that I do treat my bees with Oxalic Acid vapor in the fall against the Varroa mite, I suppose I could be labeled an organic beekeeper. When I started treating last fall I had only one hive at that time and during the first week in September as I would walk down to my hive I was walking on a carpet of DWV crawlers on their death march from the hive, the hive would have no doubt died off during that winter if something wasn't done quickly, so the OA vapor treatment was the method I chose and the Dwv problem disappeared.I have never regretted it, now I have six hives, treated them in September and will do so again around the end of November to give them a good start for this coming spring. 

The Varroa is a parasite and I treat it as such, if the treatment free program turns out to be successful someday and gives us all a new breed of bees that a lot of folks are looking for, I will be among those cheering but I do not think we are there yet so until then I do not have the time, money or the inclination to be replacing deadouts every spring. I do not look down on those who desire to go treatment free but I do get irritated with inflammatory remarks that are used to shed a bad light on those of us who do treat.


----------



## Barry

WWW said:


> but I do get irritated with inflammatory remarks that are used to shed a bad light on those of us who do treat.


I get irritated when inflammatory remarks are used against treatment or treatment free beekeepers. Very much like religion and politics. If the other guy holds a different view, people feel it's open season to make snide remarks.


----------



## squarepeg

Barry said:


> I get irritated when inflammatory remarks are used against treatment or treatment free beekeepers. Very much like religion and politics. If the other guy holds a different view, people feel it's open season to make snide remarks.


excellent point barry.

imflammatory and snide remarks don't advance the discourse, but healthy and spirited debate does. 

unfortunately, such debate is not possible on the tfb forum because of the censorship created by the 'unique forum rules' and the willingness of the moderator to enforce them. i fell this downgrades the participation on that forum to a 'religon', welcoming only those who 'believe'.

imho, this is too important of a topic for all beekeepers to not allow for the free exchange of ideas. thankfully, that can still happen on the main forum.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney

RAK said:


> Sure, go ahead and be treatment free. You'll be buying nucs form me next spring.


Doubt they would be buying treated nucs from you if they are maintaining treatment free bees.


----------



## JRG13

I have no issues with being treatment free or wanting to improve your hives resistance. I have issues with letting mites run rampant which doesn't need to be the case. If your bees keep mites down, good, but if your bees get by but you have high mite loads, it's time to re-think your strategy. There's nothing responsible in harboring a large miteload every year. I can understand some years being bad, but if it's constantly high then you need to start doing something. I don't understand what's so complicated about that.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

First - nice election day logo.

Second - I find the treatment-or-not debate to always be sticky and emotional. We all love our bees, and when the management approach or opinions of others suggest or imply that our own approach is wrong or flawed - it often strikes an emotional chord, and a firey reaction.

None of us wants to be wrong. We all think long and hard about how to manage our bees, and we each feel that our approach is the best we can do.

I'm presently giving treatment free a shot. I have treated with oxalic acid, and it worked just fine in getting my bees through winter. But here's the thing:

The mites just keep coming right back.

With all that humanity is throwing at them, the fact that they're just as strong or stronger than ever really makes me feel like it's just not going to work. I absolutely understand that others see it differently, or face different circumstances that bring them to different conclusions.

But if it's at all possible - if we can - I feel like we have to try.

Adam


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> do any of you feel like you are stuck on a treadmill and can't get off?


Not personally, but I do find that when one goes cold turkey ones bees are very likely to up and die. Hence the treadmill.

It's interesting to see people still thinking that the treatment-free style is new and unproven. I'm happy to be on the cutting edge, but I've been doing it for almost ten years. Surely it's not new anymore.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> Not personally, but I do find that when one goes cold turkey ones bees are very likely to up and die. Hence the treadmill.
> 
> It's interesting to see people still thinking that the treatment-free style is new and unproven. I'm happy to be on the cutting edge, but I've been doing it for almost ten years. Surely it's not new anymore.


i can appreciate that solomon.

i feel we can all thank the likes of dee lusby, michael bush, and others for pioneering the way.

i heartily agree with the advice that you and others give, to include a viable way of making increase, in order to replenish losses, (whether using treatments or not).


----------



## deknow

...it's pretty hard to un-contaminate comb (and I noticed that Mann Lake is including coumaphos in their variety pack this season). In addition, fumagillin may well be a treatment treadmill...once you start, you have to reapply.

http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/files/147880.pdf


> Having seen the previous data, it is interesting to note what Zachary Huang’s lab discovered (ABJ abstract #14) about feeding fumagillin to honey bees to control Nosema ceranae. In their studies, they found that the antibiotic impacts both the parasite and the protein makeup of the honey bee intestinal tract. In fact, as the level of fumagillin decreases in the bees over time, it reaches a low level which actually stimulates spore production of N. ceranae. A similar effect is seen with N. apis, but it is not nearly so pronounced.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> Not personally, but I do find that when one goes cold turkey ones bees are very likely to up and die.


when mentoring someone to go cold turkey, is the plan to let their bees up and die, or do you recommend implementing measures to aid in the transition, for example, requeening with resistant stock?


----------



## Solomon Parker

That's a tough question Squarepeg. It certainly couldn't hurt. Whatever is done, I recommend rapid and profuse splitting. You'll have a better chance of not having all the hives die at once, and that's my main focus. These new hives will probably also be building new clean comb which can only help as well.


----------



## seyc

I am treatment free because I have never found a reason to treat. 

I have never seen a mite in/around/near my bees. And yes, I do test. I also do not even know what a SHB looks like. The only things I have seen in my hives, other than bees is: a spider last week, and an earwig, also last week. 

I think something should be said for getting resistant stock in the first place and not using used equipment. :lookout:
Personally, I got Italians from California and then requeened with resistant stock.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> That's a tough question Squarepeg. It certainly couldn't hurt. Whatever is done, I recommend rapid and profuse splitting. You'll have a better chance of not having all the hives die at once, and that's my main focus. These new hives will probably also be building new clean comb which can only help as well.


that makes sense solomon. why was it a tough question?


----------



## Solomon Parker

It depends on the case. So much of beekeeping is subjective and local. Some have certain resources, others don't. I'm still working on a one-size-fits-all solution. I'll tell you when it's finished. 

I try not to opine about that which I have not done myself. However, I know of people who have used that approach and it has worked for them. 

I have also experienced obtaining a treated hive, not treating it, and it promptly dying. That was my father's short foray into beekeeping. He's done it twice now. I don't recommend it.


----------



## Nabber86

seyc said:


> I am treatment free because I have never found a reason to treat.
> 
> I have never seen a mite in/around/near my bees. And yes, I do test. I also do not even know what a SHB looks like. The only things I have seen in my hives, other than bees is: a spider last week, and an earwig, also last week.


Give it some time. I went for a year-and-a-half before I found mites.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> I have also experienced obtaining a treated hive, not treating it, and it promptly dying. That was my father's short foray into beekeeping. He's done it twice now. I don't recommend it.


ouch. sounds like your dad should have bought bees from you instead. 

so in a case like this, you are not recommending stopping treatments cold turkey, but rather agressively splitting the hive and introducing new genetics?

i do respect anyone's desire not to use treatments, but in a case like this, would it not make sense to knock down the mite load with a soft treatment prior to making the splits? (with the long term goal of avoiding the 'treadmill').

(assuming vaorra is the problem)


----------



## deknow

...this was just posted on "another forum"....talk about a treadmill.


> At the Bee conference in Tampa, FL this past week, Dr Diana Sammataro gave 3 different talks on mites. One of her studies is on: what effect does what we feed our bees have on the mites in the hive. She isolated the study into 3 groups. The first group was allowed to feed in the wild, the second were fed pollen that was collected and sold to beeks and the third were fed pollen substitutes. To control the bee’s source of food, she had the second 2 groups of hives in tents. She found it is hard to keeps them alive for any great length of time in tents. All three groups had the queens in laying cages (square cage over the comb) to control the day the eggs were laid and only in the control area. On the 8th day (they day before they are capped) they were placed in hives that were heavy in mites. Each mite hive had 1 frame from each group. After they were capped the frames were removed and just before the bees hatched they were opened and the mites were counted. She just recently got the results from her first try. The natural fed bees had an average of about 43 mites on the worker brood, the pollen had an average of around 53 mites on worker brood (no drones allowed in the test cases) but the pollen substitute averaged around 273 mites on the worker brood.
> As you can imagine, this was a total surprise. She showed pictures of the results. The bees from the substitute were covered with mites. She did note that these same bees were on average heaver that the other bees.
> Diana is still working on this to determine what is happening with this situation.
> Jim


----------



## deknow

I think the analogy of drinking is pretty apt here.

If you have a drinking problem, and you decide that you want to stop drinking, there are lots of things to consider....how are you going to stop? What are you going to do when you feel the urge to drink? How are you going to handle emotionally tough situations without taking a drink?

Well, in the end, if one wants to quit drinking, at some point they have to take their last drink...and not take another one. This doesn't mean that you won't be in a situation where you want a drink...where you think (in the moment) that a drink might help. ...it is these tough situations where the battle is ultimately won or lost, as there is always going to be something tough to deal with that seems to demand a drink.

The same is true of beekeeping. There will always be some challenge that seems to demand treatment. If you want to treat in such a situation, that is your own business (as long as you are honest about it)...but I think it is impossible to be "treatment-free" this way....parasites and disease are always evolving and changing....there will always be a challenge which would seem to be addressed by a treatment....but this is the same slippery slope of "this has been a tough day, I think I need one drink to get through it".

As long as treatments are the "back up plan", they will always be used...if not this year, then next year.

The idea that there are things called "soft treatments" and that they are somehow warm and fuzzzy is flawed in the extreme. The soft treatments (essential oils, organic acids) are more destructive to the microflora of the bees...and most definitely directly to the bees directly as well....they are substances that are less harmful to humans, but they are not "soft", and they are not "natural". Anyone that is concerned about fungicides affecting their bees (and that should be all beekeepers), should consider that thymol is a really strong antifungal agent.

The only thing "soft" about the soft treatments is the soft sell used to make beekeepers believe they are being "natural" or "organic" or "kind to the bees".

deknow


----------



## Nabber86

Solomon Parker said:


> Not personally, but I do find that when one goes cold turkey ones bees are very likely to up and die. Hence the treadmill.


Interesting conclusion supported by how many data points?:



> I have also experienced obtaining a treated hive, not treating it, and it promptly dying. That was my father's short foray into beekeeping. He's done it twice now. I don't recommend it.


.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

@deknow - agree with you regarding reality of "soft" treatments. Here in Maine our state apiarist tells us that the mites have developed resistance to the "hard" treatments and so the so called "soft" treatments are what remain as effective. People need to remember that they are still treatments, and while many of them are synthetic recreations of naturally occurring substances, there is nothing natural about using them in a bee hive. That said, I have some colonies that get treated, and some that don't. The hard part for me is keeping brood frames & boxes sorted out so that the TF bees don't inadvertently get treated.

Some areas are easier to do TF beekeeping than others. Thus far my TF bees have not made much honey and many have died. I'll be very interested to see what I'm left with following winter.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> ouch. sounds like your dad should have bought bees from you instead.


Well, you know how it is. Some fellers, you can't tell 'em nothin', especially if they have changed your diapers.




squarepeg said:


> so in a case like this, you are not recommending stopping treatments cold turkey, but rather agressively splitting the hive and introducing new genetics?


There's no turkey like cold turkey. It has to be done at some point. Cut it off and split like mad, bring in queens, however you want to do it. Dean reports a good case for not feeding pollen substitutes. I do my splitting and queen rearing without feeding at all. I don't want bees efficient at moving syrup into comb, I want bees efficient at moving nectar into comb.




squarepeg said:


> would it not make sense to knock down the mite load with a soft treatment prior to making the splits?


I don't see how it would help. You'll never get them all, and the split should do some of the work anyway.




deknow said:


> ...this was just posted on "another forum"....talk about a treadmill.


Could you give me a link in a PM? This is great stuff. I have been recommending against using this stuff for years.




deknow said:


> The idea that there are things called "soft treatments" and that they are somehow warm and fuzzzy is flawed in the extreme. The soft treatments (essential oils, organic acids) are more destructive to the microflora of the bees...and most definitely directly to the bees directly as well....they are substances that are less harmful to humans, but they are not "soft", and they are not "natural". Anyone that is concerned about fungicides affecting their bees (and that should be all beekeepers), should consider that thymol is a really strong antifungal agent.


Add to that, the national beekeeping survey thing (link in TFB) shows that by and large they don't work. Most treatments don't work. The best ones will drop your losses 10%. No sure thing.




Andrew Dewey said:


> Thus far my TF bees have not made much honey and many have died. I'll be very interested to see what I'm left with following winter.


How long has this been going on and under what conditions did you start?


----------



## crofter

I think we are talking about the danger of the beekeeper falling off the wagon because of his psychological treatment dependancy. That would seem to say that you must not ever treat or it will destroy your resolve and you will be forever ****ed. Carnal knowledge can never be shed. That could be true but the bees do not have such emotional connection. That is a toothless bogeyman, lol!

Now if there is a case for developing chemical dependency or functional alteration upon the part of the bee I can buy into that; bio-accumulation in brood comb with the likes of coumophos could have subtle and ongoing effects on the bees. I think there is a fair bit of evidence to support that. Most certainly it is subject to developing resistance as well. That *is* a bad treatment and there are others like it, but that does not make treatment in itself all bad (unless from the angle of my first paragraph). 

I think there are treatments that physically home in on anatomical vulnerabilities of mites for instance that have little effect on bees and do little more than temporarily altering the ph of the comb surfaces. A lesser evil perhaps than the mite would otherwise inflict on the hive. I think that would be a good treatment and I cannot see it creating any crippling dependency like being stuck on a treadmill. I think we should be very, very cautious about any treatment but I think it is irrational to avoid any and all as a mantra.

I will use a personal experience to create an analogy for treatment. I was instructing a course on heavy equipment operation for a bunch of rather raggedy ath and bob tailed men and came down with persistant jock itch from the foam seats. Medicated powder every nite curatively and every morning profilactically gave me great relief. Now I could have just continued to scratch if I were so inclined but this seemed a good treatment.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> in post #21, in the thread 'm bush on treatment-free', in the tfb forum, solomon parker writes:
> 
> "I do not want a first year beekeeper to start any way but treatment-free. Once on the treadmill, there's no good way to get off."
> 
> do any of you feel like you are stuck on a treadmill and can't get off?


I guess I don't look at it that way, but, maybe like an addict, the first step is recognizing the existence of a problem.

Amongst some of my Commercial Beekeeping friends we oft times talk about how it seems like we spend a lot more time nowadays throwing medications/treatments on our hives to keep as many as possible alive and populous, which was much much less so 30 years ago. Presently we are almost Honeybee Veternarians(sp?).

What one does is determined by what one's goals are.


----------



## Solomon Parker

crofter said:


> I think we should be very, very cautious about any treatment but I think it is irrational to avoid any and all as a mantra.


I was with you until this. Your really think it is irrational? That's the kind of argument you want to make against an opposing position? Against my position? That's a bit much.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: I'll bite.*



Lburou said:


> Randy Oliver warns about the Beekeeping Taliban. I want to remain open minded and at the same time help beginners when they ask, even guide them some, but let them sink or swim on their own decisions.
> 
> No offense to anyone intended with these statements, I know its a hot topic.


This is as it always has been. One takes in knowledge and advice and decides which is best. I have friends who used to say something like "Why didn't you do it like I told you to?" Well, it wasn't the way I wanted to do it, but thanks for the advice. Sometimes I have to learn for myself. Maybe I should have done it your way. But in the end I have to do things my way, for good or ill. At least for me, it has ever been thus.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ...this was just posted on "another forum"....talk about a treadmill.


Please supply a link to the origin of this. Thanks.


----------



## Ramona

sqkcrk said:


> Please supply a link to the origin of this. Thanks.


I googled the first part of the first sentence of the quote mentioned above by Deknow and got the link immediately. Google is all powerful and knowing...

Ramona


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks Ramona. For the computer illiterates like me a Link would make life easier. Also, isn't it a Rule when quoting an outside source? But thanks, I'll write down the first sentence and websearch it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I just recognized the name, Dr. Sammataro. I saw one of her presentations at The Big Bee Buzz in Tusla OK this spring.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Solomon Parker said:


> How long has this been going on and under what conditions did you start?


TF Yard established 5/10 with 8 Italian Packages. Requeened 6/10 with Russians. 9/10 inspected by State of Maine - several hives with high Nosema Counts (lab test done) and several hives with PMS (lots of virus, including dwv, Sac Brood)

Inspected again 10/12. 1 Hive and 1 Nuc expected to over winter. Nuc is headed by a purchased Russian Queen. Nucs made up with Queen Cells (swarm) have not thrived.

This yard has not produced any surplus honey since it was established and has required feeding each fall (sugar water)

No treatments have been made for Nosema and/or Varroa.

The yard is on an organic farm, within flying distance of a National Park. Plenty of forage.

Another yard with TF Russians on another farm established in 2011 (6 colonies) made 1 shallow of summer honey, and the same inspector guesses 1 hive will be alive next Spring there. That one is from a split made up this year using a swarm cell queen open mated with whatever is nearby. Same issues (Varroa).

Both farms are about 1.5 hours away from where I live. They were much closer when first established, but then I moved. Hives likely to survive the winter have been wrapped.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> I'll write down the first sentence and websearch it.


Just don’t forget Mark…Google is watching! After the search be prepared to find yourself inundated by related ads.

At the Bee conference in *Tampa, FL* this past week, Dr Diana * Sammataro* gave 3 different talks on* mites*. 

Tampa, FL – vacations, air travel to, real estate
Sammataro – sumo wrestling tickets, vacations to Sumatra
mites – Raid pest control products, mitre saws


And who knows what else.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Andrew Dewey said:


> Requeened 6/10 with Russians.


Why requeen so soon?


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Solomon Parker said:


> Why requeen so soon?


The Packages were Italian and I wanted Russians because of their genetic "magic." Russian packages (and nucs) were not available.


----------



## crofter

Solomon Parker said:


> I was with you until this. Your really think it is irrational? That's the kind of argument you want to make against an opposing position? Against my position? That's a bit much.


Not at all! I'm not counting points. Be cautious for sure but not paralyzed by the dogma that treatment of any sort forever ****s you. That broad brush painting to support ones opinion is manipulative and self serving in my estimation. Overstating destroys credibility.


----------



## Lburou

sqkcrk said:


> Thanks Ramona. For the computer illiterates like me a Link would make life easier. Also, isn't it a Rule when quoting an outside source? But thanks, I'll write down the first sentence and websearch it.


Try this link Mark.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks Lee.


----------



## Solomon Parker

crofter said:


> ...paralyzed by the dogma ... forever ****s you ... manipulative and self serving...


Wow, you made it worse. Is this your best case?

I've always been of the opinion that insulting people is not the best path to bring them over to your point of view.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> Not personally, but I do find that when one goes cold turkey ones bees are very likely to up and die. Hence the treadmill.


in fairness to solomon, i took this response to mean his use of 'treadmill' was not intended to imply that a single or limited use of a treatment would result in being locked in to using them forever. solomon, please correct me if i am misinterpreting.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Squarepeg, in some cases I do mean that, depending on the chemical. Not every item of course, but my case is for total non-treatment. The bees can handle (should handle) disease by themselves. The reason many can't is because the process of selection has not been allowed to take its natural course. Beekeepers are keeping weak bees unable to deal with disease because they have made them that way out of fear that the bees would die.

"One often finds his destiny on the path he takes to avoid it." - Master Oogway


----------



## deknow

crofter said:


> I think we are talking about the danger of the beekeeper falling off the wagon because of his psychological treatment dependancy. That would seem to say that you must not ever treat or it will destroy your resolve and you will be forever ****ed...,


No, it has nothing to do with psychological dependency. If the way you deal with problems in the hive is with a treatment, you will forever be treating...because of the biological certainty that there will be some problem that can be "helped" with a treatment. If you want to be treatment-free, you either have to resist the impulse to treat, or you have to wait until the bees (as a population) achieve resistance to their pests and the pests have stopped evolving (read: never).


> Now if there is a case for developing chemical dependency or functional alteration upon the part of the bee I can buy into that


I have given two examples..with no comments. We can certainly add antibiotic resistance of foulbrood to the treadmill...and even show how its use can effect the biodiversity of the gut flora of the honeybees...and that this reduced diversity is heritable.

http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/6/e00377-12.full


> We found that 50 years of using antibiotics in beekeeping in the United States has resulted in extensive tetracycline resistance in the gut microbiota. These bacteria, which form a distinctive community present in healthy honeybees worldwide, may function in protecting bees from disease and in providing nutrition. In countries that do not use antibiotics in beekeeping, bee gut bacteria contained far fewer resistance genes. The tetracycline resistance that we observed in American samples reflects the capture of mobile resistance genes closely related to those known from human pathogens and agricultural sites. Thus, long-term treatment to control a specific pathogen resulted in the accumulation of a stockpile of resistance capabilities in the microbiota of a healthy gut. This stockpile can, in turn, provide a source of resistance genes for pathogens themselves. The use of novel antibiotics in beekeeping may disrupt bee health, adding to the threats faced by these pollinators.
> Footnotes


----------



## deknow

I didn't provide a link to the post on the other bee forum because I don't believe the site owner here allows it.

deknow


----------



## deknow

deknow said:


> http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/6/e00377-12.full


I'll add the following, also from the study linked above....can anyone guess who the beekeeper in Southern Arizona is?


> The variation in tetracycline resistance determinants observed among American honeybee colonies may reflect different recent histories of oxytetracycline treatment for individual colonies. Most of our samples had unknown histories of antibiotic treatment, largely due to their origin from mixing other colonies or from commercial bee packages. To determine whether resistance loci decline when antibiotic exposure is terminated, we obtained samples from four managed colonies in southern Arizona that were unusual in having not been treated directly or mixed with outside bees for over 25 years and samples from long-established feral colonies in Utah, also expected to have no recent exposure. These samples showed markedly lower copy numbers of resistance loci compared to other American samples (Fig. 2). The FL, MD, and AZ (USDA) colonies, which had no antibiotic treatment for at least 2 years prior to sampling, showed intermediate levels of resistance loci. The highest frequencies were observed for colonies in CT and WA established from package bees purchased from commercial bee suppliers 0 to 12 months before sampling.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> I didn't provide a link to the post on the other bee forum because I don't believe the site owner here allows it.
> 
> deknow


Oh, okay, thanks.


----------



## Barry

What is frowned on is simply a link to another site/content. The goal, as much as possible, is to include the content within your post along with a link so members don't have to go looking for it.


----------



## Baja

Usually no treatment beekeeping is associated with "natural" (Dee Lusby, Michael Bush) beekeeping which involves regression to small cell. Natural beekeepers will say their bees do not need treatment because they are naturally smaller (like the smaller apis cerana and africanized bee which similarly cope with varroa). Dee says it's the smaller segments between the body parts. I think it may also have to do with them being survivor stock (hygienic) which implies some colonies will die. Philosophically I agree with the "naturalists" but the pragmatist in me needs visible proof and the lack of comprehensive, scientific studies verifying no treatment, small cell beekeeping leaves me wondering why there is not more. So for now letting colonies die and passing pests and viruses on to other colonies is not an option. At this point I am I think classified "organic" (organic treatment). Breeding hygienic, survivor stock is a good start.


----------



## squarepeg

good post, thanks.


----------



## JRG13

I think it's a combination of things. Beeks got bees to where they wanted them in terms of production, brood build up, calmness etc... Now in order to keep these strains they need to be treated for the most part to keep mites in check. Introgressing VSH/survivor genes into the lines is easy, but probably with some linkage drag in terms of traits and level of production people have come to expect. Not to say it's always true, but a lot of members have posted their survivor stock lacking in terms of production, not always the case but enough to make note of it and it's totally not unexpected. Working in ag, many resistance traits are out there but many also come with linkage drag and are un-usable.


----------



## Baja

Good point but speaking from the perspective of a non-commercial, backyard beekeeper I gladly accept reduced production (linkage drag) in favour of bees demonstrating hygienic, survivor stock traits.


----------



## WesternWilson

As a new beekeeper this year, I have been seriously taken aback by the quarreling and mean spirited exchanges that seem very common in beekeeping club meetings and online discussions. We are all in the same pickle with our bees, but a house divided cannot stand. And will not attract the next generation of beekeepers.

As a new beekeeper, and my Beekeeping 101 teacher taught us to use chemicals preventively, I have already decided that:
1. Honeybees are at serious risk of extinction, thanks to mites and nosema.
2. Treating with anything drives resistance to that thing.
3. Going treatment free cold turkey with non-resistant strains of bees is a good way to lose all your bees.
4. I am going to have to balance off treatment as needed vs. restocking my apiary with resistant strains of bees and using a suite of IPM techniques while I get on my feet. And I am just a hobby beekeeper!!
5. Getting treatment free is going to be a process, one requiring patience and thought.
6. During that process, I will be open to gathering information from all kinds of sources, and will evaluate as I go and learn.
7. The most important beekeeping skill of all may be communication.

Finally, I would really like to see less defensive, knee jerk behaviour from beekeepers, less division, and more collegial, civil, and open minded exchanges of ideas. It strikes me that all the pain beekeepers of all stripes have experienced through the last decade or two are starting to yield fruit. It would be a shame to fracture the beekeeping world just as it finds some solid ground.


----------



## Baja

I'm in absolute agreement. The only way to solve a problem is through open exchange of ideas, information and viewpoints. I believe the sign of a truly intelligent person is someone cognisant of their own imperfection and always open to the possibility of learning. Often I have encountered intolerant "natural" beekeepers who akin to religious fundamentalists preach beekeeping dogma based on unyielding faith rather than facts. In my experience angry intolerance accomplishes nothing.


----------



## JRG13

People wanna stick with their methods, I have no issue with that. I just try to to get people to think outisde their methods or see it from a different perspective. Treatment, treatment free, organic, I think our goals are all the same in the end. People just need to educate themselves and not be so opinionated. Kind of like the Bayer or GMO stuff that gets thrown around all too often, if you don't understand the science, laws, or have any real facts on the issue than better to keep your mouth closed and not regurgitate some idealized rant from either of the exteme ends of the arugment which are typically based off nothing but pure rhetoric.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WesternWilson said:


> 1. Honeybees are at serious risk of extinction, thanks to mites and nosema.


No. Simply false.




WesternWilson said:


> 2. Treating with anything drives resistance to that thing.


Yes!




WesternWilson said:


> 3. Going treatment free cold turkey with non-resistant strains of bees is a good way to lose all your bees.


Yes, but only if you have few to begin with.




WesternWilson said:


> 4. I am going to have to balance off treatment as needed vs. restocking my apiary with resistant strains of bees and using a suite of IPM techniques while I get on my feet. And I am just a hobby beekeeper!!


That is no balance.




WesternWilson said:


> 5. Getting treatment free is going to be a process, one requiring patience and thought.


Yes!




WesternWilson said:


> 6. During that process, I will be open to gathering information from all kinds of sources, and will evaluate as I go and learn.


Yes.




WesternWilson said:


> 7. The most important beekeeping skill of all may be communication.


No. The more you communicate with other beekeepers, the more conflicting information you will receive. 




WesternWilson said:


> It strikes me that all the pain beekeepers of all stripes have experienced through the last decade or two are starting to yield fruit. It would be a shame to fracture the beekeeping world just as it finds some solid ground.


You're seeing this from the wrong perspective. The fracture is closing as treatment free beekeepers are more and more vindicated as their practices prove effective year after new year. We were getting the same questions and criticisms ten years ago, though perhaps we were taken less seriously then. _This is not new._ Treatment-free beekeeping is not new. It's at least 25 years old. Dee Lusby did it first. Michael Bush has been doing it for a dozen years or more. I've been almost ten now. We have not just showed up, we are still here!


----------



## minz

Good post Western! A lot of times the back and forth causes me to simply skim the post to see if it is long winded or aggressive. It is easy to skip to the next post. I do have to say that when I got bees from a commercial operator he told me right up front that “you don’t treat these bees I am selling you they are going to die”. I found that to be true. I also found that I went to buy some treatment and the cost knocked me down! I let them bees slide about as hard as I could before I opened up my wallet and salvaged those two hives. I will squeeze two nickels until it turns into a quarter and don’t add anything that does not show a real need. I make my own frame, that is a cheap SOB.


----------



## squarepeg

western, that sounds like perfect balance to me.


----------



## WesternWilson

Thankyou Minz!

BTW, Solomon is right about letting nature take its course with the bees....as long as you have lots of hives and expect at least some to make it through the winter and the mites. But I have ONE hive this winter. And am unlikely to ever have more than 10-20. I am not in a position to run on from survivors at this point, although that is certainly my aim, and I am on the hunt for hardier bees.

I was at a local beekeeping meeting a few days ago and the chapter president mentioned that here in Canada, the vast majority (I believe it was somewhere around 95%, am checking on that) of beekeepers have 5 hives or less. And in this country, the availability of treatment free bees is very limited, thanks to the prohibition against cross border bee and queen shipping.

The pressure of small holding beekeepers to treat so as not to lose all their bees is overwhelming. Ironically that is similar to the pressure on big operators to treat to stay profitable. We need to gather and use all the good information we can to learn to do chemical/treatment free beekeeping while we shepherd our small, ever improving flocks ever onward.

This is part of why I am so affronted by the endless dogmatic and nasty arguing in club meetings and forums...it doesn't speak to me, and it doesn't help me, nor I would think the majority of beekeepers, or even new beekeepers.


----------



## Oldtimer

Bigger numbers will not nessecarily save you.

There is a remote part of my country where varroa only got to 3 years ago. I have a friend there who read a lot of treatment free stuff and decided that when varroa got to his area, he was not going to treat. So in preperation he converted 50 of his hives to small cell, did a lot of research and even went to America and attended a Dee Lusby conference plus spent a week or two actually working with Dee on her own bees.

About a couple of years after varroa got to his area he told me of the 50 hives, only 5 where still alive. He was not deterred though, these would be the 5 "survivors" he would breed from. Maybe 6 months later I talked to him again, he had lost every single one.

The standard reasons given when TF beekeepers lose hive did not apply as there is nothing wrong with his beekeeping, and he was not taking bees off a "Treatment Treadmill" the hives had never been treated.

What he did though was not make any increase, as it was not his habit, prior to varroa he rarely lost a hive and did not make much splits or increase.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WesternWilson said:


> This is part of why I am so affronted by the endless dogmatic and nasty arguing in club meetings and forums.


What would you suggest? It's one thing to complain about something, it's a whole other thing to have a solution. What's your solution?


----------



## tabby

This is second hand knowledge so take it for what it's worth.....

I was talking with a beekeeper who has several hundred hives, treatment free. He claims to have only had a 5% loss last winter, which is way better than average around here. I asked him what he did. He said decades ago he started with packages, but never bought a queen since then. If a hive was faltering, he let it falter and he only did splits from his very best hives. If I understand him, he practiced animal husbandry with his hives to get the best bees by weeding out the weak and keeping the strong.

Since the six hives in my yard have been treatment free this year, it'll be interesting to see how they do this winter.


----------



## mrqb

This post started with a loaded question,therefore it was bound to get explosive answers...I am not pro treatment ,but maybe a 75-100 dollar hive isn't much to some,but if that were a sick 1200 dollar cow would you give her drugs or just wait and see if it comes out of it.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> What would you suggest? It's one thing to complain about something, it's a whole other thing to have a solution. What's your solution?


'raises hand'

there's no solution. it's the nature of the beast. everyone is passionate about their bees, and about the way the keep them.

i say, let the sparks fly, and the chips fall where they may. bleep the profanity and personal attacks, but let the discourse take its course.

i credit the members of this forum with enough intelligence to be able to filter through hype. in the end, each one of us will have to glean what can, apply it to our own situation, see what happens, and go from there.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> there's no solution. it's the nature of the beast. everyone is passionate about their bees, and about the way the keep them.


That's the best one I've heard yet. I've come to believe that it's the friction that keeps things warm. Eliminate it and things get cold.


----------



## squarepeg

Solomon Parker said:


> That's the best one I've heard yet. I've come to believe that it's the friction that keeps things warm. Eliminate it and things get cold.


zactly! and then there's the entertainment value.....


----------



## WesternWilson

Sorry gentlemen, I do heartily disagree. Friction is a waste of energy, it just creates drag in the system.

There is no excuse for incivility or anger in a discussion of how to get our bees to a condition where they can handle diseases and pests with little or no intervention, certainly we all want to get to a place where at least the inteventions/helps we apply are at least non-toxic. Barring having bees that laugh at mites and viruses, I would love to be able to apply remedies that do not end up in my wax and honey, love to be able to eliminate mites and disease with no side effects.

Meanwhile, there is no reason we cannot compare notes and try out new strategies without rancour. Disagreement does not have to disagreeable, and taking alternate routes does not preclude reaching the same destination.


----------



## squarepeg

aw come on western, where's the fun in that? 

just kidding, but really, no kidding. surely you have seen by now that beekeepers tend to be an opinionated bunch.

your aspiration is worthy, but not reallistically attainable. 

humans are almost as interesting as bees, embrace it for what it is and enjoy.


----------



## JD's Bees

WesternWilson have you checked the BC Bee Breeders Association for queens and nucs?
bcbba.bcbeekeepers.com/


----------



## Solomon Parker

WesternWilson said:


> There is no excuse for incivility or anger in a discussion of how to get our bees to a condition where they can handle diseases and pests with little or no intervention


I heartily agree with you about incivility. That's not what I was talking about. A little righteous anger on the other hand can be useful from time to time.


----------



## Oldtimer

Regarding the "Treatment Treadmill" theory, the idea being proposed by some, is that once you are on the "Treatment Treadmill", you can never get off. 

Can't really see that myself. Why can't you get off? It doesn't make sense because most people starting in bees start with bees that are treated, there just aren't many non treated bees for sale. I constantly see people complaining that they cannot get any. So, what's the difference wether they were bought treated, or you treated them yourself? None, far as I can see.

What I can see, is that using a product such as apistan that leaves permanent residue in the hive, could make it difficult to go treatment free later. But using a treatment such as oxalic acid that leaves no permanent residue in the hive, should have no effect later if somebody attempts to go treatment free later. So a person treating with a non residual chemical is not on any "Treadmill".

Which brings up another curious point. On this forum I see advise from treatment free folks, that the very worst way to start bees if you want to go treatment free, is to get a package. It's been stated that this is virtually doomed to failure. The way to go, apparently, is a nuc. Doesn't make sense though. A nuc, if that hive has ever in the past been treated with apistan or anything else residual, will have contaminated wax, making treatment free efforts a lot harder to succeed at. A package, has only bees, no residual chemicals. Surely a better way.

I think the term "Treatment Treadmill", has just been dreamt up as a meaningless buzzword, designed to pidgeonhole anybody who treats. There is no "Treatment Treadmill".


----------



## bbrowncods

squarepeg said:


> ...surely you have seen by now that beekeepers tend to be an opinionated bunch.
> ...humans are almost as interesting as bees, embrace it for what it is and enjoy.


This is true. I have found that pretty much any group that is on a Forum is passionate about that topic. I doubt however that most beekeepers are on a Forum.


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer said:


> Regarding the "Treatment Treadmill" theory, the idea being proposed by some, is that once you are on the "Treatment Treadmill", you can never get off.
> 
> Can't really see that myself. Why can't you get off? It doesn't make sense because most people starting in bees start with bees that are treated, there just aren't many non treated bees for sale. I constantly see people complaining that they cannot get any. So, what's the difference wether they were bought treated, or you treated them yourself? None, far as I can see.
> 
> What I can see, is that using a product such as apistan that leaves permanent residue in the hive, could make it difficult to go treatment free later. But using a treatment such as oxalic acid that leaves no permanent residue in the hive, should have no effect later if somebody attempts to go treatment free later. So a person treating with a non residual chemical is not on any "Treadmill".
> 
> 
> I think the term "Treatment Treadmill", has just been dreamt up as a meaningless buzzword, designed to pidgeonhole anybody who treats. There is no "Treatment Treadmill".


Amen to that OT. I think OA must really annoy some of these folks because it just seems too good to be true so they fall back on the "unseen damage to this huge microorganism" argument. They can't really point to any specific damage only the argument that any change to this "balance" must surely be bad. My experience is that a well timed yearly oxalic treatment is devastating to the mite population in a hive. It's cheap, safe (well not to mites) and easy to apply. Our mite populations are currently at nearly non detectable levels and our honey crop tests free of any mite killing chemicals and our bees seem to be humming along (pardon the pun) just fine. Just use the stuff and keep as many of those super organisms alive as you possibly can.


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> Amen to that OT. I think OA must really annoy some of these folks because it just seems too good to be true so they fall back on the "unseen damage to this huge microorganism" argument.


I'm not sure how that is a fall back....the microorganisms associated with the bees are the subject of some of the most interesting bee res arch being done, and their importance and heritability are only just beginning to be appreciated. 

Research into the effects of various pesticides and how they affect bacteria, yeasts, and fungi in the hive goes back to the early 70s at the Tucson lab (see our website for a complete catalog of Martha Gilliam's work in this area).

..in 2008 there was a study looking at the effects of HFCS, formic and oxcalic on the fungi associated with beebread fermentation. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...o_VXoYmyPeck_gTnA&sig2=h_e4AKh10LiGStEDOldfuw

...there was a 3 part series in ABJ in 2009, basically summarizing Martha Gilliam's work, and looking for funding to do new work. [my problem with this pitch was that they don't have any untreated bees to look at...if you want to know what is happening in a microbial culture, you have to study it sans treatments, otherwise there is something else going on in that culture, and your observations are meaningless].

There was this book that came out about a year ago, heavily focused on this stuff (with articles written by some of your favorite mainstream bee researchers): http://www.amazon.com/Honey-Bee-Colony-Health-Contemporary/dp/1439879400

Now, there is the most excellent work coming out of the Moran lab at Yale (funded by the NSF), the first lab to look at treated and untreated bees separately (I believe this also makes them the first researchers to even acknowledge that when looking at gut microbes, feeding and past feeding of antibiotics will affect what you see). They are clearly seeing that the microbial community is changed, and for many, many generations when antibiotics are used.....they have not gotten to looking at what other treatments do yet...one step at a time.



> They can't really point to any specific damage only the argument that any change to this "balance" must surely be bad.


My recollection is that there are some malpighian tubule damage reports from using oxalic...no?



> Our mite populations are currently at nearly non detectable levels and our honey crop tests free of any mite killing chemicals and our bees seem to be humming along (pardon the pun) just fine.


....perhaps it would also be prudent to mention that it is illegal to use oxalic acid (whether there is residue detected or not), and that not long ago, Richard Adee was fined $14,000 for using this stuff.
I used oxalic once, and it killed mites. I don't feel the need to kill mites at this point.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

Knew I'd draw you out dean  I only know for sure what I see with my eyes. Today I have about a thousand huge hives that could use another feed. Again changes occur without a doubt but it takes way more convincing for me to accept that what I have seen in recent years is bad. And no just because a specific oxalic product has not been approved does not make the use of oxalic any more illegal than the use of powdered sugar. Eides were fined for much more than that. Keep er rolling Dean were having fun now.


----------



## deknow

I don't know what more I can add to the discussion. I've pointed out at least 3 specific mechanisms for a treatment treadmill (fumadill, comb contamination, antibiotics)....but it does not appear that anyone wants to discuss these things...so we are left with the question posed on the original post, "do you feel like you are on a treadmill?"
The answer from those that treat seems to either "I treat, and it works...I plan to continue treating" or "I'm treating sometimes, keeping g treating as an option until I don't need to treat anymore."
I would get the same answers in a bar if I asked if anyone had a drinking problem.

Deknow


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> And no just because a specific oxalic product has not been approved does not make the use of oxalic any more illegal than the use of powdered sugar.


1. I've never advocated nor performed any powdered sugar treatments.
2. Sugar would most definitely be considered GRAS (meaning its use in the hive would not be a violation of the law...it is "generally recognized as safe")...not so much with OA.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

thanks for those posts dean, looks like i've got some reading to do. 

jim, so all you do is a one time dribble in the fall? is just after your honey harvest?


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> I would get the same answers in a bar if I asked if anyone had a drinking problem.


You'd probably get similar answers anywhere you asked. Don't know why you felt the need to add the drinking problem shtick.


----------



## Lburou

deknow said:


> ...snip...The answer from those that treat seems to either "I treat, and it works...I plan to continue treating" or "I'm treating sometimes, keeping g treating as an option until I don't need to treat anymore."
> I would get the same answers in a bar if I asked if anyone had a drinking problem.
> 
> Deknow


Well said. BTW, thanks for providing more direction for my over the winter.


----------



## deknow

....because, at one time or another, most of us have known someone who, with a slur in their voice, assures us that they don't have a drinking problem...when they obviously do.

The answers here for the question, "do you FEEL LIKE you are on a treadmill" are generally coming from folks that treat and plan to continue treating...to all outward appearances they are on a treadmill...all the while they are saying that they are not on a treadmill. The only claim missing from the alcohol analogy is people claiming that they could stop treating anytime they want...they just don't want to.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...let me add this link to a talk I gave a couple of years ago..."A Hard Row to Hoe: Getting on the Treatment-Free Treadmill".
http://vimeo.com/10196856

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

dean, i want to borrow something i wrote in another thread,

"nobody is treating for bragging rights, or because it is fun and cheap.

what if you had, say, $350,000 (or any meaningful amount, your life savings?) invested in bees, boxes, trucks, forklifts, packing house ect.? assume you are married with 12 kids, and they all depend your your bee operation to survive."

'stuck on a treadmill' and the alcoholic analogy both carry with them the negative connotation that the individual is somehow caught in a situation detrimental to themselves (or their bees).

that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. it really depends on the whys and hows.


----------



## Erik

mrqb said:


> This post started with a loaded question,therefore it was bound to get explosive answers...I am not pro treatment ,but maybe a 75-100 dollar hive isn't much to some,but if that were a sick 1200 dollar cow would you give her drugs or just wait and see if it comes out of it.


There is a big difference. If a hive dies I still have everything I paid for. All the boxes, lids, stands, and if I get to it before the wax moths I've got foundation or drawn frames. If a cow dies I don't know where you can go find free wild cows. 

I've gotten my two hives from cutouts this year. Not only were the bees no charge to me, I got paid for getting them and their wild drawn comb. 

I certainly don't see any reason to spend (waste) money on treatments of any kind. If these bees die I'll get paid to collect more bees next spring. I also get to incentivize ($50 goes to him) my 12 year old son to turn off the X-Box and come do cutouts with me. It's good money for a 12 year old, gets him outside, teaches him something about nature, and lets me spend time talking with him.


----------



## Michael Bush

>unfortunately, such debate is not possible on the tfb forum because of the censorship created by the 'unique forum rules' and the willingness of the moderator to enforce them. i fell this downgrades the participation on that forum to a 'religon', welcoming only those who 'believe'.

Such a debate IS possible in other forums and indeed is taking place right here in this thread. The reasons for having forums such as the TFB or the TBH forum is so people can talk about HOW to do it, not why or why not. Before that set of rules every single post by every person asking a question about how to do something was followed by the same series of posts by the same people telling them they are stupid for trying it (TBH or TFB etc.). It is difficult to have a conversation on how to do something under those circumstances. It's like going to a vegetarian cooking forum where they want to talk about how to cook without meat and I start arguing about why they should eat meat. It's not only rude, it's counterproductive for everyone involved. It's not a question of censorship, but rather one of constructive organization--having the conversation in the right place for the right reason. Here you are HAVING that conversation you say is being censored...


----------



## jmgi

Well said Michael, I have had that very thing happen to me many times, and it is very annoying and counterproductive as you say, I really hope that those type of intrusions can be a thing of the past eventually. John


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> what if you had, say, $350,000 (or any meaningful amount, your life savings?) invested in bees, boxes, trucks, forklifts, packing house ect.? assume you are married with 12 kids, and they all depend your your bee operation to survive."


....that is like asking someone, "what would you do if all your eggs are in one basket?" ...I would do what I have to do, I would probably avoid that situation in the first place. ....just like you should do what you have or want to do. ..but let's not pretend that the products (bees and/or honey) are the same anymore than a shirt sewn by slave labor isn't the same as one produced by someone making a fair wage. ...and let's not pretend that treating is helping to transition into not treating.
We purchase honey from 3 suppliers, all of whom make their livings keeping bees, none of them use treatments....which is why we pay more for their honey, and why our customers pay more.



> 'stuck on a treadmill' and the alcoholic analogy both carry with them the negative connotation that the individual is somehow caught in a situation detrimental to themselves (or their bees).


...you will note that I posted a talk I gave (in 2010) called, "getting on the treatment free treadmill"....is there a negative connotation to this? Regardless, you can use whatever analogy or terminology you wish...but the fact that folks that are using treatments see the continued use of treatments necessary (as opposed to the possibility of discontinuing their use) makes the case, whether the term "treadmill" is used or not.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

thanks for joining the conversation michael. i always value what you have to say.

yes indeed, we are having that conversation here, in the main forum, without any constraints, (barring profanity and incivility). i am thankful for that.

as a newcomer, i wasn't around when all that bickering and subterfuge was going on. i read a post you made on another forum yesterday that helped me understand the history a little better.

i'll have to admit, i got a little miffed when i had some of my posts deleted (censored) in the
tfb forum on this site. they were neither profane nor uncivil.

so, i agree with you, what i am seeing here, and on the tfb forum as of late, is healthy and spirited debate. i hope that it never digresses beyond that.


----------



## squarepeg

sure dean, to me 'stuck on' and 'getting on' have different connotations.

at the heart of the matter, is how one views treatments.

there are three views: helpful, harmful, or neutral.

there appears to be science to support all three, and it appears to depend on context.

philosophically, it's not much different than the debate over legalization of cannabis.

i agree with michael. the best thing we can do is share what we are doing, and what kind of outcomes we are seeing. the philosophical consideration can get in the way sometimes.


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> sure dean, to me 'stuck on' and 'getting on' have different connotations.
> at the heart of the matter, is how one views treatments.


....it has nothing to do with "stuck on" or "getting on"...this is a distraction. If I said I was stuck on a treadmill of self realization, love, and wealth, that would not be negative. ...it _is_ all about how you feel about treatments.
If you think they are helpful for your bees, so be it. If you think your business would be affected negatively if you were totally upfront (on the label) about feeding and treating, then things are more problematic...what you feel you need to do, and what customers want are two different things.

If one is proud of their treatment practices, they should not take any more offense to "treatment treadmill" than I would at "treatment free treadmill". The fact that "treatments" have a negative connotation in general is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility.



> there are three views: helpful, harmful, or neutral.
> there appears to be science to support all three, and it appears to depend on context.


This is rather meaningless....helpful, harmful, and neutral only have meaning with context...to say that science supports any of them is an empty statement.


> philosophically, it's not much different than the debate over legalization of cannabis.


...but the Moran study I posted earlier shows a long term (multigenerational) effect on gut microbe diversity and genetics. ...Mussen reports fumidill use stimulates nosema spore production as the levels disapate, stimulating the beekeeper to apply fumidill again. Operations (not all operations) where AFB is endemic, and only suppressed with antibiotics exist in all countries that allow antibiotics. The fact that there is a treadmill is pretty clearly established. ...it's more like a debate over whether people use cannibis rather than whether it should be legalized....it's an established fact.


> the philosophical consideration can get in the way sometimes.


....i know that treatment free seems "philosophical" from some perspectives, but to me, it is a matter of practical necessity.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> ....because, at one time or another, most of us have known someone who, with a slur in their voice, assures us that they don't have a drinking problem...when they obviously do.


I got it. It’s like when the small cell or foundationless beekeepers acknowledge their losses but insist it isn’t a result of mites. I like your analogy.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Dan, that would be exactly the same, only without the slur.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I've had conversations go like this:

Me: "My hive died, but there were no mites in it."

Someone else: "Sounds to me like the mites got you."

Seriously.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Dan, that would be exactly the same, only without the slur.


That actually gave me a laugh. You might just have a sense of humor!


----------



## squarepeg

good reply dean.

i am in 100% agreement with you that suppressing afb with preventative antibiotics doesn't make sense in the long run. no responsible physician that i know would use antibiotics in this way. there is no question that you will develop resistant bacteria, as has already happened with terramycin, and run the risk of afb popping up once treatments are stopped. i say, 'buyer beware' of any old hives, or nucs that have been split out of hives, that have been treated in this way.

i look forward to reading the mussen report. if it's a good study, this would be a case of science supporting the harmfulness of that treatment, how is that 'meaningless' or 'empty'? (i decided not to apply fumidill to my hives every fall as was recommended to me when i started. i definitely don't want that in my comb or honey). i do want to understand my options should nosema threaten my hive(s).

so far as the 'stuck on' vs. 'getting on', not worth quibbling about. thanks for your posts.


----------



## jim lyon

Hic  no but seriously. I feel I am running an experiment in the macro. We treat far less than we used to and I consider myself pretty responsible in what we use and when we use it. Why do some choose to put so little weight in the results we have achieved? Why do I feel some are genuinely irked that we are succeeding and want to do their best to dismiss it? I have evolved and adapted and I don't consider my views nearly as rigid as those espousing a very narrow treatment free dogma. We were just recently reminded of this over on the tf forum when a prominent poster admitted that he wasn't even open minded about his views on treating just that he believes what he believes. To each his own that's certainly his right.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Me: "My hive died, but there were no mites in it."


When I find deadouts….I rarely find mites either, unless I catch them mid-failure. Then I see the scavengers hauling off the mites too.
There's plenty of denial to go around.....slurring or not.


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> and let's not pretend that treating is helping to transition into not treating.


This would kill more than half the advice given here on Beesource to a newbie. And it is hard for a newbie to not take the advice of a more experienced person without them getting their nose out of joint.


----------



## beemandan

Acebird said:


> it is hard for a newbie to not take the advice of a more experienced person without them getting their nose out of joint.


To my thinking, it is more about asking for advice and then arguing against the advice given.


----------



## deknow

Actually, I agree that oftentimes people discount the mites if they don't know what to look for, if they don't see a ton of them, or if they discount some of the viral infections that _can_ be vectored by mites (although most viruses have overt symptoms most of the time). We have lost hives to overt mite infestations...but except for 2 nucs we brought in from a specific operation, not in the last 3 years. I'm sure they play a role in some of the problems we have seen....but the bees aren't all dead, they generally look healthy, we hardly see any mites. we don't do counts, but I do have very sharp eyes for mites. I do uncap a bit of drone from time to time, and rarely found mites at all this year. We make splits, but we haven't split like mad.
At our local club, it is claimed that the mites bounced back like mad after the fall treatment..we often hear that the bees are starving and need feeding or they will die. Our state club president (also working with the Russian program) stated as recently as 2 years ago that if you don't use fumadill, your bees will die. None of this seems to be the case for us.

deknow


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> Hic  no but seriously. I feel I am running an experiment in the macro. We treat far less than we used to and I consider myself pretty responsible in what we use and when we use it.


I think all of the above is true.



> Why do some choose to put so little weight in the results we have achieved?


....if you are not getting a premium in the marketplace for above average product produced with above average practices, then I would point out that "those that put so little weight" are in fact the packers (and industry) who buy your honey....the ones who benefit from the relative commidification of honey to use the cheap adulterated stuff to keep the prices paid for your honey down. Perhaps you should do some marketing..or perhaps we should talk.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> I'm sure they play a role in some of the problems we have seen....but the bees aren't all dead,


They may not always be the direct cause...and the visible diseases they vector aren't always evident but the impact of their parasitism on both developing brood and adult bees is frequently ignored. The overall vigor of the colony is sapped and it will succumb, more readily, to any other pressures.


----------



## camero7

I started out no treat when I got back into beekeeping. Lost every hive that winter. These were good bees with VSH queens and the bee inspector remarked what good hives they were in July. So now I treat. Like Jim I use as little treatment as possible and use only VSH or other resistant queens. Last winter I lost no hives, although it really wasn't a real northern winter. I have never treated for nosema, and never plan to. I personally don't think it's a major problem in the northern areas since it is so susceptible to freezing. I have a scope and recently my counts were zero in most hives. I have never had AFB yet, so I don't treat for that. Would not, I would burn the hive and move on. It's really a personal choice. I'm not on a treadmill, just trying to keep my bees alive and continue to expand. Will have 2 more honey yards next year if I don't have a bad winter. Had my best honey year this year.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> The reasons for having forums such as the TFB or the TBH forum is so people can talk about HOW to do it, not why or why not.


That would cool if it were actually the case….but it isn’t. One example comes to mind…the studies on small cell and mites…were introduced by the moderator himself, if my memory serves me. Didn’t have anything to do with HOW. Now, I no longer intentionally read the postings there but I’m pretty confident that the topics are broader than you suggest but only one side of the issues is welcomed.


----------



## Oldtimer

As the conversation seems to have turned to the 8,000 organisisms that supposedly live in the beehive superorganism, my personal belief is likely the same as nearly everybody else, that a proper balance is important.

It's useful to know what's been discovered in a lab, and this information should be in the back or our mind when we work in the real world.

However, to talk about, for example, the destruction of yeasts essential for bee bread production, is to imply that, you treat, your yeasts die, you bees cannot make bee bread, you're screwed. I am growing weary of these types of doomsday scenarios being bandied around.

Outside of a lab, in the real world, most of my hives get treated. Do they look sick? No, quite the reverse. The hives are booming, honey is pouring in, I have sold record numbers of bees ths year. Open any one of my hives and you get this feel good, woah this hive is Pumping vibe, which makes me enjoy my job. 

So I'm not questioning what's found in a lab. I'm questioning how it really pans out in the real world, and the way it's interpreted by some who use it to try to prove their own agenda.

Antibiotics, well no, I wouldn't use them. But for those with different climatic factors than what I have, I say go with what works for you. (Which, by the way, is an incredibly common saying on the treatment free forum LOL). The discounting of scientific research and studies is also not without precedent, doing that is also a very popular pastime on the treatment free forum.


----------



## jmgi

I don't want to speak for Michael Bush, but I"m thinking that forums discussing the how to's of TFB and TBH rather than a debate on the pro's and con's of each of them is more beneficial to those who have already decided to pursue TFB or using TBH's, but I understand that some of the audience of those forums is composed of people who are undecided on which direction to go, and they may be expecting more of a debate on the subjects to help them make a decision. So, that explains why things are what they are. Those that have had mite related losses due to no treatments feel the need to educate others about what could happen, and they are entitled to their opinion. John


----------



## Acebird

beemandan said:


> To my thinking, it is more about asking for advice and then arguing against the advice given.


It depends on what you classify as arguing. If I were to ask you for advice and you gave me an answer and then I came out and said you are wrong, then I am arguing. But if I came back and said, what about this or that or why do you think what you said is so, then I feel you are discussing and haven't made up your mind whether to follow your first suggestion. I think of all forums as a media to discuss, maybe sometimes argue a point.


----------



## beemandan

jmgi said:


> they are entitled to their opinion.


As long as it isn't a dissenting opinion on TFB.


----------



## JRG13

I think Solomon just wants to run a tight ship and keep things on topic in that forum. It may dissuade some discussion but those same topics can be discussed in other forums. People looking for treatment free info can go right there and not be bombarded with people arguing in every thread.


----------



## Acebird

jmgi said:


> Those that have had mite related losses due to no treatments feel the need to educate others about what could happen, and they are entitled to their opinion. John


Yes they are, likewise people who are learning have the right to hear from those that think they have a solution to these problems. I don't think you can read far into a treatment free forum before you find out the potential initial losses that could be the result of that decision.


----------



## Oldtimer

The concept of a forum with tight rules so that likeminded people can discuss their opinion without having to mess with opposing opinions is not wrong, in itself.

Where it goes wrong though is that keeping bees without treating them has an automatic appeal to people starting out, with no knowledge, and looking for guidance. So they see the treatment free forum, with authoritative sounding advise being handed out, and that's where they decide to go.

People are herd animals. Scientific studies have shown that most people will agree with what they know to be wrong, if everybody else does. There are some famous experiments that have shown that.

So I've seen newbies turn up at the tfb forum and ask questions and get answers. Everybody talking to them seems to be on the same page, there are no dissenting opinions, the newbie buys it, and will often make remarks such as "so glad I found this place". But looking at the position they are in, I know the advise they are getting is wrong and will result in the loss of their bees, often their only bees. And later follow up posts will often show that was the case. The people dispensing advise are often rather too cavalier in their attitude to the survival of the newbies bees. The advise is usually based on the idea that what works for one will work for all. But it doesn't.

Some of these people after getting wiped out have the courage to start again, and some of them are here. Most leave the hobby, disillusioned.

I don't know what the fix is for this problem, because to open the forum up to balanced opinions would then stop the existing people having their own single track thing going, without dissent. I will say that the abusive behaviour from (generally newbies) on the treatment free forum has improved greatly over recent times. I used to often see people who treat referred to as "" ignorant", and much worse, often by people who didn't even have bees yet. With this sort of thing getting cleaned up mostly, I feel the whole general tone of Beesource has improved, this thread is seen by some as an arguing thread but it's very mild compared to what used to happen, so that has to be good.


----------



## lazy shooter

An old indium comes to mind. "If there's an A the works and a B that works, don't do a little bit of A and B." You either do A or B. In my hundred years of work history this statement is most often correct. I started treatment free, and I will remain treatment free. Having said that, they're your bees so do what you wish. I'm not going to bash either approach. 

My bees are not within miles and miles of other kept bees, so my negligence won't affect other beekeepers. I suppose my lack of treatment could knock out some feral bees. Nineteen months into beekeeping, I have not lost a hive.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good idium lazy shooter.

You are 100 years old?


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> You are 100 years old?


Don't be silly OT....he's been working a hundred years. What did you think....he started work when he was born? He's 120.


----------



## beemandan

Along with lazy shooter's idium...an observation of mine. 
If you pump sunshine long enough....some people will believe it's daylight 24 hours a day.


----------



## JRG13

Old, I kind of agree with you on the new beeks but if they make a good effort at being a decent beek I do not see why they would fail. From the forums most failures I see don't have much to do with the route the beek has taken, moreso in the time dedicated to spending time with the hives and doing meaningful research and actually learning something and being able to grasp the concepts.

I do see a lot of new beeks with no biology/entomology experience kind of jumping in and wanting to take these routes and that does concern me as it's the toughest hill to climb so to say and it also seems as an excuse for a lot of noobs to take the 'well I'm treatment free excuse' for not inspecting their hives ever or monitoring for diseases or just not knowing anything about bees in general. It just falls back to, well, "all these people told me treatment free was the way to go and being totally viable for everyone," and taking the 'bees will take care of themself' motto too literally.


----------



## JRG13

Lol dan.


----------



## beemandan

JRG13 said:


> Lol dan.


I'm glad you got it....I was afraid I'd get a load of head scratching emoticons.


----------



## Acebird

JRG13 said:


> and it also seems as an excuse for a lot of noobs to take the 'well I'm treatment free excuse' for not inspecting their hives ever or monitoring for diseases or just not knowing anything about bees in general.


I don't see why that should concern you. Is it your loss or are you wielding a finger?


----------



## jmgi

It may be appealing to one starting out to not treat, however, if you start out by purchasing your hive from a bee supply catalog, you will soon come to the pages of treatments for this and that disease and pest, so right from the start the beginner is faced with the decision of treating or not, but my thinking is that with limited knowledge the beginner is going to choose to treat in some fashion to try to preserve their investment in bees, unless they are fortunate to have a mentor that helps them choose the better option. Sorry if I offended anybody. John


----------



## Solomon Parker

JRG13 said:


> I think Solomon just wants to run a tight ship and keep things on topic in that forum.


It's not Solomon's decision.


----------



## jmgi

If I followed the line of thought in post #118 and applied it to me, then I would have to admit that even though I adhered to treatments for the first 35 or so years of my keeping bees and was therefore enlightened about bees in general, I have become dumber the last 5 years since going the non-treatment route. John


----------



## Solomon Parker

Post 118 reminds me of the last two newbees I saw fail with TF.

#1, installed package, I helped her inspect it a week later, everything fine, October comes around, the hive is dead. She did not check it once, fear I surmised.

#2, started a hive, moved away, left hive with a non-beekeeper, never inspected, dead in October.


----------



## sammyjay

I feel stuck to the treadmill because of my location, my lack of small or natural cell size frames, and the fact that I care for all of my hives and don't want any to die. I know I can't escape my bees dying forever, but I want to minimize it. I might try treatment free when I have enough natural cell size frames.


Nathan


----------



## Solomon Parker

sammyjay said:


> don't want any to die.


That's what sticks you, not the rest. You can't have natural without death. When people talk about natural selection, you rarely hear about what happens to the ones that aren't selected for success. In nature, the slow wildebeest doesn't get to retire on a farm upstate. He comes to a rather grisly end and often before getting to grow up.

I am not saying any of this in any sort of negative way, it's just the fact of the matter. The decision as always is yours.


----------



## libhart

Solomon Parker said:


> That's what sticks you, not the rest. You can't have natural without death.


This is what makes such a problem for very small backyard beekeepers to be treatment free. Even if you buy queens from a breeder that does all the selection stuff possible in his mothers, the daughters won't always be the best survivors, you'll get a slow wildebeest every now and then. So eventually if you have 1-2 hives and that's all you want or can handle, you will be almost assuredly become beeless and be starting over. So being truly treatment free I believe involves resigning oneself to one of two options....either have many hives or be prepared for complete beelessness and starting over. "Many", of course, is open to interpretation, but it's not 1-2.


----------



## jmgi

libhart, you can also get on the "resistant queen treadmill" if the treatment treadmill is not to your liking. That can get expensive too. You're right though, once that special queen you bought dies, is superceded or a swarm issues from that hive, you have lost some resistance in the new queen that is raised, someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that but that's what I read somewhere. John


----------



## Solomon Parker

Libhart, you are absolutely correct. I recommend at least five as I have recommended for years. One thing is consistent among long term successful treatment-free beekeepers. They have more hives.


----------



## sqkcrk

The same is true w/ nontreatment-free beekeepers, from what I have seen.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Wow Mark, that is really eye opening. You are right.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> Wow Mark, that is really eye opening. You are right.


Almost sounds like sarcasm. But I know you don't do sarcasm. Right?


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> #1, She did not check it once
> #2, never inspected


Had these two inspected regularly...what do you think they would have discovered? And what would you have recommended they do?


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Almost sounds like sarcasm. But I know you don't do sarcasm. Right?


No sarcasm. That's what smilies are for. I never thought of it the way you just said it.




beemandan said:


> Had these two inspected regularly...what do you think they would have discovered? And what would you have recommended they do?


That's a hypothetical situation squared. I got no answer for that.


----------



## jmgi

I would try to make use of the smilies and other expressions more if I could figure out how to paste them on, then there would be no way anyone would question my sincerity. John


----------



## Solomon Parker

You just click the similie thing and pick which one you want. :gh:


----------



## sqkcrk

t: inch:


----------



## jmgi

I should have just asked one of my kids and saved me the embarrassment, that was too easy. John


----------



## JRG13

JMGI,

What in my post (#118) implies you got dumber by going treatment free? I was not bashing it in anyway. To me, it's one of the most difficult routes to take in keeping bees and I was merely pointing out it seems a lot of new people with aboslutely zero experience in bees/insects or basic biological systems use it as an excuse to not learn about the maladies of bees as it doesn't matter to them since they're treatment free. I would assume since you treated when you started you took some time to diagnose symptoms, recognize mites/diseases, and understand how the teatments were designed to work hence gaining knowledge of what's going on with your bees and not just ignoring it.


----------



## jmgi

JRG13, 

No, I understand completely what you were saying, I'm all for educating yourself about bees before and after you jump in. My comment was taking it to the extreme, and I doubt there are more than a handful of treatment people out there that actually believe what I said is true about people who have jumped ship and went treatment free. John


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> and let's not pretend that treating is helping to transition into not treating.


No need to pretend. Either someone is treating to transition into not treating or they aren't. Only the person doing it knows.


----------



## jmgi

Those are the only two choices aside from not treating from the start, however not treating could transition into treating if plan A doesn't work out. And if you really want to stick to your guns you can vacate beekeeping if plan A fails, now that would be a stubborn person. John


----------



## bbrowncods

I think the issue for anybody, new or 125 years old, is that you understand what you are doing. Whether it is treatment free, or treatment, educating yourself is imperative. I have seen examples of success on both sides of the fence. I think you can ask any TF beekeeper if it is easy, or easier, and I bet the response is an emphatic no. But they understand the risks and choose to do what they do. If they don't understand, they have no business doing it. Same goes for treatments. I don't begrudge either side.

I don't tell you how to raise your kids, and you let me raise mine. In the mean time we both do our best to learn about being the best parents we can, in our own way. And we accept and live with the consequences. Kids and bees are resilient; humans and Apis will survive our failures.


----------



## jmgi

bbrowncods, 

Treatment free for me is simple, of course you still have your normal routine maintenance of the hives like anybody else, but in end they either live or die, not unlike a treated hive. I treated at one time, now I don't, but if it comes down to having to treat in order to continue beekeeping the rest of my years, I will treat, but as of now I am having success keeping bees alive, healthy and productive without treatments. 

John


----------



## libhart

JRG13 said:


> it seems a lot of new people with aboslutely zero experience in bees/insects or basic biological systems use it as an excuse to not learn about the maladies of bees as it doesn't matter to them since they're treatment free.


I totally agree w/you on this and admit I'm not sure I ever really thought about it before.

I find that 99% of new beekeepers want to start small (of course). Many times we're just encouraging them to get two hives instead of one, so the recommended 5 (I think I'd say more like 7-8) is just right out. If we believe that one can actually get off treatments once started, and I believe this to be so, then wouldn't brand new, first year 1-2 hive beekeepers be better served by hearing the message, "You really should monitor and treat when necessary until you know you like beekeeping, you're comfortable with looking at a hive and requeening, you plan to stick with it, and you're willing to expand to a number of hives that will allow you not to treat and greatly lower the risk of total loss"? Seems to me they would. Or said the opposite way, encouraging 1-2 hive beekeepers to be treatment free sounds like a disservice unless you also explain the very real risk of total loss.


----------



## squarepeg

john, do you autopsy your dead outs? if so, what have you found to have killed them? and what measures if any do you take to prevent spreading the problem to other colonies?

i know that some tf beeks don't do these things, and i am not rendering a judgement here. 

i am asking because i have a hive that is dying. i have isolated it and plan to do an alcohol wash today, and will probably send a sample to my state lab for nosema testing.

i have two other hives that i am suspicious about.

all three are first year hives, and have not been treated or fed all year.


----------



## jmgi

squarepeg,

Over the last 5 years the only hives that I have lost have happened during winter, and I attribute those losses to starvation due to extreme prolonged cold, and the bees unable to move cluster to get to new food. I ruled out any other cause of death because the deadouts exhibited the classic signs of starvation and nothing more. In addition, a couple years ago I tried wintering nucs for the first time and lost them all because the clusters were too small, which I knew might be a problem, and as it turned out it was. I am 90% sure none of my losses over the last 5 years were due to mites/related diseases. 

John


----------



## squarepeg

thanks john.

i had to reread randy oliver's papers on nosema last night as a refresher.

i had forgotten that collapse by nosema resembles starvation, because the infection prevents nutrients from being absorbed in the gut.

i am still trying to find out how contagious it might be to other colonies, and what the options are for treating.

i need to go back and find the info mike bush mentioned about fumidill actually resulting in higher spore counts in the long run.


----------



## Joel

It would be a good thing if we could remove the demonization Barry speaks of from both points of view and achieve success through honest discussions of what is and isn't working with the realization there will be a vast chasm of what works in hobby operation and what may work in a commercial operation. We would all like to be treatment free. The truth is we are on path in that direction but have a ways to go, especially for commerical operators. The answer for larger operations will likely never be no treatment but more natural treatmens and achieved resistance. Certainly I've had my "defensive" moments on beesource so am a guilty as anyone. I think even within a successful similar operations great differences in success are likely due to the intraccies of any individual beekeepers managment plan and as well due to personal physical limitations (eyesight, sense of smell, etc). I can find and examine a queen in a hive quickly and see a suspcious looking brood issue because after years and years, thousands and thousands of hives inspections, training from some good bee people and a great deal of study and research I've developed a "system". Now that I am in my 50's though on my best day with good training and tons of experiance, and I work bees every day, that success is dependant on my bi-focals. Carpal tunnel in my elbow from driving and driving and driving slows me down, distracts me some days and I miss things I might not have 10 years ago. My goal is not aimed at treating or not treating but aimed at keeping healthy with minimal chemical interference and then responding as I identify issues:
1) We look at a hive as a single organism, not just a group of individuals within a hive. Picture your body with organs that all need to function properly to keep you working. Now picture each caste of bees from nurse to field worker as an organ within that hive. When you inspect are those organs (castes) all working properly and strong you have the best chance of keeping healthy bees and minimizing or eliminating the need for treament. Dr. Shiminoko, formerly of Beltsville always taught this in his lectures. All our hives have all the pathogens for disease and collapse but usually only succumb when an "organ" or a group of organs weaken the hive and the "organism" succumbs just as if your heart and lungs were weak at the same time and you became ill. There are ways to boost weak organs through simple manipulations, such as equalization if you run 2 or more hives, which will keep bees healthy.

2) I had to learn what a healthy hive looks like, sounds like, smells like, acts like. I think the most important inspection I make in our yards is the one standing and watching the entrance and seeing what the bees are doing. Are they doing the appropriate action for the weather and time of year? Are there a good number of active guard bees during a nectar flow? Are field field workers coming and going quickly with purpose, are there drones coming or going, are there bees on the ground alive near the hive that shouldn't be, are there an unusual number of dead bees outside the entrance, is their any dead brood visible at or near the entrance? These and other clues tell me who's getting opened today for a closer look.

3) What is my bee space? Not that space between frames and combs but that space the bees forage within. How much forage do they have, is it shady, sunny, are their other competing hives nearby, how much can this area reasonably support. Too often we lose sight of the fact once any area is overpopulated with a species and comptetition arises disease, starvation and parasites are nature's natural population controls.

4) What are my genetics. With CCD and the huge numbers of packages and queens being produced by fewer operations the "puppy mill" effect takes place and the quality of available stock from many suppliers has decreased due to pressure. Good genetics are an absolute essential and even within those genetics evaluation of indivdual stock is critial as a poorly mated, injured or substandard queen like a bad heart - your organism may survive for a time but the end result due to weakness is inevitable. Studies, I think from Beltsville, on queen rearing operations showed queens being shipped form suppliers with as many as 12 or more viruses in fresh stock. We can't cure see or cure the virus only watch in wonderment as a hive weakens and dies from the symptoms. We choose our suppliers carefully to bring in fresh stock and breed from own stock. Keep in mind no beekeper is too small to improve his/her own stock through breeding.

5) Education - Read, watch video's, attend lectures and seminars, research and keep notes when you start out. Personal knowledge is the most important weapon in keeping healthy bees and keeping healthy bees is the 1st step to being minimal treatment of being treatment free. Can you recognize nosema, AFB, varroa infestation before it becomes an issue? Do you have your bees tested? Starting out with healthy stock or getting stock healthy and the right genetics will give you a much higer level of success with fewer treatments and potentially no treamtments. 

6) Respond to circumstances beyond your control. You will evenutally be exposed disease, parasites, starvation, bad weather, from sources you can't forsee or due to a queen which may take 2 brood cycles to deterimine a health or genetics problem. We had a rough spring with cold temps and chill brood for our nucs this year followed by a 6 week period of drought and nectar dearth. Supplemental Feeding, using formic to keep down mites, minor "treatments" kept a few hundred hives healthy and taking care of themselves and my family. We keep bees in an area where 6 or 7 years ago state inspectors were burning hives for AFB like vikings pillaging English hamlets. We will use anti-biotics to protect our's and other's operations but with the clear concept the term Anti-biotic means "against life" and we need to continue to develop hygenic behavior in our stock.

We look at our operation like we would ourselves and our children. I don't take an advil every time I get an ache or pain and I don't treat every time I see an issue. The possiblity of keeping bees treatment free in the near future for me is unlikely because I am keeping un-natural numbers of a species in my bee space - usually 25 hives to a yard. Additionally we have many beekeepers in our county and although we work to stay isolated I know there is pressure from other bees. As I feed my family with my bees if Beltsvilles finds an issue with bees sent for testing I act responsibly and treat minimally. Just as if my kids had an infectious disease or a parasite and needed treatment. It's likely if they have the common cold or a headache we'll let nature take it's course. Healthy organisms are bombared by threats and usually survive the non-pandemics fine. We are treating far less then we did after losing our bees in 1997 to Varroa and appreciating success through keeping bees healthy. As more natural treatments become verified we shift to those and in some cases have found the bees are able, if we are willing to loose our weak hives every year and breed from our best stock, overcome many issues on their own.

For those pointing the finger agains those attempting non-treatment I would say their influence has shifted the industry towards a much more natural approach. For those point the finger at those of us who do treat - 1 of every three bites of the very cheap food we appreicate in this country is a result of commercial beekeepers who do keep bees contrary to the laws of nature - and out of necessity - treat to keep them healthy,\.


----------



## jmgi

Good read Joel, everytime I read a perspective such as yours it helps me minimize the tunnel vision I sometimes get.

John


----------



## Acebird

libhart said:


> but it's not 1-2.


Why not? It is one or two survivors that you are looking for. From there you split to three or four but as long as one survives you are sustainable. Yes there is a chance than you can be bee-less and have to start over but hasn't that happened to those that had 5,10, or 20 hives using treatments?


----------



## Barry

Joel said:


> It would be a good thing if we could remove the demonization [snip] from both points of view and achieve success through honest discussions of what is and isn't working with the realization there will be a vast chasm of what works in hobby operation and what may work in a commercial operation.


"Like" Good to hear from you again, Joel!

I've been guilty of defending TF to the extreme, in the past, but realized that was not the way forward for beekeeping as a whole. Thanks for your balanced post and reminding us to see an issue from other sides.


----------



## jim lyon

Nice read Joel I normally scan quickly through long posts and wish more folks would learn the definition of succinct but I'm making an exception. My only critique is that I actually think this thread has stayed pretty civil with a lot of good give and take. I havent been offended by anything. To me it's refreshing to actually have a discussion like this in a forum where both sides of the issue can be heard and yes their are some good arguments to be made and listened to for those that choose to have an open mind. If your opinion was formed in the aftermath of our first clumsy attempts to control varroa back in the 90's I would encourage everyone to keep an open mind and look at what is now working without bias and I'm speaking to folks on both sides of the issue.


----------



## Acebird

libhart said:


> If we believe that one can actually get off treatments once started, and I believe this to be so,


I don't believe it to be so because it means wiping out all your equipment and starting over from scratch. If a new person is going to get into beekeeping by buying new equipment the best opportunity to be treatment free is now when they first start. You can always go the other way but you can't flip back without new equipment.


----------



## squarepeg

ace, is it really true that each and every form of treatment leaves harmful residues in the equipment?

if yes, would that totally prevent the attainment of treatment free?

if yes, wouldn't it tend to get culled out as part of splits with sustaining the apiary?


----------



## libhart

jmgi said:


> ruled out any other cause of death because the deadouts exhibited the classic signs of starvation and nothing more


I have a question for everyone here. If a small cluster, or say if many unhealthy bees exist in a reasonably sized cluster, goes into winter, would the cold not cause such bees to die off but appear to have died due to starvation? If a cluster is small or becomes small because of many unhealthy bees rapidly dying, the more that cluster has to shiver, and therefore eat, in order to keep the center warm. So a small cluster that has a long spell of cold will run out of food and then appear head-down in empty cells and give the impression of starving which technically was the coup de grace. But in the end, whatever caused the small cluster or unhealthy bees is to blame, not the cold and starvation. Is this logical or just specious reasoning?


----------



## squarepeg

excellent question libhart.

i am kind of focused on nosema at the moment. but if the 'whatever' causing the bees to bee unhealthy is nosema, they can starve to death on a full stomach. the nosema eats their food, and they don't absorb enough to have the energy to shiver.


----------



## libhart

Acebird said:


> Why not? It is one or two survivors that you are looking for. From there you split to three or four but as long as one survives you are sustainable. Yes there is a chance than you can be bee-less and have to start over but hasn't that happened to those that had 5,10, or 20 hives using treatments?


I agree with the method, but it's the splitting to 3 or 4 that's the issue. If a backyard beekeeper does not want more than 1-2 hives, that precludes splitting to 3-4, he won't do it. And I have yet to hear of anyone with 20 hives losing all of them in the same year, especially if treating. 

It's probability and percentages, the more hives you have, the more likely you are to have a at least some good survivors in the bunch. The fewer hives you have, the more likely you are to have a total lack of survivors, or rather a full apiary of non-survivors (those slow wildebeests). I understand that if you want to be treatment free then you don't want those non-survivors, but I'm talking about beginners with 1-2 hives understanding that only having 1-2 hives dramatically increases the risk of losing all of them as the chance of loss increases. Treating hives, whether one agrees with it or not, I think has been shown pretty conclusively to decrease the chance of loss. The argument of course is always around if you're allowing the survival of non-worthy bees by treating them, but that's not a point I was trying to raise with the 1-2 hive idea.


----------



## jmgi

libhart,

That is why I said I am 90% sure of my losses being solely due to starvation, the other 10% are the dead outs that I didn't send in to the lab for analysis.

John


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes. Look at what caused the small cluster.

Could be genetic but if not there are several reasons for a particular hive seeming detirmined to go too small in winter and this is something that can often be remedied (before the event).


----------



## Barry

squarepeg said:


> ace, is it really true that each and every form of treatment leaves harmful residues in the equipment?


We know it's not true. We can continue to be extreme in our positions, but the truth usually isn't there. I would say "harmful enough to make a significant impact." I find it hard to believe that a person couldn't use some of the current treatments and still be able to phase into being TF, still using existing equipment.


----------



## squarepeg

john, in the 90% from starvation, were the food stores 100% gone?


----------



## jmgi

In every case food was not an issue, plenty of sealed honey and sugar syrup within two inches of the edge of the clusters, cells in the center of the cluster stuffed with bees head first.

John


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I'm not treating this year, for the simple fact that I have - over the last few years - heard from too many very intelligent and experienced people, who are contradicting one another.

I think most of us would agree that the activities of humans have had some unfortunate effects on the honeybee. (That's not to say that we haven't had some positive ones too...) But most would suspect that CCD, Varroa and other issues have been furthered or caused by our activities in some way.

The problem is in sifting out which activities are problematic. Let's take a quick look at things that have been discussed here and other places as potentially being a problem or "bad", or "better" for the bees:

• Hive type
• cell sizes
• entrance sizes and locations
• Ventilation
• Sugar
• Corn Syrup
• Smoke
• packages
• swarm control
• drone removal
• colony density
• essential oils
• chemical treatments for mites
• antibiotics
• pollen substitute
• wintering approaches

It seems that everything - like, E V E R Y T H I N G. Is debated, and nothing is agreed upon.

So when, after treating for mites over my first couple of winters, I took out my first drone brood last spring and found it just teeming with mites, I just through my hands up. I sat down with that drone comb in the sun and I thought what - after all this study do I KNOW? Not much. But here's the list:

•*After probably 50 million years (ish) on earth, the bees are here. There are bees in my yard, right outside.
• No human is able to claim complete understanding of them and conclusively demonstrate that they do.
• After a couple of decades of throwing everything we have at them, the Varroa mites appear stronger and more common than ever.
• A good number of people claim to be maintaining healthy bees without any consistent management strategy which is common to all.
• There appears to be no consistent or clear evidence that people who don't treat are losing any greater percentage of their bees than people who do.
• People who do treat seem just as worried about their bees making it through the winter as people who don't.

Having seen these things from my perspective, I've just decided to do my best to minimize my 'messing' with the bees. I'll try to stay out of their way as much as possible, for I can see absolutely no conclusive evidence that anything human kind is doing is correct - or incorrect. It's one giant mass of debating contradictory conclusions.

Too many mixed messages when it comes to treating for mites. So I'm not doing it, and I will see if there's any difference.

Adam


----------



## squarepeg

jmgi said:


> In every case food was not an issue, plenty of sealed honey and sugar syrup within two inches of the edge of the clusters, cells in the center of the cluster stuffed with bees head first.
> 
> John


hmmm. i see that you in michigan. i guess it's possible it got to cold for them to move the 2", although last winter was more mild than most.

makes me wonder though about a gut parasite in those.


----------



## Solomon Parker

libhart said:


> head-down in empty cells and give the impression of starving


I would just like to point out that bees are always head down in empty cells when they are clustering. That's how it's done.


----------



## TWall

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I'm not treating this year, for the simple fact that I have - over the last few years - heard from too many very intelligent and experienced people, who are contradicting one another.


Adam,

I'm on the opposite side of the coin as you. I haven't treated. I have had colonies overwinter fine and I have had strong colonies die earlier in the winter. 

Mites are a problem.

I'm planning on doing an OA dribble this year. There is probably a 50/50 chance I will do it.

I'm beginning to think the biggest problem is not having hives as strong as possible. I'm trying to learn ot be a better beekeeper. I think that will improve my a number things, including how my colonies overwinter.

I think it is more important to look at overall colony health and strength, and then decide what you choose to do to improve your colonies. You may decide to requeen. You may decide to change equipment. You may decide to feed. You may decide to do nothing.

I don't think we can take anyone's recipe for beekeeping and follow it and be successful. There is more to beekeeping than just putting the correct pieces together. We need to learn to be beekeepers.

Tom


----------



## jmgi

squarepeg,

These die outs didn't happen last winter, it was about three winters ago I think, last winter was not bad at all up here. John


----------



## squarepeg

understood john. maybe too cold for the cluster to move then if it stayed really cold too long. or maybe 
they got on some brood and wouldn't move.


----------



## squarepeg

TWall said:


> I don't think we can take anyone's recipe for beekeeping and follow it and be successful. There is more to beekeeping than just putting the correct pieces together. We need to learn to be beekeepers.


tom, excellent point.


----------



## Acebird

squarepeg said:


> ace, is it really true that each and every form of treatment leaves harmful residues in the equipment?


If you are talking chemical treatments I will say yes. If you are talking about culling drones then I say no. If you chemically treat and then try not treating for a while then you can say you are practicing treatment free but your hive isn't treatment free so in the sense of a scientific experiment you can't conclude that treatment free doesn't work if your colonies should die.


----------



## squarepeg

o.k.


----------



## Acebird

Barry said:


> I find it hard to believe that a person couldn't use some of the current treatments and still be able to phase into being TF, still using existing equipment.


It is bee keeping. You can do anything you want. But are you going to preach from then on your losses are due to not treating when you put colonies in contaminated hives?


----------



## Barry

Again Ace, you will need to define "contaminated." Right now, I'm contaminated with asbestos because I just pulled up some old vinyl flooring in our kitchen. It won't have any measurable impact on me continuing to live my life.


----------



## Acebird

Barry said:


> Again Ace, you will need to define "contaminated."


I am pretty sure that is already defined. A hive that is treated with chemicals will be contaminated to a measurable degree verses one that has not.



> It won't have any measurable impact on me continuing to live my life.


It depends on how you pulled up the floor as to whether you contaminated the air while you were working. It could have serious impact and it is non reversible.


----------



## Barry

Acebird said:


> I am pretty sure that is already defined. A hive that is treated with chemicals will be contaminated to a measurable degree verses one that has not.


You going to keep evading the question? "to a measurable degree", who's measuring and to what degree?



> It depends on how you pulled up the floor as to whether you contaminated the air while you were working. It could have serious impact and it is non reversible.


Again, "depends", yes it depends on what treatment is used in a hive and whether or not it has any significant impact on anything in order to go treatment free. 

In fact, people have been living in this 'treated' house (asbestos in the felt under the siding, in the siding, in the flooring, lead in the paint) since 1888 and you'd be hard pressed to prove that they haven't lived a healthy life in spite of the physical structure.


----------



## Acebird

Barry said:


> Again, "depends", yes it depends on what treatment is used in a hive and whether or not it has any significant impact on anything in order to go treatment free.


Have it your way Barry, I think this is precisely what Sergey was speaking of in the thread "is beekeeping broke" with your line of reasoning. If you are doing and experiment you don't contaminate the data and then arrive at a conclusion. It makes the experiment meaningless.


----------



## Barry

This isn't about "scientific experiments." You brought this into the discussion to try and give your statement more factual grounds.

"I don't believe it to be so because it means wiping out all your equipment and starting over from scratch."

You will first have to prove that all chemicals leave residues in the hive that significantly impact the ability to go treatment free with said equipment.


----------



## Oldtimer

Let's use a direct example, Formic Acid is used as a treatment. FA evaporates easily and is applied in such a way that as it evaporates the vapor permeates the whole hive. It condenses onto everything including combs, bees, and mites, hopefully in enough concentration to kill the mites but not the bees. Over the next day or so most of it re-evaporates and leaves the hive, and over the next few weeks whatever still may be there continues to evaporate until levels of FA in that hive have returned to the same very small levels that would be there naturally.

So Ace. If you bought a hive that had been treated with Formic Acid 6 months ago, how would chemical contamination prevent you attempting chemical free beekeeping?


----------



## beemandan

Barry…I believe that you have stepped onto a different type of treadmill here….the final word treadmill. The dialog will swirl in semantic circles until motion sickness sets in. I have first hand experience. I suggest that you step off before you need a barf bag.


----------



## Oldtimer

Very Funny!


----------



## squarepeg

indeed!


----------



## jim lyon

Great analogy Dan I was a little surprised myself that Barry got suckered into that "semantic treadmill".


----------



## JRG13

The hive gets contaminated from bees bringing in stuff anyway. Maybe Barry needed some exercise and thought the treadmill would help.


----------



## beemandan

JRG13 said:


> The hive gets contaminated from bees bringing in stuff anyway.


Not my bees! The entrance to each of my hives is equipped with a full bee body scanner and contamination sensors. These will be required for all hives soon…..one of those food security things.
Decontamination units are optional.


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> I suggest that you step off before you need a barf bag.


Thanks Dan, I just threw the baton to Oldtimer whether he wanted it or not!


----------



## squarepeg

good move barry, and thanks for running interference for me!


----------



## Barry

jim lyon said:


> Great analogy Dan I was a little surprised myself that Barry got suckered into that "semantic treadmill".


Yeah, I know, but I just couldn't stand seeing another Aceism go unchallenged as if it was fact. I'm the sucker this time.


----------



## jim lyon

Yup if you were a fish you would be in the landing net by now but it did provide some entertainment and reenforced some lessons for the rest of us.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Barry said:


> Yeah, I know, but I just couldn't stand seeing another Aceism go unchallenged as if it was fact. I'm the sucker this time.


The problem came about because you didn't use enough emoticons in your replies to Ace. :lookout:
These little babies are the electronic alternative to garlic!:ws:
:digging: :lpf:


----------



## Barry

I see you're late to the party. Made me get involved. Next time, please check the forum every hour!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Our local weather forecast for Monday is 80% chance of precipitation.
:ws:

So I'll likely be indoors Monday, if it does rain. I'll take a turn at guard duty.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> please check the forum every hour!


Sort of reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School.
‘Waitress…bring us a pitcher of beer every thirty minutes until the first one of us passes out….then bring one every fifteen minutes.’
I loved that guy!
(it probably was first every fifteen minutes, then five....but you get the idea)


----------



## Roland

So what if your treatment is a form of energy, and not a chemical. Does it create a "treadmill? It does not leave a residue?

Crazy Roland


----------



## jmgi

Roland are you using the mite zapper? John


----------



## sqkcrk

Roland is selecting for mites which can withstand drone brood scratching.

Scratching capped drone brood every 14 days is what Roland means by a form of energy.


----------



## Oldtimer

Or radiation for CCD?


----------



## sqkcrk

Irradiation could do that I guess. I was just answering the question from knowing what Roland does.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> So Ace. If you bought a hive that had been treated with Formic Acid 6 months ago, how would chemical contamination prevent you attempting chemical free beekeeping?


I am not a chemist but I do know that when high concentrations of a chemical are used the chemical combines with other components that may remain. Yes the formic acid may evaporate but what did it leave behind? Do you have proof that there are no residuals? I realize that formic acid may be a soft chemical by itself and could possible be used with out long lasting effects in the equipment but is there a beekeeper who treats only using formic acid? I doubt it. It is like saying I smoke but but I don't inhale.


----------



## lazy shooter

There's a huge difference in treatment free and chemical free. Unless you change gloves from hive to hive and sterilize your gloves between uses, chemicals will be transferred from hive to hive. Good Lord, don't we know what treatment free is? It's simply not using any treatments.


----------



## Solomon Parker

You would think.


----------



## sqkcrk

This Thread is a treatment free treatment treadmill of its own. If we stop, will we fall over?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Like a bicycle? Is the treadmill more like a bicycle or alcoholism?

If the average person stops a bicycle, they will fall over. However, there is a small proportion of the population who can balance without moving. Hmmm.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> If the average person stops a bicycle, they will fall over.


We are delving into the realms of the absurd in the search for "proof" of "the treadmill". 
Bees are not bicycles.


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> Yes the formic acid may evaporate but what did it leave behind? Do you have proof that there are no residuals? I realize that formic acid may be a soft chemical by itself and could possible be used with out long lasting effects in the equipment but is there a beekeeper who treats only using formic acid? I doubt it. It is like saying I smoke but but I don't inhale.


What did it leave behind? Most likely nothing. 

Do I know a beekeeper who treats only with formic acid? No. But I do know beekeepers who alternate only non residual treatments, and I am one of them.

Do I have proof there are no residuals? No, impossible to prove cos somewhere in the world, there MIGHT be a chemical, that MIGHT end up in a beehive, that MIGHT react with formic acid, and MIGHT be residual in the hive long term, and after all that it MIGHT effect treatment free beekeeping later. Way beyond my scope to attempt to disprove such an assertion.

But, doesn't matter. Because, Ace, YOU made the claim that all chemical treatments will affect efforts to go treatment free later. Your claim, your issue to prove it.

It's something that happens often on chat sites. Person A makes a wild, unproven claim. Person B questions it. Person A challenges person B to disprove it. As some wild claims are hard to prove either way, person B cannot disprove it, so person A goes "see, I must be right". 99% of the time, they are not right.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> But, doesn't matter. Because, Ace, YOU made the claim that all chemical treatments will affect efforts to go treatment free later. Your claim, your issue to prove it.


If I made the claim that ALL chemical treatments will matter then I would like to retract that to SOME chemical treatments will matter as in the ones mostly recommended to newbies buying new equipment. Most people don't have the ability to prove one way or another whether the level of a chemical used in the hive stays in the hive so I generalized that once you use chemicals you don't know. That doesn't mean you cannot practice treatment free only that you cannot say your bees are not treated unless you start with new equipment. Hey you can feel and do what ever you like. I am.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well said.


----------



## deknow

....the antibiotic resistance study that is being discussed on another thread (our of the Moran lab at Yale) documents measurable heritable effects of the use of antibiotcs that is separate from residues. Not all long term effects of treatments are attributal to the persistence of residues.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Agreed but not all treatments are antibiotics.

My point was it is too broad to say that once a hive has been treated, with anything, it can never go treatment free.

In addition, even the longer term affects of antibiotic use need not stop a hive going treatment free. The effects of antibiotic use may be long term, but they are not permanent. Balance will eventually be restored, not only to bioflora, but also at the genome level.

There have been a number of threads here where people have purchased hives that have been treated with antibiotics for years. The new owner stops treatment, then looses some hives to AFB. But of the survivors, the owner has been able to maintain a treatment free regime (seemingly) successfully.

There was even a thread where a guy wanted to be treatment free but when he stoppped antibiotic use of his newly purchsed hives, some showed AFB. He then started a thread asking what to do and was advised by some to treat another time or two to get rid of the AFB. He said he would do that, and THEN go treatment free. Never heard the eventual outcome though.


----------



## Roland

Don't tell SQKCRK that he doe not know ALL of my methods(I Don't show ALL my cards). No, I do not use a mite zapper. Irradiation is too expensive, but a last resort.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Vance G

I bought used equipment from an old man who was forced to quit by infirmity. Thirty splits made on that equipment out of thirty developed AFB. Pretty well shows he has been masking the disease with antibiotics and propagating it. I did not use antibiotics but shook them into new equipment with foundation. Come spring and summer we will see if that worked as well as it appears to have so far. Haven't seen a suspicious cell so far.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> There was even a thread where a guy wanted to be treatment free but when he stoppped antibiotic use of his newly purchsed hives, some showed AFB. He then started a thread asking what to do and was advised by some to treat another time or two to get rid of the AFB.


Isn't it a given that if a colony has an outbreak of AFB the options are burning it or treating it endlessly with antibiotics until another outbreak? I am trying to understand the logic of going treatment free after an AFB outbreak unless it is a laboratory attempt to breed AFB resistant bees.


> My point was it is too broad to say that once a hive has been treated, with anything, it can never go treatment free.


Where is that grey line? How do you instruct a newbie what to look for or how to tell when that grey line is over the edge. I know if a newbie already spent good money on new equipment he has the greatest chance of success going treatment free because he didn't start with a problem. Maybe you Oldtimer, Roland, Michael B and Michael P, Mark and host of others can judge what is safe and what is not but a newbie cannot.


----------



## squarepeg

good luck vance. it had a very similar experience, but not on the scale that you have.

i had a hive abscond in my first year, and the frames looked pretty bad. i happened to catch them, and put them into new equipment.

they made it just fine.


----------



## Daniel Y

Vance, One serious question I woudl have. since you evidently moved and handled all 30 hives. do you think maybe you carried the Foul Brood to all 30? Just asking. You could have had only one infected hive and then been the carrier to every other hive. You did say they developed it. Not that they already had it and that is what stood out to me.

I don't tend to hold another beekeeper responsible for what hives develop under the care of another beekeeper. Not that it couldn't be so. But the first place to look for me is the current beekeeper. That is the first and most obvious answer.

You also said the beekeeper sold out due to not being able to continue. I am sure he did not just wake up one day realizing he didn't have what it took. It is reasonable to assume that his bees have been in a state of decline as to the quality of their care for some time. I expect that if the bees came with a pre existing condition it might be due to lack of care rather than care masking symptoms. The timing of it appearing may have been coincidental. But I suspect it a result of lack of care far more than I believe it is a masking due to care. The odds are simply in favor of it given the other factors.

What you do relate is in fact. The bees where doing fine under his care including any treatments he applied. they did not do well under yours at first. you then treated in your preferred manner and hopefully they will continue to do well. Both remedies are effective. you simply did not keep up any remedy at first. Evidently they where well enough when you chose to take them to pass your evaluation.

Treated bees are well, untreated bees did not do well. bees again treated but with different method doing well again. Seems to me treatment is necessary and their is a range of choices.


----------



## deknow

Antibiotic use suppresses the clinical symptoms of AFB...what Vance reported is a common story...note, he did not get bees, but equipment.

AFB spores can live for 40+ years...it's common to find old equipment that was abandoned when the bees died for some unknown (or unremembered) reason....oftentimes this was AFB. Used equipment is no bargain (unless you have access to irradiation).

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> Antibiotic use suppresses the clinical symptoms of AFB...what Vance reported is a common story...note, he did not get bees, but equipment.
> 
> AFB spores can live for 40+ years...it's common to find old equipment that was abandoned when the bees died for some unknown (or unremembered) reason....oftentimes this was AFB. Used equipment is no bargain (unless you have access to irradiation).
> 
> deknow


+1


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> +1


Very explicit a reply.


----------



## Solomon Parker

It's a Google Plus reference.


----------



## sqkcrk

ok


----------



## squarepeg

it means, 'my thoughts exactly'.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> it means, 'my thoughts exactly'.


i c


----------



## Oldtimer

Ha Ha! I love this thread.


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> Isn't it a given that if a colony has an outbreak of AFB the options are burning it or treating it endlessly with antibiotics until another outbreak? I am trying to understand the logic of going treatment free after an AFB outbreak unless it is a laboratory attempt to breed AFB resistant bees.


 Well not quite a given. Don't want to get too technical it's another subject but a hive cannot catch AFB from one spore. There has to be several thousand of them fed to just one larva for the larva to actually die of it, after which the infection spreads. So the theory is, a lightly infested hive could be treated with antibiotics to give them enough time to clean out sufficient AFB residue that there is not enough left after antibiotic treatment for symptoms to show again. A heavily infested hive, unlikely they will be able to get rid of enough AFB spores so AFB would just show up again after the antibiotics wear off.
Having said all that, doesn't mean I think it's good practise, I wouldn't do it myself. I just referenced a thread about it that's all.



Acebird said:


> Where is that grey line? How do you instruct a newbie what to look for or how to tell when that grey line is over the edge. I know if a newbie already spent good money on new equipment he has the greatest chance of success going treatment free because he didn't start with a problem. Maybe you Oldtimer, Roland, Michael B and Michael P, Mark and host of others can judge what is safe and what is not but a newbie cannot.


I would say the grey line is a grey line, it cannot be defined exactly. I don't think that me, or anyone else you mentioned would attempt to tell a newbie just when that grey line is over the edge.
I'm no expert on treatment free nor claim to be. What I do know has been learned from my own treatment free bees, and whatever I've been able to learn from the Treatment Free forum, which to be honest, is precious little. Because nobody on the treatment free forum actually knows much about it, the general vibe is "I don't know how it works and don't want to, just let bees be bees, just do it". Success is defined as not loosing every bee you've got. Not a view I could subscribe to.
I've also read Dee Lusby, which is good in that she delves into things in much greater detail than anyone on the Treatment Free forum. She has a lot of theories and hypothesis, which make interesting reading. But nobody else has been able to replicate what she has done commercially despite many trying. So I have to wonder if it's also about her bees, and her environment.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> So I have to wonder if it's also about her bees, and her environment.


Without having proof I believe it is like raising bees in general. There is no one thing that makes it happen it is a bunch of things maybe at the right time that makes is work.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes well, as nobody seems to know, I'll have to go with you, Ace.


----------



## jim lyon

Just a few rambling observations. Tetracycline is commonly used in many if not most commercial operations and has been for at least 40 years. I'm not saying that is good just stating what I know to be true. During my years in beekeeping I have seen less and less afb. Not sure when we had our last case of it, at least 3 years maybe considerably longer and such was not the case decades ago. I can't explain this, is it possible that the same hygienic behavior that is being bred into bees might be the reason. Or put another way, is it possible that hygienic behavior might trump resistance. I know Charles Mraz was working on this angle a long time ago I even bought some of his queens. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## camero7

I have yet to see AFB here. Back in the '70's I used to see some. Had to burn hives back then. I use no antibiotics and hope I never have to.


----------



## jim lyon

camero7 said:


> I have yet to see AFB here. Back in the '70's I used to see some. Had to burn hives back then. I use no antibiotics and hope I never have to.


There is no reason to think you should ever have to or ever want to. The decision to allow the use of antibiotics in the US years ago was a bad one.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> Well not quite a given. Don't want to get too technical it's another subject but a hive cannot catch AFB from one spore. There has to be several thousand of them fed to just one larva for the larva to actually die of it, after which the infection spreads. So the theory is, a lightly infested hive could be treated with antibiotics to give them enough time to clean out sufficient AFB residue that there is not enough left after antibiotic treatment for symptoms to show again. A heavily infested hive, unlikely they will be able to get rid of enough AFB spores so AFB would just show up again after the antibiotics wear off.
> Having said all that, doesn't mean I think it's good practise, I wouldn't do it myself. I just referenced a thread about it that's all.
> 
> I would say the grey line is a grey line, it cannot be defined exactly. I don't think that me, or anyone else you mentioned would attempt to tell a newbie just when that grey line is over the edge.
> I'm no expert on treatment free nor claim to be. What I do know has been learned from my own treatment free bees, and whatever I've been able to learn from the Treatment Free forum, which to be honest, is precious little. Because nobody on the treatment free forum actually knows much about it, the general vibe is "I don't know how it works and don't want to, just let bees be bees, just do it". Success is defined as not loosing every bee you've got. Not a view I could subscribe to.
> I've also read Dee Lusby, which is good in that she delves into things in much greater detail than anyone on the Treatment Free forum. She has a lot of theories and hypothesis, which make interesting reading. But nobody else has been able to replicate what she has done commercially despite many trying. So I have to wonder if it's also about her bees, and her environment.


Ditto


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> The decision to allow the use of antibiotics in the US years ago was a bad one.



I don't know Jim, that's tyoo easy a thing to say from where we sit now, in this day and age. If you had gotten into bees right when the AFB epidemic hit the US I bet you would feel differently.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> I don't know Jim, that's tyoo easy a thing to say from where we sit now, in this day and age. If you had gotten into bees right when the AFB epidemic hit the US I bet you would feel differently.


Perhaps your right. Though I never heard it referred to as an epidemic. I remember many beekeepers talking years ago about antibiotics as a real salvation and I accepted it as such at the time but in hindsight I wonder if everyone had just burned at the time if we would be better off today. Guess I am jealous when I hear Oldtimer talking about how they have never used it down there and they seem to be doing just fine.


----------



## squarepeg

in hindsight, and given the fact that the spores never really go away, i think the aussies got this one right.


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> Perhaps your right. Though I never heard it referred to as an epidemic. I remember many beekeepers talking years ago about antibiotics as a real salvation and I accepted it as such at the time but in hindsight I wonder if everyone had just burned at the time if we would be better off today. Guess I am jealous when I hear Oldtimer talking about how they have never used it down there and they seem to be doing just fine.


I don't think anyone other than me refers to it as an epidemic. But the numbers were of epidemic proportions. What would have been interesting is if a State or a portion of a State had burned instead of using sulfa thiazole and burning. Things may have been different. But there is no way to know now.


----------



## deknow

In our county in Massachusetts, which is in the middle of the state and goes all to the north and south borders, we have almost no AFB....we also don't have a lot of large beekeepers, but we do have pollination bees come in and through the state.
In 1976, I've been told there was about 40% AFB rate. A new bee inspector burned hives almost daily, and kept it up....until our recent funding issues in the state, he has been an inspector ever since. He ruthlessly tracks down the source of any infection...usually only 1 or less incidents in a year...most beekeepers here couldn't identify it unless it was really obvious.
We don't have manditory burning...it can be controlled with TM and Tylan (I don't believe Tylan is approved for prophlactic use anywhere in the states...but folks openly use it that way). Most folks around here don't treat with TM propholactically anymore (best I can tell). We also have an irradiation program in the state, so used or infected equipment (even comb) can be reused. I don't think all the surrounding states and counties do as well in this regard. Best I can tell, we have it good here in regards to AFB, and it is essentially because of one person. If all government employees were that effective at what they are supposed to do, I'd be keeping bees on Mars by now.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

If I recall correctly the original wording on the Tylan label was that it was "for the cure of American Foulbrood". For the cure? I have not read the label, but I sure hope it doesn't say that anymore.


It sounds like your Inspector was given the freedom to do his job.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> In 1976, I've been told there was about 40% AFB rate. A new bee inspector burned hives almost daily, and kept it up
> 
> deknow


This is a blessing, and a curse. Some of the latest generation of beekeepers say "AFB? I never had any AFB. Never seen it or heard of any, no need to go looking for it the bees are handling it". But are unaware of the hard work and effort that went into achieving this lack of AFB.


----------



## sfisher

How does someones bees get AFB to start out with? Where does it come from?


----------



## Oldtimer

In nature, it comes from robbing an infected hive that has been weakened or died from the disease. So there was a balance. But with modern beekeeping it is transferred by beekeepers. We have a lot of hives all next to each other, and we transfer equipment between hives. This tips the balance in favor of the disease, so we also have to take pro-active measures to control the disease.


----------



## sfisher

So then its kinda like the flu?


----------



## sqkcrk

Or the rhinovirus. Always around and takes advantage of the right conditions to have its effects.


----------



## Joel

If you know about AFB, if you have seen outbreaks of AFB, If you have read the New Zealand Studies, if you know about the bee kill prior to 1945 when sulfa drugs were 1st used, if you research what researchers who attend apimondia,ABF conventions and others teach and write, AFB and epidemic are often found in the same sentence as it should be. We had an "outbreak" in NY in the early part of the millenium. Many hundreds of beekeepes had had what is likely over a thousand hives burned and a great deal of terramcyin purchased before it was brought under control. Thankfully the days of hidden "hospital yards" and masked foulbrood are pretty much a thing of the past here.

Epidemic is the correct word, as the potential of epidemic in the abscense of prevention is certainly there. The New Zealand study I think is still the definitive work for control w/o anti-biotics.


----------

