# Treatment free honey production????



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

How much treatment free honey would a treatment free honey producing colony make if a treatment free honey producing colony produced honey? Do you assume that the matter of whether treatments are used or not determines production?


----------



## cheryl1 (Mar 7, 2015)

My neighbors ran a completely treatment free hive this year. It just died out from mites and they harvested 100% of what was left. They got 90lbs. Since we have to leave 80lbs to winter here, I would guess their harvest would have been 10-20 pounds if they had taken honey before winter. It was an early spring swarm placed onto all drawn comb from their dead out last year.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

A'sPOPPY said:


> Curious as to how much honey, treatment free colonies produce?


My treatment free, non-fed, twitchy, VSH and feral cutout mixed, mite resistant mutts produced 60% or so what my friends' high born, beautiful, Italian, syrup fed, docile, treated bees produced last year. In this area, last year was somewhat unusual flow-wise because of sustained and unusual cool nights and rains during the spring clover flow and drought leading up to and during what should have been our fall goldenrod and aster flow. Production was particularly affected last year by how much of the already meager honey production needed to be left for winter stores on hives that were not going to receive supplemental syrup feeding.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> How much treatment free honey would a treatment free honey producing colony make if a treatment free honey producing colony produced honey? Do you assume that the matter of whether treatments are used or not determines production?


Good, funny, interesting questions, but let's not forget management, & the all too important weather as Riverderwent pointed out. I will put another tally under too many variables


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

When I manage them for honey production, my bees produce about 80 pounds which is a bit better than average for this area. I leave about 50 pounds for winter stores. If I split them several times, I'm lucky to get them strong enough to winter. Note that I've been treatment free since 2005.


----------



## A'sPOPPY (Oct 13, 2010)

Just as I thought, thanks all


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

A healthy hive will always out produce a sick or stressed hive. Question should be is a treatment free hive less healthy or less stressed then a treated hive. Or vicea versa? Or will untreated VHS bees preform the same as treat non VHS bees? 

I think fieldsofnaturalhoney nailed it!


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

My treatment free colonies make quite a bit, but I go into winter with twice as many treatment free colonies as I need in spring since my treatment free free colonies die as fast as I can start them.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

I expanded from 2 to 8 this yr and got all colonies over 100 lbs for winter and pulled 9 gal to sell. It was an amazing yr flow wise so I don't count that as normal.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Tenbears said:


> I think fieldsofnaturalhoney nailed it!


i think so too. lots of variables to consider, but here's a synopsis of my 2015 season:

1. went into last winter with 18 colonies.
2. lost 3 over the winter leaving 15 (16.7% loss)
3. increased to 26, sold 5, leaving 21 going into this winter
4. harvested and sold 876 lbs. of honey, left about 800 lbs. of honey for the bees
5. got 19 more medium supers of foundation drawn out.
6. realized just shy of $450 income per overwintered hive


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

a'spoppy, are you treating and how do your numbers compare to mine?


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

squarepeg said:


> 6. realized just shy of $450 income per overwintered hive


Well done, SP!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

many thanks jwc, looking to improve on that in 2016, weather and time permitting.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I started a treatment free yard about eight years ago. Mostly captured swarms without any apparent connection to managed hives. The first season it was my most productive yard. The second season it was my least. And for the remaining two seasons that it existed...it remained at the bottom.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting dan. were they swarmy?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> interesting dan. were they swarmy?


The second spring, if my memory serves me, I had to make a split from most of them.....much the same as most of my conventional hives.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> Good, funny, interesting questions, but let's not forget management, & the all too important weather as Riverderwent pointed out. I will put another tally under too many variables


When we do whatever we can to manage our hives well, no matter what management style we choose, the rest of what it takes to make a crop of honey, a good one or a poor one or an average one, is completely out of our hands. Providence and grace.


----------



## A'sPOPPY (Oct 13, 2010)

squarepeg said:


> a'spoppy, are you treating and how do your numbers compare to mine?


5 years TF, 30% losses, from 0 to 200 lbs per colony harvested per year, avg 65
1st winter treating, no losses as of today, 60 to 210 lbs per colony harvested, avg 110


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

A'sPOPPY said:


> 5 years TF, 30% losses, from 0 to 200 lbs per colony harvested per year, avg 65
> 1st winter treating, no losses as of today, 60 to 210 lbs per colony harvested, avg 110


that's really good production a'spoppy. 

are you still using walt wright's checkerboarding technique and are you still leaving enough honey for the bees so as not to have to feed back syrup?

was it last winter (2014) that you decided to treat and got the better production in 2015? could some of the increase in production have to do with you having more drawn supers?

was there a reason you decided to treat?


----------



## A'sPOPPY (Oct 13, 2010)

Yes I still checkerboard and I decided to treat because of my late summer crashes due to varroa


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

understood a'spoppy. have you stayed with leaving enough honey and no syrup?


----------



## A'sPOPPY (Oct 13, 2010)

No sugar, that would be Sugarbees instead of Honeybees


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## Clayton Huestis (Jan 6, 2013)

Just a thought to point out. If you produce 100 pounds of honey. Then you have to back feed 20 pounds of syrup. Your true amount of surplus is only 80 lbs of honey. So a thread like this is only slightly useful as there is no way to know what each and every one of us is doing. Also makes a difference if one is drawing out new supers vs using already draw combs. So many variables. Also some will be new at TF and there bees are struggling were some have been at it many years and there bees really aren't phased at all. The answers are going to be all over the place on production. Even if this thread was about treated bees one beekeeper could produce 20 lbs per colony and 10 miles down the road another could produce 150 lbs. So I really wouldn't make any conclusions off this thread.....


----------



## A'sPOPPY (Oct 13, 2010)

Just a casual discussion, since I've done it both ways treated and tf, I just wondered what other people's experiences were. I don't use sugar, HFCs, or pollen subs of any kind. I run 25 production hives each year and produce 25 nucs to winter, sell surplus nucs in the spring, and graft and mate all my own Queens. Draw whatever conclusion you like as I was not trying to influence anyone, just a discussion. Now I remember why I rarely post here.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

Easy cowboys &/or cowgirls All questions & answers are valid, after all text does not offer emotion, or does it:lpf:


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i trust your reports are accurate and true poppy, and i appreciate the question.


----------



## JacobWustner (Dec 11, 2015)

My most productive hives came from my treatment free bees. I attribute this to their superior genetics. But honey production also depends on location, year(weather), and size(and health, yes!) of colony. Also remember that hives don't necessarily all have the same needs, there is not magic number of how much honey they will have to consume before the next spring. It depends on the size and how well they conserve their stores. I've pulled over 100 lbs off of a treatment free colony and they had at least that or more left for winter.
But assuming that I am early in my treatment free journey(started in 2013), I expect to see a high number of losses and great variance in production. Once I have stabilized, I hope to harvest 75-100 lbs of honey average from each of my treatment free hives. I expect this to take me 2-3 more years, as long as the geoengineering chemicals don't kill us all first!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

When I was treating they would all die, and those dead ones weren't very productive... Not treating a lot less were dying. The live ones are the same with or without treatments. Production has more to do with management than treating. You want to manage them to peak the population at the main flow. If you do that they can be very productive. If you don't do that they aren't nearly as productive. If they swarm in the middle of May they are not very productive at all...


----------



## JacobWustner (Dec 11, 2015)

Michael Bush said:


> When I was treating they would all die, and those dead ones weren't very productive... Not treating a lot less were dying. The live ones are the same with or without treatments. Production has more to do with management than treating. You want to manage them to peak the population at the main flow. If you do that they can be very productive. If you don't do that they aren't nearly as productive. If they swarm in the middle of May they are not very productive at all...


I totally agree with all of this!!


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> When I was treating they would all die, and those dead ones weren't very productive... Not treating a lot less were dying. The live ones are the same with or without treatments. Production has more to do with management than treating. You want to manage them to peak the population at the main flow. If you do that they can be very productive. If you don't do that they aren't nearly as productive. If they swarm in the middle of May they are not very productive at all...


So you're saying that when you treated, all your bees crashed from varroa?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Not answering for MB, but when I treated, my bees lived, but they were on a never ending cycle of miticide to keep them alive. Now that I am treatment free, the bees keep themselves alive and I can focus on other things like increasing colony count, managing swarming, and harvesting honey.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Wait a minute I thought this was the treatment free forum.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So you're saying that when you treated, all your bees crashed from varroa?

Yes. All of them.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> Yes. All of them.


What were you treating with?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

jwcarlson said:


> What were you treating with?


If memory serves me correctly (I'm sure Mr. Bush will set the record straight if I'm wrong) he treated with Apistan (fluvalinate) in 2001, about the time wide spread resistance was being reported nationwide. In fairness I've treated plenty of bees that died as well. The point of course isn't just whether you treat or not it's whether your treatments are timely and effective. I'm not here to advocate treating only to point out that saying you treated and that your bees still died dosent exactly present the whole picture.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> Production has more to do with management than treating.


Yes, for those whose hive environments have been able to adjust to treatment free.



Michael Bush said:


> You want to manage them to peak the population at the main flow.


Well, yes, to the extent that I can through reasonable hive manipulation and swarm management but at this point not ordinarily through feeding sugar water or pollen substitute. And at this point I would not say that the ability of my bees to survive treatment free is not affected by not feeding.



Michael Bush said:


> If you do that they can be very productive.


Yes.


----------



## SRatcliff (Mar 19, 2011)

cheryl1 said:


> My neighbors ran a completely treatment free hive this year. It just died out from mites and they harvested 100% of what was left. They got 90lbs. Since we have to leave 80lbs to winter here, I would guess their harvest would have been 10-20 pounds if they had taken honey before winter. It was an early spring swarm placed onto all drawn comb from their dead out last year.


A little off topic, but 80lbs for winter seems pretty excess. I try for 45-50lbs for winter. Of course, there are many factors to consider and I'm a couple hours south of you.


----------



## cheryl1 (Mar 7, 2015)

That's what's recommended by the seasoned beekeepers in the area if you aren't going to add sugar bricks. I leave a full medium super, what is packed away in the brood nest, and sugar bricks for insurance.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If memory serves me correctly (I'm sure Mr. Bush will set the record straight if I'm wrong) he treated with Apistan (fluvalinate) in 2001, about the time wide spread resistance was being reported nationwide.

Yes. Unfortunately no one told me it didn't work. They were selling it saying that it did... which is a familiar thing... but these definitely died from Varroa after treating with the currently recommended treatment for Varroa at the time and carefully following the directions.

> In fairness I've treated plenty of bees that died as well. The point of course isn't just whether you treat or not it's whether your treatments are timely and effective. I'm not here to advocate treating only to point out that saying you treated and that your bees still died dosent exactly present the whole picture.

Reality is that many things kill bees and bees and they die treated and they die untreated. Treating will not insure that your bees won't die. NOT treating will not insure that your bees won't die. It has more to do with beekeeping. Make sure they get that last batch of young bees going into winter. Make sure they have enough stores. Make sure your splits are early enough for them to build up....


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> >If memory serves me correctly (I'm sure Mr. Bush will set the record straight if I'm wrong) he treated with Apistan (fluvalinate) in 2001, about the time wide spread resistance was being reported nationwide.
> 
> Yes. Unfortunately no one told me it didn't work. They were selling it saying that it did... which is a familiar thing... but these definitely died from Varroa after treating with the currently recommended treatment for Varroa at the time and carefully following the directions.
> .


On this we can agree.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> Treating will not insure that your bees won't die. NOT treating will not insure that your bees won't die.


That's very true, but by treating for mites, you can most likely rule out death by mite..............


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>That's very true, but by treating for mites, you can most likely rule out death by mite..............

I did treat for mites. It WAS death by mites.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> I did treat for mites. It WAS death by mites.


This is your quote Michael "I treated three times with the OA on the hives that I treated. I think that was 2002 or 2003. It looked like the OA vapor was killing between 90 and 95% of the Varroa and subsequent treatments would take 90 to 95% of what remained."


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> I did treat for mites. It WAS death by mites.


Baby with the bathwater?
Is there any difference between this and someone who dismisses TF as being impossible after trying with a few package queens?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I think you are missing the timeline snl, in 2001, he treated with Apistan which did not work so his bees died. He tried to cobble together the remnants in 2002 and 2003 using OA. As a beekeeper who lost all of my colonies a couple of times, once to tracheal mites, and again to varroa mites, I can understand that part of trying to put the pieces back together.

JWC, you too are going out of scale. MB was on the same trajectory I was in 2001 to 2004. I finally got the resources together to go treatment free in 2005 which is about the same time he switched to small cell, then natural cell, then got off the treatment bandwagon.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Perhaps FP, but Michael was saying when he treated he lost all his hives to mites. It APPEARS tho when he treated with OAV, in 2002-2003 he did not...


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Fusion_power said:


> JWC, you too are going out of scale. MB was on the same trajectory I was in 2001 to 2004. I finally got the resources together to go treatment free in 2005 which is about the same time he switched to small cell, then natural cell, then got off the treatment bandwagon.


All I'm saying is that using an example of ineffective mite treatment isn't representative and frankly, it is disingenuous.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jwcarlson said:


> it is disingenuous.


Indeed.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

What should he have treated with in 2001? What was legal to use at the time? What was being recommended by the experts, journals, and USDA? What else was available in 2001? Who recommended it to hobby beekeeper?

Shame on Michael for not having figured out that Coumaphos would have been a better option at the time.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Michael by his own admission used OAV in 2002-2003 which was illegal at that time......


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

deknow said:


> What should he have treated with in 2001? What was legal to use at the time? What was being recommended by the experts, journals, and USDA? What else was available in 2001? Who recommended it to hobby beekeeper?
> 
> Shame on Michael for not having figured out that Coumaphos would have been a better option at the time.


You're entirely missing the point, Dean (purposely?). Regarding legality, there didn't seem to be a concern when he used OAV in the early 2000s, so we can assume that wasn't a concern for him (as it hasn't been for many of us). 
It's a case of blaming the tool. That is not to say there was a better tool available... but *objective* builders wouldn't blame their shed falling apart in the wind when all they had available to them to keep it standing was thread.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Here, from a report in 2004, lays out pretty well the timeline...Apistan to Coumaphos to formic. ...yet despite the many attributes of formic...and the years and years of formulation and packaging refinements, it still doesn't quite do the trick...does it? 

The idea that in retrospect that anyone should have been smart enough to have known to treat with Coumaphos in 2001....or that a hobby beekeeper in 2001 should have considered Apistan an ineffective treatment for mites isn't really worth discussing.

http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/41282/PDF


> Presently, there are two registered acaricides available
> to beekeepers in the United States. The pyrethroid
> ßuvalinate (Apistan, Wellmark International,
> Schaumburg, IL) has been on the market longest, with
> ...


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

However, OAV was used my Michael illegally, in 2002-2003 with outstanding (by his own admission) results...........


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This is your quote Michael "I treated three times with the OA on the hives that I treated. I think that was 2002 or 2003. It looked like the OA vapor was killing between 90 and 95% of the Varroa and subsequent treatments would take 90 to 95% of what remained."

Yes OAV killed mites. There weren't many because I was on small cell at that time, but I was trying to gauge the efficacy of the OAV. Yes, it was effective against mites. No, I've never used it since.

>Baby with the bathwater? Is there any difference between this and someone who dismisses TF as being impossible after trying with a few package queens?

The point is that losses when treating by the currently recommended methods were bad. Losses when not treating were less. Could I possibly figure out how to treat and still keep them alive? Perhaps, but my goal was to figure out how NOT to treat them and still keep them alive.

>All I'm saying is that using an example of ineffective mite treatment isn't representative and frankly, it is disingenuous.

I've been called a lot of things. I guess "disingeniuous" may be better than some. I think I'm pretty stragith forward. I know plenty of people using all kinds of treatments from then up to today and still losing their bees. I see nothing disingenuous about my point. Frankly trying to figure out how to treat them was never my goal anyway. Trying to figure out now to not NEED to treat them was my goal. But when treating, out of desperation, by the currently recommended methods, they were still dying at higher rates than when I quit.

>Shame on Michael for not having figured out that Coumaphos would have been a better option at the time.

All the people I knew that year who used Coumaphos lost all their bees as well... but maybe it would have been. I did my homework on the chemical's effects on humans and couldn't bring myself to use it...

>Michael by his own admission used OAV in 2002-2003 which was illegal at that time......

It was not even talked about back in 2001, but I spoke to a USDA person from Kansas in about 2003 who was of the opinion that as long as it was not labeled as a pesticide (which it was not) it was not illegal to use a basically food safe ingredient to try to kill mites. He said it was no different than powered sugar or spraying fruit trees with dish soap. They are not approved as pesticides, but neither are they labeled as such. So as long as your food product is not contaminated by them (a VERY important aspect), and the product you are using is not labeled as a treatment, you are probably not breaking the law. However as soon as Oxalic acid was labeled as a pesticide, then you were only allowed to use it according to the label. But I'm sure there are lawyers who could argue it either way.

>You're entirely missing the point, Dean (purposely?). Regarding legality, there didn't seem to be a concern when he used OAV in the early 2000s, so we can assume that wasn't a concern for him (as it hasn't been for many of us). 

Wow! You guys never give up picking on people do you. In 2000 and 2001 no one was even suggesting OAV in this country. I had never heard of it. I was doing what the USDA and the FDA and the EPA had approved and what was being recommended. I am TRULY sorry I listened to them. But I see no reason to apologize to all of you for it...

>However, OAV was used my Michael illegally, in 2002-2003 with outstanding (by his own admission) results...........

All the "by his own admission" things get really old.


----------



## JacobWustner (Dec 11, 2015)

Hello Everybody!

Stop hating on Michael! Pick on me instead! 

I have been using formic acid for over 10 years, with a lot of success! But after I went treatment free, I also ran 24 hives as I was taught, using formic and thymol alternately, to have a group to compare my treatment free bees to. This past year, I treated those 24 with formic acid for my late summer/early fall treatment. By October, 23 of 24 hives that were treated for mites, died from what looked like mites. Of the 50 treatment free hives I had, 20 or so died from what looks like mites. So, the treatment free bees did better against mites than the treated hives. It was a sign to me that my TF bees were actually showing signs of improvement, and the treated hives were inferior, genetically. Confirming my suspicions that treating my honey bees is causing more harm than good.

And I thought that if everyone stopped treating, then the good genetics would show themselves. Most people's hives would be dead, but it would expose the weakness of the system. But now the good genetics are hidden(and diluted) in the mist of a huge system of propped-up honey bees that are dependent on miticides. That is my opinion of course!  Anyway, that is my experience.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

JacobWustner said:


> Hello Everybody!
> Pick on me instead!


Would you be here if you couldn't put your website in your signature?


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

jwcarlson said:


> Would you be here if you couldn't put your website in your signature?


 You're just being mean ...


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Terry C said:


> You're just being mean ...


That's mean? Where did you people grow up? It's an honest question. He's made it pretty clear he is here to make people realize he's the "real deal" so he can sell more videos. I'm just curious to know if he'd still be here if Barry wasn't gracious enough to allow free advertising.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I suspect Terry C was expressing dry hillbilly sarcasm. Hillbilly's don't normally talk that way, they are much more direct. Now I'm just being mean.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

That was said tongue-in-cheek ... since there have been so many accusations of meanness . Boy howdy ya sure can tell it's winter ! It's similar in the motorcycle forums , can't ride so we snipe at each other . 

My TF (so far) bees are doing well , and they seem to be quite frugal with their winter consumption . This year will tell me whether those TF genetics I bought to start are being preserved in my hives . Three of the 4 have daughters , the 4th has a granddaughter from the original queen . Their honey production is still not nailed down , but I think this year will tell that also . Last year was a growth year , this year I'm going to try for honey production . The plan is for no foundation/not wired to make comb and chunk honey to sell to the tourons ... can't call it "organic" but I can say natural local honey from chemical-free hives .


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Is a "touron" like a moron except the touron eventually goes someplace else? I think I see another difference. Tourons often have cash to spend, morons rarely do. Then again, morons may have the upper hand, every time you think they are gone, there are "more" of them. That is why we call them "More-ons". Is this relevant to the discussion at hand? That depends on how much honey and at what price you sold to tourons last year.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

Fusion_power said:


> Is a "touron" like a moron except the touron eventually goes someplace else? I think I see another difference. Tourons often have cash to spend, morons rarely do. Then again, morons may have the upper hand, every time you think they are gone, there are "more" of them. That is why we call them "More-ons". Is this relevant to the discussion at hand? That depends on how much honey and at what price you sold to tourons last year.


 Well ,they do bring a lot of money to the local economy ... The relevance is that the thread is about TF honey production . I didn't sell any last year , left what they made for the bees since I did splits . I have been polling the merchants downtown about what the tourists ask for , and comb/chunk honey is in demand . Therefor I will attempt to fill that niche , since no one else is .


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Terry C said:


> That was said tongue-in-cheek ... since there have been so many accusations of meanness .


Terry, I hadn't ready Jacob Wuster's "or maybe you're just mean" response to OT yet... now that I have, I understand yours.  Apologies for the 'miscommunication'.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

JW , No apology needed , I'm sitting here being amused by the whole thing .


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

snl said:


> However, OAV was used my Michael illegally, in 2002-2003 with outstanding (by his own admission) results...........



you keep pounding this, but I remember someone who was selling vaporizers when it was illegal as well. Heck it's still not legal in my state for all I know you selling many this way?


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Harley Craig said:


> you keep pounding this, but I remember someone who was selling vaporizers when it was illegal as well. Heck it's still not legal in my state for all I know you selling many this way?


He said it again because Deknow implied that MB didn't have an legal alternatives. Which could very well be the case... but since he didn't have a problem using OAV that point is moot.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...that's like saying that if I drove over the speed limit one particular time for my own particular reasons, that it should be assumed that I am, amd should have been willing to drive over the speed limit every other time I drove.

There were legal alternatives....using the best data and most current information (at the time), he should have used coumaphos. I'm fairly certain that micheal is not thinking how much more he would have gotten from beekeeping if he had just used coumaphos in 2001.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

jwcarlson said:


> He said it again because Deknow implied that MB didn't have an legal alternatives. Which could very well be the case... but since he didn't have a problem using OAV that point is moot.



that's completely fine, I'm just saying those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>He said it again because Deknow implied that MB didn't have an legal alternatives. Which could very well be the case... but since he didn't have a problem using OAV that point is moot.

I realize you are simply trying to be obtuse, and everything is moot to you if you want it to be... and I'm missing what your point is entirely.

In 2000 and 2001 I was doing what was recommended at the time. I don't understand what you think I SHOULD have been doing. I was not searching for other solutions because those no longer worked as I was unaware of that fact (that recommended treatments were not working) at the time. I certainly was not desperate enough at that time to consider looking for things outside the recommended treatments. OAV was not even being discussed at the time and I was not even on the forums at the time to hear those discussions if it was. You seem to be assuming I knew all about treatments in Europe. At the time I did not. You also seem to be assuming that I would be willing to use them at the time, and I would not have been. You also seem to be assuming, as deknow has pointed out, that I would be willing to do the same thing today that I would do when I was desperate because not treating was failing and then treating was failing. I am not. In 2001 I knew of no alternatives other than Coumaphos which from my research I was not willing to use, and Fluvalinate. I had not heard of ANY other alternatives from any source. Those were the two treatments on the market. Apparently I'm being criticized for following directions... and then after that failed, for trying to find another solution.

People today are still using recommended treatments and often losing their bees. Somehow that is supposed to be different and I'm not supposed to compare my failure then to their failure now, but it all looks like the same failure to me.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> In 2000 and 2001 I was doing what was recommended at the time. I don't understand what you think I SHOULD have been doing.


Dean was implying there was no legal method available at the time... and implying that your hands were tied to only "legal" treatments when you (like probably who knows... 75-80% of this forum have used OA in one fashion or another "illegally"). 

You did exactly what I think you should have done (not that it matters what I think to you, nor should it). The only issue I have is with the implication that pretty much everyone who treats is losing pretty much all of their bees. When the exact opposite appears to be true here. If mites are in control and there's food... the bees pretty much seem fine most times. Sure there's probably plenty of people that tossed an OAV treatment in a hive in December that then died in January after having done nothing to control mites except shaking the package onto Mann Lake plastic frames. Surely that doesn't equate to known, successful mite treatments that were applied with correct timing and method.



Michael Bush said:


> The first year I tried natural comb, I was running behind trying to change over and things didn’t go so well. The mites were already pretty populated and I treated with Apistan again only to lose them anyway. The next year I started with some established hives I bought and started regressing those early in the year. When I was seeing natural comb in the 4.6mm range I decided there was nothing unnatural about 4.9mm foundation, but I was really more interested in natural comb. I was concerned about treating while regressing (the skeptic in me) so I used FGMO every week during the year on most of the hives. The bees did pretty well and by the next year (2003) oxalic acid vapor was being discussed on Beesource. I decided I would finish the year out by using the oxalic to see what the mite counts were. Judging by the first week compared to the second week, I concluded that oxalic vapor was very successful at killing mites, but also that small cell had been working and that, while FGMO kept the numbers down somewhat, it was more trouble that the benefit. I was also concerned that FGMO would soften the wax in the long run, and blowing up a hive when the flames ignited the vapors once, was a bit disconcerting.


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?292878-Why-I-don-t-consider-using-treatments

I'm not trying to be obtuse at all... Dean bringing any treatment's legality into the equation doesn't mean anything based on the fact that you (again, like a majority of us here probably) were willing to use OAV. That's all that I think SNL was getting at where ever the original reply about that came up.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

Terry C said:


> The plan is for no foundation/not wired to make comb and chunk honey to sell to the tourons ... can't call it "organic" but I can say natural local honey from chemical-free hives.


Check that, I think you would be better off saying from treatment free hives


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> People today are still using recommended treatments and often losing their bees.


True, but does that mean they treated properly, at the proper time, with a treatment that works, and their colonies died from varroa? Or they treated when it was already too late, or with something that doesn't really work, or maybe their bees died from a million other reasons? Too often you seem to be meaning, while not saying, "People today are still using recommended treatments and still losing their bees from varroa, so why bother treating."


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> Too often you seem to be meaning, while not saying, "People today are still using recommended treatments and still losing their bees from varroa, so why bother treating."


It is easier when you don't have to worry about treating. I would still say that a person has to get set up to go treatment free and it is virtually impossible with most package bees.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Fusion_power said:


> I would still say that a person has to get set up to go treatment free and it is virtually impossible with most package bees.


True, but there are those who advocate _*TF no matter*_, that's the point. And that I believe is a big point of contention between TF folk and T folk. You can't be TF (and have your hives survive) when those around you have "mite bombs." It appears from what I've read, that those who are TF and successful, don't have other beekeepers in the vicinity. 

Everyone would love to be TF. There is no debate there.........


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> I would still say that a person has to get set up to go treatment free and it is virtually impossible with most package bees.


Do you agree that it is simply a matter of converting to small cell....and you'll never lose another hive to mites?


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> Check that, I think you would be better off saying from treatment free hives


 Semantics , but you do have a point .


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Semantics is the art of converting a piece of half raw castrated bull meat into a sizzling hot juicy rib-eye steak.



> Do you agree that it is simply a matter of converting to small cell....and you'll never lose another hive to mites?


I've said repeated here on Beesource that I have several colonies on large cell and do not see a difference between them and the small cell colonies in terms of mite resistance. I use small cell because I see a small but significant advantage in spring buildup with small cell bees. I have no immediate plans to change to large cell, but if I decide to do so, I have several thousand sheets of foundation that will allow me to do so with no problems.


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Fusion_power said:


> I've said repeated here on Beesource that I have several colonies on large cell and do not see a difference between them and the small cell colonies in terms of mite resistance. I use small cell because I see a small but significant advantage in spring buildup with small cell bees. I have no immediate plans to change to large cell, but if I decide to do so, I have several thousand sheets of foundation that will allow me to do so with no problems.


This confirms what Tim Ives said. I notice that his 3-deep bees come out of winter roaring, so they don't need a spring buildup. Guess that is why he sticks with large cell.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

A'sPOPPY said:


> Curious as to how much honey, treatment free colonies produce?


I see established feral colonies with 50 to 75 pounds of honey after the flow. They are not managed to prevent swarming and maximize production. If they are a few generations away from a managed hive, then they have not been bred by beekeepers for maximum production, but rather by nature for maximum survival. Some of the same mixtures of genes that contribute to survival with _varroa_ may be associated with undesirable traits such as aggressiveness, lower production, or swarming. Slowly decreasing those undesirable traits without losing the ability to survive well without treatment is my challenge. Sometimes I don't know whether we should thank Barry or he should thank us. Live well and prosper.


----------



## SwampCat (Jul 14, 2011)

Always been TF - my established hives produce about 50 lbs of honey that I take per year. Average for this area is 60. If I had enough supers with drawn foundation to go around, I could probably do better than 60 in a decent year. Hive losses average 10 to 15% per year - almost all spring or summer losses - rarely a winter loss.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Riverderwent said:


> I see established feral colonies with 50 to 75 pounds of honey after the flow. They are not managed to prevent swarming and maximize production. If they are a few generations away from a managed hive, then they have not been bred by beekeepers for maximum production, but rather by nature for maximum survival. Some of the same mixtures of genes that contribute to survival with _varroa_ may be associated with undesirable traits such as aggressiveness, lower production, or swarming. Slowly decreasing those undesirable traits without losing the ability to survive well without treatment is my challenge. Sometimes I don't know whether we should thank Barry or he should thank us. Live well and prosper.


Production leads to reproductive success though. A feral colony able to occupy a large cavity can throw swarm after swarm and start swarming before those barely able to make it through winter in smaller cavities. They would take most of the deadouts. I would guess that large productive colonies that survive would start to genetically dominate the landscape.


----------

