# Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?



## Capps (Jul 21, 2012)

I am new to beekeeping, and did a sugar-shake test on my large hive- counted 7 mites from 300 bees. Then, I followed up with a sticky-board and counted 32 mites after 24 hours. Is this a relatively high count, or extremely high count, or do they stand a chance? I do not want to treat but I also don't want to be irresponsible. Is there anything I should do? 

My other hive is smaller but I only counted a single mite. That said, I hope the other hive does not make them sick too.

Angie


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

mite counts are irrelevant for those who wish to remain treatment free. The mites don't kill them they make them weak and then sickness kills them. Some colonies ( those who remain treatment free) can have ungodly amounts of mites and be ok while others never get too bad. You need to decide if you want to treat or not and then stick to your decision. You will never develop treatment free bees if you decide to treat at the last min to save them.


----------



## Charlie King (Apr 27, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I don't think anyone "wants" to treat ... I only have 1 hive and I really want more splits from them in the spring so anything to help their chances. I counted 8 mites and used OAV. If you are ok with losing yours you may think different! I plan to be TF asap though...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

32 is pretty typical for the fall.


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

If you want to be TF, you have to buy TF queens or be prepared to suffer a lot of losses. Find somebody local that is TF and go from there. 
I use drop counts and treated at anything over 50 in a 24 hour period. Which is considered VERY high. Now I don't test, I treated my treated hives twice a year, once when the dearth is in full swing and the supers are off. Then again in late fall ending around thanksgiving for me. It's as easy to treat with OAV as it is to test for it and then treat. Now that I have some TF stock, I'm testing them and not treating, YET... I've got my fingers and toes crossed....


----------



## COAL REAPER (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

who cares if you already have the mindset that you do not want to treat? stick with it.
if you will not be treating then dont waste your time testing. you will find yourself worrying too much.
irresponsible? do some soul searching and figure out if your short-term goals line up and cascade into your long-term.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

If you consider your colonies to be expendable, and you have the funds to purchase new bees each year, then start out on the non-treatment path if you wish. At the present time I have 14 colonies that are in my non-treatment group, but I also have 48 nucs as a back-up for those 14. If I lose all 14 it is no big deal, if you lose both of yours will you replace them or quit keeping bees?

Before you join the treatment free movement you need to have a few years experience keeping bees and learning about bees. Start in the treatment camp, transition to the semi-treatment, and then if you are lucky and you find the right strain of bee go to treatment free.


----------



## nschomer (Mar 14, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I'm in the same boat with Charlie. Got a single hive that I would love to survive long enough to make splits off of, acquiring some genetics from whatever the local population is in the process. I recently tried the sugar-drop method as described by Randy Oliver and got 50 mites in 24 hours after dusting with powdered sugar, which is certainly higher than it was in the late spring but still a comfortable level. I will do two or three more like this and see how the curve is going, if numbers start spiking I'll probably use a quickstrip and give them some pollen supplement to try and beef them up for the winter, but if numbers stay low I'll avoid additional treatments and cross my fingers through the winter.
P.S. In counting mites, you only count the deep red ones, right? I read somewhere that the brown ones are already dead and don't count towards the total, though they were only at maybe 1/3rd the number anyway.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Angie, did you buy treatment free bees from the start? Or did your breeder treat and you're planning to be treatment free? If you did not buy treatment free bees, they will crash. Sooner or later. I bought treatment free bees from the beginning, and have never done mite counts nor treated. This is since 2005, and my hives are still going strong, other than the usual problems. But mites have never been a problem. I only saw deformed wing virus in one colony, and that was in my first year, but the colony pulled through that. But again, my bees were acquired from B. Weaver, who has never treated for mites in their operation. Check out their web site. Use that information as a measure to judge your bees, or any bees you would buy from a breeder. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Colino (May 28, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



AR Beekeeper said:


> If you consider your colonies to be expendable, and you have the funds to purchase new bees each year, then start out on the non-treatment path if you wish. At the present time I have 14 colonies that are in my non-treatment group, but I also have 48 nucs as a back-up for those 14. If I lose all 14 it is no big deal, if you lose both of yours will you replace them or quit keeping bees?
> 
> Before you join the treatment free movement you need to have a few years experience keeping bees and learning about bees. Start in the treatment camp, transition to the semi-treatment, and then if you are lucky and you find the right strain of bee go to treatment free.


That sir is very sound advice.
Colino


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Colino said:


> That sir is very sound advice.
> Colino


I am not so sure I would call that sound advice, because that is the same advice I got over, and over, and over. With the advice that if you don't treat your bees, they all will be dead in three years. I am grateful I didn't listen, or I would not have live treatment free bees, or I would be still trying to wean hives off of treatments. Unfortunately, many beekeepers who grasp this advice never become treatment free. Granted if Capps bees were treated from his supplier, just as well keep treating them at this stage.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

>Which is considered VERY high.

I would not consider it very high in the fall. I would consider it very high in the spring.

The bottom line is if you keep bees you will lose bees. You will lose them sometimes when you treat. You will lose them sometimes when you don't treat. The fear of loss drives humans to do things to prevent loss even if it won't improve the odds. We feel like we have to do something even if it's wrong. In my experience treating does not improve the odds. Getting local feral survivors will improve the odds of getting through the winter for a number of reasons and is worth pursuing.


----------



## Colino (May 28, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> I am not so sure I would call that sound advice, because that is the same advice I got over, and over, and over. With the advice that if you don't treat your bees, they all will be dead in three years. I am grateful I didn't listen, or I would not have live treatment free bees, or I would be still trying to wean hives off of treatments. Unfortunately, many beekeepers who grasp this advice never become treatment free. Granted if Capps bees were treated from his supplier, just as well keep treating them at this stage.


I just figure it's better to first learn to keep bees before trying to save the bee industry. Leave that part to the people who have the experience.
Colino


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Colino said:


> I just figure it's better to first learn to keep bees before trying to save the bee industry. Leave that part to the people who have the experience.
> Colino


Awesome response.....


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

My treatment free bees started from treated stock in 2006. They have been in a Bond Yard until this year. I brought home 4 queens and raised daughters from them to head the 14 full sized colonies and the 32 nucs I keep in my home yard. 

In May the 4 queens and their colonies had 24 hour mite falls that ranged from a low of 32 to a high of 135. These colonies and their daughters have had high mite fall counts, but did not show evidence of mite damage until mid August when 2 or 3 had spotty brood patterns because of pupa being removed. Those patterns have improved and none have shown DWV damage. The mite drop counted on the 8th of this month ranges from 43 up to 112. The 14 colonies and 16 of the nucs will not be treated this year, the other 32 nucs I have will receive a treatment of Hopguard because they will be sold.

When I went non-treatment I had 60 field colonies to choose from, and I selected 12 from those. I am what I would call semi-treatment in most of my bees, this means they receive a treatment once every 3 or 4 years if the drop counts become very high. My winter losses have ranged 8 to 13% in my home yard for full sized colonies and 15% in my nucs. All my bees were once what is called "treated bees", my Bond Yard bees included. My bees are all on Pierco plastic foundations, and no matter what you read on the forum, they thrive. They are fed sugar syrup without anything added if they are on short rations or if they are drawing out foundations with no flow on, otherwise they are left with frames of honey.

Telling a beginning beekeeper not to treat their colonies when they only have 2 colonies and no nuc back-ups is poor advice. I doubt anyone here is willing to send them a few hundred dollars to replace their losses if they follow that advice, and then their colonies die. If they are lucky to have started with good strains of bees, and their bees survive the viruses the varroa carry, we pat ourselves on the back and say what good advice we give. If they die, we forget we ever said anything.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

If you want to be treatment free, when your colonies are dead then the mite populations were too high.... That being said, I think Treatment free is something to work towards, not jump into blindly. I only say that because of this, it takes bees to make bees, otherwise you're on someone else's schedule. Also, most people just sell queens, hard to requeen dead bees with good TF queens and 4-6 attendants. It's kind of why the 'bond' method makes no sense to me, especially if you're trying to build up. It's obvious when the bees aren't going to make it pretty quick, so treat them, then requeen, or remove the queen and let them try again, why waste all those resources.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

If you don't want to treat, why count?


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



AR Beekeeper said:


> Before you join the treatment free movement you need to have a few years experience keeping bees and learning about bees. Start in the treatment camp, transition to the semi-treatment, and then if you are lucky and you find the right strain of bee go to treatment free.


I just don't understand the logic of this. Why can't one go about this (learning about keeping treatment fee bees),,at the same time? I don't think Capps is trying to save the bee industry, but save his bees,, who may not even be in "trouble", ,:scratch:,,,but if he is.., KUDOS...,,. I personally don't waste resources if James "Bond" takes some of my hives to their demise. I redistribute the resources (smiling the whole time), knowing that they are still hopefully, treatment & disease free.

It's all part of the bottom line as mentioned before, but all hives don't die because of mites, there are many other factors. Perhaps, COAL REAPER, has the right ideal:thumbsup:


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

The logic comes from new treatment free beeks coming in and knowing nothing about diseases cuz they are treatment free so why care about them. People who research treatments usually learn what to look for when treating, but at the same time are more prone to treat for everything needlessly just because that's what they heard what you need to do. Either system isn't perfect and beekeeping is too locational to preach one line of dogma.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



JRG13 said:


> The logic comes from new treatment free beeks coming in and knowing nothing about diseases cuz they are treatment free so why care about them. People who research treatments usually learn what to look for when treating, but at the same time are more prone to treat for everything needlessly just because that's what they heard what you need to do. Either system isn't perfect and beekeeping is too locational to preach one line of dogma.


TF beekeepers - and I hope to be one some day - need to recognize the issues they are not treating for. As I have said previously, I don't do anything for AFB - but I'm aware as someone who hasn't yet had it of what it looks (and smells!) like, and what the requirements are in Maine should it be discovered.

I have no issues with someone starting out TF IF they are 1) they are doing regular inspections and 2) have resources/plans for dealing with things they don't recognize. A serious TF beekeeper should know the difference between something that the bees will have to deal with on their own and something that requires beekeeper action.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

A person should not go into any kind or type of beekeeping blindly. Some do, but they usually fail, or learn the hard and expensive way. I had kept bees about 20 years before quitting due to a move. When I resumed in 2005 I jumped in treatment free, AFTER research. I bought treatment free bees, two packages from B. Weaver. I let that company do the work, I bought their bees, and haven't looked back. I do not treat for mites, nor do I bother with mite counts. I do pay attention to other diseases, pests, and problems. 

Like Andrew mentions above, the key to ANY successful beekeeping is to do regular inspections. To be a responsible beekeeper, whether treatment free or treating. Location, genetics, and basic sound animal husbandry will (generally) succeed every time. By "responsible beekeeper" I mean learning about your bees, reading ABJ or Bee Culture, buying the good basic books and reading them, inspecting your hives regularly, learning to "read" your bees as they enter and exit the hive, and so forth. In other words, being a beekeeper, instead of a bee haver. 

You CAN start off being treatment free, IF you get TF bees to begin with, and work to be a responsible beekeeper. Then again, if you're not a responsible beekeeper, you won't succeed with treatments either.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

>I just don't understand the logic of this. Why can't one go about this (learning about keeping treatment fee bees),,at the same time? 

Everything I would do is much easier to do from the start. Natural comb or small cell is much easier from the start and natural comb is LESS difficult than using regular foundation. There is no reason not to do it from the start.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I think everyone would be treatment free if possible, but we just haven't been able to make that happen yet. I don't mean to lump all the new TF beekeepers into the know nothing category, there are some that take the time to learn, but it seems a lot of beeks on both sides of the spectrums barely learn the basic biology of bees before they dive in and it's just a lose-lose situation.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Mite count is considered high is when bees seem to be having troubles. Which in turn depends on their virus load and ability to withstand viruses.

Look at their brood patterns. Look at the bees. If the brood is capped well, with nicely rising cappings, if there are no wingless bees, you don´t have to worry about the mite count, IF your stock can withstand mites.

32 mites in 24 hours is in my country considered very high, and with ordinary bees you should treat them right away. 

But: in autumn, mite droppings can be very high, because the last brood is emerging. This can be your case, because you found only 7 mites in 300 bees, which in turn, is low.


----------



## Capps (Jul 21, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

It is very helpful to read through all the responses. Thanks to all. And thanks especially for the numbers and examples of what is considered high.

I did not know I could purchase bees that are from treatment free hives. And though I know it is not a guarantee, it is worth looking into. If my hives do not come out of winter, I will look into buying new ones that come from treatment free colonies. 

If I were to capture drone brood in the fall (right before they are kicked out anyway- seems like a good compromise to lower mite counts), is that considered treatment-free? I mean, that is:
What I think I am understanding, treatment-free is all about raising strong bees resistant to mites, passing on good genetics, isn't it? So, if I am doing any kind of intervening, whether it be antibiotics or cutting out drone brood, or sugar, that is not helping your bees to stand on their own. Am I right? Is that the idea?

I suppose I ask, because, if I can help (not that I am qualified), but do my part for all bees to overcome varoa, I guess I am headed in that direction.

Okay, treatment-free folks, I want to know the best sources to read on this- philosophy, strategy and others. Treatment free books?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Nearly twenty years ago, I relocated from Santa Fe, New Mexico to Marana, Arizona. I brought no bees or equipment with me. Once I was here in the Tucson/Marana area, I obtained new equipment and obtained bees from a cutout.

I then subscribed to both "Bee Culture" and "American Bee Journal", to update myself on current beekeeping events. I soon learned of current issues with AHB and with Varroa mites. Before this, I had basically been oblivious concerning contemporary beekeeping issues. By the time I'd learned that Varroa infested hives would surely perish by their second season, I'd already had a dozen hives survive for ten seasons without a single treatment, of any kind.

Occasionally I see phoretic mites, some bees with DWV, or even some brood with PMS. My intention is to remain mostly treatment free (I sometimes use Bt on idle combs, for wax moth larva suppression).

So, for me, counting mites would basically be as helpful as counting cars on the freeway. Since that first ten years, it's been almost eight more years, and I'm still waiting to lose colonies to mites. If, somehow, the situation changes, I'm sure I might reconsider using mite treatments, but, until then . . .



> Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?


 Since everything seems, "good enough" without treatments, for now. I find no compelling reason to, "check my mite loads/count". Unless my colonies begin showing catastrophic collapse, likely related to mites - I find no reason to check for mite count. Likewise I don't spend much time fixing things that aren't broken. I don't replace the engine in my car, each year, whether it needs it or not, either. I'm just funny that way - I think of it as being kinda lazy.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Joseph Clemens said:


> So, for me, counting mites would basically be as helpful as counting cars on the freeway.


@Joseph - the only reason I can see for you to count mites was if you were trying to convince anyone that your bees cope with X% mite infestation. Since that doesn't appear to be one of your goals, I agree that it is pointless for you in your situation to count mites. (not that you or your bees need any acknowledgement or validation from me)

Though I'm happy for you and your bees...


----------



## COAL REAPER (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

treatment free is a kinda loose definition. most agree that treatments are at minimum adding any chemicals/synthetics to a hive that the colony would not bring in on its own. more continue to include oils and powder sugar as treatments. and some say that brood breaks and screened bottom boards are also treatments. then theres natural beekeeping and non-intervention beekeeping and etc, etc. heck, you can make up hokey-pokey beekeeping and set your own guidlines as you see fit. then maybe in 10 years all the freshman beeks will strive to get into hokey-pokey beekeeping. i dont have time for all that jazz. figure out what makes sense with what YOU want to do or not do with YOUR bees and have to figure out if that works in YOUR locale. you will lose colonies in the process but it will get better. i lost my two packages my first year. three my second. disheartening but with a light at the end of the tunnel as in my second year a swarm i had collected survived. EUREKA! third year three packages again died but three mutt queens made it. hmm...i dont buy packages any more.
its more than just being resistant to mites. its coping with them.
another thought: if you were to treat your hives, are you going to be one of those people who is forever worried about what trace chemicals may still be contained in the comb that you continue to use after you transition to toally TF?
as far as sources you cant google your life away. you will learn which people are bogus or whose ideas dont align with your own. i think you are figuring out that if you ask a half dozen beeks a question you will get a dozen or more opinions.
do you have any idea why you lost your bees from last year?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Joseph Clemens said:


> So, for me, counting mites would basically be as helpful as counting cars on the freeway. Since that first ten years, it's been almost eight more years, and I'm still waiting to lose colonies to mites. If, somehow, the situation changes, I'm sure I might reconsider using mite treatments, but, until then . . .
> 
> Since everything seems, "good enough" without treatments, for now. I find no compelling reason to, "check my mite loads/count". Unless my colonies begin showing catastrophic collapse, likely related to mites - I find no reason to check for mite count. Likewise I don't spend much time fixing things that aren't broken. I don't replace the engine in my car, each year, whether it needs it or not, either. I'm just funny that way - I think of it as being kinda lazy.


I understand your sentiments Joe but as a commercial guy with lots to lose I find that mite checks tells a lot about whether what we are doing is successful or a waste of time and money and it's soooooo quick and easy to do. I find myself constantly amazed that a common thread among so many treatment free folks is an unwillingness to try to quantify their treatment free successes with actual numbers. I, for one, would find it fascinating to find out whether your successes are a result of low mite numbers or the ability to cope with high mite numbers. I don't mean for this to come off as an "us vs. them" type of challenge but rather a genuine interest in finding out what the heck is going on in successful treatment free hives.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Has anyone who doesn't treat answered the question posed in the Thread Title?


----------



## COAL REAPER (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



sqkcrk said:


> Has anyone who doesn't treat answered the question posed in the Thread Title?


MB did.

my answers:
Is this a relatively high count, or extremely high count, or do they stand a chance? 
I wouldnt know.


Is there anything I should do?
no, not if you truly want to be treatment free. maybe a prayer? that wouldnt hurt regardless of treating or not...


as far as being commercial, i really dont know what i would do if i had so much on the line. but i think it likely some TF beek somewhere is doing mite counts.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

>Okay, treatment-free folks, I want to know the best sources to read on this- philosophy, strategy and others.

http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/

>Treatment free books? 
http://astore.amazon.com/thepracbeek-20/detail/1615640118
http://astore.amazon.com/thepracbeek-20/detail/1614760640
http://astore.amazon.com/thepracbeek-20/detail/0865717206
http://www.amazon.com/Top-Bar-Beeke...6241&sr=8-1&keywords=top+bar+hive+les+crowder


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



COAL REAPER said:


> as far as being commercial, i really dont know what i would do if i had so much on the line. but i think it likely some TF beek somewhere is doing mite counts.


Tim Ives has been doing mite counts. And he is a commercial beekeeper.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I heartily recommend that tf beekeepers NOT test. That way....those colonies that fail overwinter, the beekeep can claim that it was anything other than mites without the guilt of knowing otherwise.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

And get paid for it by the FSA.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I'm treatment free and I do mite counts and inspect for disease. Why? For the reasons Jim Lyon has stated and in TN it is the state apiary inspectors duty is to inspect for disease and pests and are obligated to correct or treat the problem before leaving that apiary. I don't want them treating my bees so to avoid that problem I monitor the pest and disease, mite counts are part of my program. It helps me fine tune my decision making in timing for making brood breaks and helps me figure out if I'm heading in the right direction or headed for disaster. Michael is right mite load are higher in the fall but I'm concern anytime they are around 6. Some may want to argue all this but my bees my way what you do is your business what I do is mine. I have plenty of money don't need the FSA there are strings attached to that one. If my bees don't thrive it's my fault no one else I pay for my own mistakes.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Slow Drone said:


> It helps me fine tune my decision making in timing for making brood breaks and helps me figure out if I'm heading in the right direction or headed for disaster.


Heresy!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Slow Drone said:


> in TN it is the state apiary inspectors duty is to inspect for disease and pests and are obligated to correct or treat the problem before leaving that apiary.


If a State Apiary Inspector finds mites in your hives he/she is supposed to treat your hives before he/she leaves? They carry miticides w/ them? Do they carry a variety so you get the kind you prefer? I am amazed.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Apiary inspectors are all pretty good people in our state, they are there to help, they make suggestions give guidance and help with what you need, but if you want to be an arrogant D they can definitely be a bigger D and you have no leg to stand on. If you are going to be treatment free you must be aware of state laws and the impact on what you do. Read TN state apiary laws you'll see what I see what I say is true. I know a few people that have been bit in the butt thinking they could set up a beehive ignore it and fool them selves into thinking they could pass an apiary inspection. The unbelievable look on their face when their untreated hive gets treated, absolutely priceless. They will give you an opportunity to correct the problem but they will be back to make sure. If you don't keep an eye on things it can affect others that is the attitude of most inspectors I've dealt with here. Yes they do carry treatments with them, they are serious about their position. Not heresy at all God gave me common sense for a reason.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Slow Drone said:


> Not heresy at all God gave me common sense for a reason.


You saw the smiley face....right? Now....all the non testers might take offense at your last sentence. I, on the other hand, am on your side.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Yes I saw it .Comment was not directed at you it was to open the eyes of others ( if you get my drift). I used chemicals, antibiotics, Eos for many years I hadn't attempted tf. I like a challenge and have been giving it an earnest shot for the past 12 years while trying to be considerate of bees and beekeepers in areas I keep bees I believe that's important. I feel the experience treating and not gives me a better insight as to what I do. I do understand the side of beekeepers that treat and those who don't. Am I standing on the fence? No I'm just not so narrow minded to think my way is the only way. I attempt to share my experience and knowledge with anyone, don't really care what your disciplines are only that we share the interest in beekeeping.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Why are the treaters always trying to get the last word in on the treatment free forum? It kind of defeats the purpose of the forum.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Jim, I know of only ONE researcher who is even willing to differentiate treated bees from untreated bees. Where is the research supposed to come from? How much am I supposed to spend to quantify what I do? Would you think it appropriate if I told you how to spend your resources?




jim lyon said:


> I understand your sentiments Joe but as a commercial guy with lots to lose I find that mite checks tells a lot about whether what we are doing is successful or a waste of time and money and it's soooooo quick and easy to do. I find myself constantly amazed that a common thread among so many treatment free folks is an unwillingness to try to quantify their treatment free successes with actual numbers. I, for one, would find it fascinating to find out whether your successes are a result of low mite numbers or the ability to cope with high mite numbers. I don't mean for this to come off as an "us vs. them" type of challenge but rather a genuine interest in finding out what the heck is going on in successful treatment free hives.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Michael Bush said:


> Why are the treaters always trying to get the last word in on the treatment free forum? It kind of defeats the purpose of the forum.


Who said anything about treating?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



deknow said:


> Jim, I know of only ONE researcher who is even willing to differentiate treated bees from untreated bees. Where is the research supposed to come from? How much am I supposed to spend to quantify what I do? Would you think it appropriate if I told you how to spend your resources?


First let me apologize to the extent that I failed to notice that this was the treatment free forum, had I realized that I probably wouldnt have made mention of what I was doing. That is about the extent, though, of how I may have been out of line. It almost seems like you have to use State Department parlance to have a discussion on here any more.
I was not looking for anything more than anecdotal accounts. One can do a sugar shake in a few minutes, and use the information in any number of ways. I guess it takes a bit of time out of your day but that is about all the resources that would be required, the sugar can be recycled. Why does it have to seem that Im looking for a confrontation or trying to get the last word in? Isn't it possible to have a reasoned discussion about the relevance of high mite loads and what it might mean in the treatment free context? Isn't that what the op was asking about in the first place?


----------



## Kirk Osborne (Oct 7, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I don't treat, beyond starting packages with a quart of syrup in the beginning. I inspect, but I don't count mites. My bees are doing fine. I see the mites on my bees and they seem to be handling the mites. I don't see much of any other issues except for the occasional deformed wings from the mites. I'm sure some of my bees die, but when I see the colony thriving the following Spring, it is hard for me to read about treatments and think that I need them. 

I haven't experienced CCD or major hive losses, so I will continue to not treat. I figure the bees have enough chemicals in the hives the way it is. They certainly don't need their #1 care-taker adding more. Who knows what is happening when all of these chemicals mix. I leave my bees up to their own ways whenever I can.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



jim lyon said:


> I I find myself constantly amazed that a common thread among so many treatment free folks is an unwillingness to try to quantify their treatment free successes with actual numbers. I, for one, would find it fascinating to find out whether your successes are a result of low mite numbers or the ability to cope with high mite numbers. I don't mean for this to come off as an "us vs. them" type of challenge but rather a genuine interest in finding out what the heck is going on in successful treatment free hives.



Normal infestation level 1-10%, beyond that only seldom, angry hives, which often cope and their level comes down again

Breeder queens should have less than 5% infestation

sugar roll tests


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



jim lyon said:


> I find myself constantly amazed that a common thread among so many treatment free folks is an unwillingness to try to quantify their treatment free successes with actual numbers. I, for one, would find it fascinating to find out whether your successes are a result of low mite numbers or the ability to cope with high mite numbers.


Tim Ives is participating in a study and he is doing mite checks. Maybe his data will tell us something in answer to Jim's questions.


----------



## fruitveggirl (Mar 8, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Michael Bush said:


> >
> The bottom line is if you keep bees you will lose bees. You will lose them sometimes when you treat. You will lose them sometimes when you don't treat. The fear of loss drives humans to do things to prevent loss even if it won't improve the odds. We feel like we have to do something even if it's wrong. In my experience treating does not improve the odds. Getting local feral survivors will improve the odds of getting through the winter for a number of reasons and is worth pursuing.


Awesome insight and beautifully said. I love it.


----------



## Ramona (Apr 26, 2008)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Treatment free beekeeper here who is getting ready to do sugar shakes and count mites (!).

Our bees are all small cell. Does anyone know how many small cell bees there are in a cup? I'm imagining that without accurate bee numbers to begin with, mite percentages could be way off.

I didn't have time to look for and cut metal screen circles but found mesh rug canvas at Joann Fabrics. Looks like hardware cloth and is very stiff for fabric but very easy to cut.

Will let you all know how it works out.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Ramona said:


> Does anyone know how many small cell bees there are in a cup?




Do not worry about how many bees there are, important is that you do it the same way each time


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



deknow said:


> How much am I supposed to spend to quantify what I do?


If I were an author of a book, paid lecturer and event organizer espousing beekeeping techniques that are only supported by anecdote and for which public funded research has already dismissed....if I were that person, I would find it in my interests to make some attempt to objectively quantify my approach.
But....that's just me....and I'm weird like that.


----------



## Capps (Jul 21, 2012)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Michael Bush said:


> >Okay, treatment-free folks, I want to know the best sources to read on this- philosophy, strategy and others.
> 
> http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers
> ...


Thank you for the resources! Angie


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Beemandan, first off, seriously, no offense taken at your comment regarding your recommendation that all TF beekeepers not test, that way they can blame their losses on other causes, because they know not their mite levels, etc. I don't treat, don't count, because for me it is a waste of time. I observe my bees, have seen a few years ago some with DWV, but that hive continues to do great. Many of us have enough experience that when a hive dies, we can do a post mortem and diagnose the reason for death. Might mites have been a contributing factor? Perhaps. But in my experience, if we had truly practiced good husbandry, all things being equal compared with other colonies, those hives would not have died. 

Granted, some new beekeepers who are TF may not have the experience to examine bees at the entrance, and do a thorough post mortem on a hive to come up with a valid diagnosis. You may want to rethink using such a large brush... 
Kindest regards,
Steven


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

"If I were an author of a book, paid lecturer and event organizer espousing beekeeping techniques that are only supported by anecdote and for which public funded research has already dismissed....if I were that person, I would find it in my interests to make some attempt to objectively quantify my approach.
But....that's just me....and I'm weird like that."
I don't care what you would do. I enjoy contributing to the purposeful breeding and development of strains of bees and biocultures within hives that are capable of economically viable honey production while maintaining a sustainable equilibrium with varroa without the need for ever increasing chemical intervention. I don't want or need applause; and I don't want or need to convince others to help. They either get it intuitively or they don't, and they either want to do the same thing or they don't. Time will eventually validate one of the approaches and repudiate the other. And we will have new problems to address with similar disaggreement about a quick fix versus a sustainable solution.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Riverderwent said:


> I don't care what you would do.


You've written a book? You are a paid speaker and event organizer promoting your beekeeping techniques? If not, my comments didn't apply to you.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Yeah, but he still doesn't care what you do.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Riverderwent said:


> I enjoy contributing to the purposeful breeding and development of strains of bees and biocultures within hives that are capable of economically viable honey production while maintaining a sustainable equilibrium with varroa without the need for ever increasing chemical intervention.


Do you have actual evidence that chemical intervention is increasing or are you just making an assumption?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

StevenG, I really am not opposed to people going the tf route. I do believe that way too many choose that path long before they have the experience and skills to understand the impact of varroa in so many failures that don't appear directly varroa related. Truth be told, I think many seasoned beekeepers don't appreciate the underlying damage caused by these parasites. I read posts by folks who didn't see any DWV and believe that is a good indicator. In my opinion their greatest damage is hidden, caused by multiple developing mites feeding on pupating bees.....sucking 'bee blood' at the time when the bee needs every drop if it is to become a vigorous adult. And those weak bees.....what are the symptoms of that? Small winter clusters? Bees 'disappear' during the winter? Freezing or starving? Insufficient winter stores? And the effect of one parasite makes the bees more susceptible to every other parasite. EFB? Nosema?
So many people think it is black and white. They either die from varroa....or the collapse was caused by something else. And it is far from being that simple....in my opinion.
Best to you.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

"Do you have actual evidence that chemical intervention is increasing or are you just making an assumption?"

"Widespread use of a miticide called fluvalinate, or Apistan, has 'inadvertently contributed to the rise of mites resistant to this chemical,' says ARS environmental toxicologist Patti J. Elzen.

"Recently, Elzen and colleagues in the ARS Beneficial Insects Research Unit at Weslaco, Texas, found fluvalinate resistance in varroa mites collected from California, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Florida. Based in part on the Weslaco research, Florida state officials this year were the first to seek and obtain a 1-year emergency exemption from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to allow use of an alternative chemical, coumaphos."

Please see:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug99/bees0899.htm

But also please note that I am responding to your post. I am not trying to get you to agree with me. I may be wrong. I don't think that it is such a big stretch to think that putting insecticide inside a honey producing beehive might be harmful to bees in the long run and not so good for promoting the sale and use of honey. I'm not angry or offended by any of this and I don't doubt the goodwill or motivation of fellow bee people; truth is, I like them.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I know of no one that still uses Apistan or, for that matter, fluvalinate in any form. That is soooooo 1995. You couldn't pay me enough to use the stuff when there are so many better products on the market that don't contaminate either honey or beeswax. I respect my bees and the products they produce and I have documentation for 5 years and counting that the honey I produce is free of any beekeeper applied miticides.
BTW what about my post made you feel I was angry?


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



jim lyon said:


> Do you have actual evidence that chemical intervention is increasing or are you just making an assumption?


"I know of no one that still uses Apistan or, for that matter, fluvalinate in any form. That is soooooo 1995." I think that you have made my point rather better than my inartful effort regarding the evolving need for more or different treatments to keep pace with the evolving resistence of varroa. I find value in using science (in the traditional meaning of the word) to work with the tendencies of nature that are at play here rather than what I perceive to be against those tendencies. Cheers.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Dan (beemandan) I think we may just be on the same page. :gh: The one hive I observed DWV in several years ago came thru just fine, and is still going strong. I have been preaching all along it is the genetics. It appears that TF bees have developed the ability to survive and deal with the mites. Perhaps they have entered into some sort of symbiotic relationship? I am not a scientist nor do I purport to be nor want to be. I simply want bees that survive, give me a surplus honey crop, and do not need treatments. I'll leave the details and the studies to others much more capable than me. My whole point all these years is that if a typical back yard beekeeper with _become_ a beekeeper, learn to pay attention to his/her bees, and get the right bees to start with, beekeeping can be fun, enjoyable, and pay for itself. Plus you don't have to worry about chemicals or mites or go through all the rigamarole dealing with mites and chemicals.

Unfortunately, as you mentioned, too many jump in and think they can do it without paying attention to the bees and all the other things that can go wrong with them. Or they think they can succeed at TF without the right stock, and then they blame their failure on the bees, the weather, the skunks, the phases of the moon, or whatever. It is never their fault.  

That, I think, is the beauty of this part of the forum. We are a reality check for these novices. And the ones who pay attention and learn exit the novice phase successfully. As we have seen, chemical treatments are good for only so many years, before the mites develop resistance. The solution is in the genetics, not a new chemical.

Kindest regards,
Steven


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I find that most beekeepers aren't far apart in their desire for healthy bees.




StevenG said:


> The solution is in the genetics, not a new chemical.


Keep in mind that there are those who've insisted that the solution to varroa is NOT genetics but cell size. What is an aspiring tf beekeeper to believe?


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Dan, that is indeed part of the problem...everyone claiming to have the magic bullet. I've read studies that indicate cell size is irrelevant. For me, I've never used small cell, and have had success. So my magic bullet is genetics! :lpf:

Perhaps the aspiring beekeeper needs to do what you and I have both probably done, try some different things, and stay with what works. I tried 5 different strains of TF bees before settling on the one that did the best for me. It took three years to come to my final conclusion, but it was worth it. 

Then again, beekeeping is farming, and isn't farming a crap-shoot? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

I have tried small cell, 3 years with 20 colonies, and the solution is genetics. What was a surprise for me this year is that the colonies of my TF survivor queens and their daughters have as large a 24 hour mite fall as my colonies that have had treatments in the past. My guess is that it is resistance to the viruses the mites carry and not just reducing the number of mites in a colony that allows it to survive. 

I do mite counts and I will select the queens that have the fewest mites for next years breeders, but I will not do away with a queen because of large numbers of mites in her colony. If the workers show evidence of crawling, or deformed wings, that queen is out of the program.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



AR Beekeeper said:


> I do mite counts and I will select the queens that have the fewest mites for next years breeders, but I will not do away with a queen because of large numbers of mites in her colony.


At last! Good thinking.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



beemandan said:


> At last! Good thinking.


Ester Lederberg, who I am sure made many important scientific contributions, is perhaps best known for having criticized Dr. Jonas Salk for having not kept good records while he worked tirelessly for years to successfully cure polio. At times, trying to please everyone is a foolish errand.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Riverderwent said:


> having criticized Dr. Jonas Salk for having not kept good records while he worked tirelessly for years to successfully cure polio.


So....you're saying that Salk created a polio vaccine without any testing or record keeping? I ain't buying a word of it.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

"So....you're saying that Salk created a polio vaccine without any testing or record keeping?"
No.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Back to mite counts: I'm relying on BIP testing in one yard - one hive went from 2 mites per 100 bees in August to 21.9 mites per 100 bees in September. This is a very good reminder to be mindful of trends not single data points. I was too busy collecting samples to really look at the bees. That will happen tomorrow, and then decision time. This from a hive that cleared a Nosema (presume apis) problem of 1.35 million spores per bee in May on their own;-> September count was 0. And they made two shallow supers of late August honey for me.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Andrew Dewey said:


> This is a very good reminder to be mindful of trends not single data points.


I think that trends would tell much more than single data points....but getting many folks to test at all seems a Herculean task. Getting them to do multiples would be impossible.
PS....BIP?


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



beemandan said:


> BIP?


Bee Informed Partnership.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Andrew Dewey said:


> - one hive went from 2 mites per 100 bees in August to* 21.9 mites *per 100 bees ...


sample 300 bees?
3x21,9= 65,7?


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Juhani Lunden said:


> sample 300 bees?
> 3x21,9= 65,7?



Unfortunately you are very close to correct. According to the report 356 bees were in the sample. Sometimes the jars don't look like they have enough bees and so a few more get added. Who knew bees would be reluctant to go from a measuring cup, through a funnel and into a sample jar.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Andrew Dewey said:


> Back to mite counts: I'm relying on BIP testing in one yard - one hive went from 2 mites per 100 bees in August to 21.9 mites per 100 bees in September.


If you had retaken the sample in August immediately after taking the first one you probably would have had a higher number then. Two mites don't turn into 10 times as many mites in one brood cycle.

When I get a really low count I sample the same hive again. I had an Inspector tell me that he samples the one side of a comb and another Inspector sampled the other side of the same comb and one side showed maybe 17 mites and the other side showed 35. Right there tells me we don't really know what we have as far as mites is concerned when we sample hives.

And Nosema? Nobody really knows what having a high Nosema count means or will do to a colony of bees.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



Juhani Lunden said:


> sample 300 bees?
> 3x21,9= 65,7?


Not necessarily. 

Could be a higher mite count or a lower mite count. The only real way to tell would be to kill all of the bees in the hive and then you would still have the mites under capped cells.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*



sqkcrk said:


> I had an Inspector tell me that he samples the one side of a comb and another Inspector sampled the other side of the same comb and one side showed maybe 17 mites and the other side showed 35. Right there tells me we don't really know what we have as far as mites is concerned when we sample hives.


Welllll....heck. Since you put it that way....why would anyone count mites? OK....everybody.....I take it all back. Counting mites is a waste of time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Mite Count: What is considered "high" for those who do not want to treat?*

Seems like it to me.

Do ten powdered sugar rolls from the same hive and tell me what you find. Alcohol washes are more telling, but you have to kill bees. One sample will kill 300 bees. I doubt anyone wants to kill 3,000 bees to see how many different sets of results you will get. That's why I suggested doing 10 powdered sugar rolls.


----------

