# Deep thoughts on no chemicals



## Bill W (Jul 13, 2007)

Great Minds think alike, NO Dope for my bees as well,,


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

> But in an environment where all the beeks around me use chemicals (an assumption) and the absence of feral hives (another assumption), what do my healthy, chemical free hives really prove?


Your assumptions are likely wrong but the real question I think is in what way do you think being surrounded by chemical-using beekeepers would affect the health and vitality of your hives? Similarly, does being surrounded by ostensibly healthy vacinated children mean your unvacinated children will necessarily be healthy as a result?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> what do my healthy, chemical free hives really prove?

If they *remain* healthy, good for you.
Just remember that varroa tend to kils hives in the _second_ season,
rarely the first, which has scuttled many a claim of "healthy".

I had an entire yard of chemical-free hives.
It was so isolated, pests never found it.
But I still checked for everything in the book, as
one cannot control (or brag about) that which one
does not measure.

So, measure and track, and see how it goes.
Just don't give up in disgust if you loose them, as you can
loose hives for any number of reasons, with crappy queens,
bad luck, and inexperience being the primary causes.


Beekeeping is unique - people spend hundreds of dollars
in start-up costs and then decide to ignore some portion
of the conventional wisdom while they are still learning the craft.


----------



## knadai (Jun 24, 2007)

*My point, and I do have one...*

Let's exclude resident pathogens for a moment.

For pathogens NOT resident, the only place my hives could become infected is from other beek's hives. If all the other hives in the area are chemically treated, and feral hives are not present, the fact that mine are healthy is not of much value.

For instance, someone might choose to not vaccinate their children. And all the other children they might contract something from _are_vaccinated. The fact that the unvaccinated children do not get sick does not prove vaccinations are worthless.

I'm not arguing against biological beekeeping -- I am following it myself so far -- I'm wondering when we can claim success.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

To answer your question, we have to consider what we mean by 'healthy' and what we mean by 'success'.

Let's say that in five years' time you had a stock of hives that were free from disease and with mite levels that did not threaten the bees' survival, would you consider that a success? Or would you require them also to be producing honey at the same level as an equivalent, treated colony?

For me. success is having bees that can stand on their own six feet and defend themselves against pests and diseases and provide themselves with sufficient winter stores. If they also provide me with some honey, I consider that a welcome bonus.


----------



## samiyam318 (Jan 18, 2006)

Are you trying for relatively healthy hives or are you trying to prove a point? If you are trying to a point, what is it? 

Consider that raising bees relatively mite-free is only a temporary measure. Even developing bees that can withstand the mites is only part of an eventual solution to the mite problem. Until bees and mites learn to live with each other (a solution that our efforts to keep mites at bay is postponing) we are really proving nothing other than that we may be able to keep a step ahead of the mites for a time.

Your assumption (at least) that there are no feral hives in the area may be erroneous. It's a good thing, because the feral population is what will eventually solve the mite problem, if there is a solution. 

A mite population that kills its host is in the long run as much of a problem for the mites as it is for the bees (and us). Eventually in the wild the mites and bees will develop a parasite/host relationship that does not threaten to kill all the bees. This is what happened with the original host, apis cerana.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

you might be interested in an article i wrote for our local county beekeeping newsletter:

http://www.beeuntoothers.com/Summer_WCBA_2007_newsletter.pdf

...it covers much of what is being discussed here, as well as small cell information.

deknow


----------



## knadai (Jun 24, 2007)

*more*



samiyam318 said:


> Are you trying for relatively healthy hives or are you trying to prove a point? If you are trying to a point, what is it?QUOTE]
> 
> Both. I want healthy hives. And my point is that maybe the fact that I have them without using chemicals might be irrelevant when all the other hives in the neighborhood are awash in the stuff.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

When I started it was that way with Foulbrood. I was frightened into using Terramycin the first year or two. It seemed wrong and I quit. That was in 1976. When they all died from Varroa I treated with Apistan for three years until it didn't work and they all died anyway. I haven't treated with that since. One year I used FGMO fog and followed up with Oxalic acid vapor while I was regressing. I haven't done that since.

I've never used Fumidil, menthol, thymol, check mite etc. All in all, I've only treated for anything four times in 33 years. I have never regretted not treating. I have regretted treating.

At HAS I heard many speakers and most of them were saying they do not treat at all anymore for anything. I never heard that before at a beekeeping meeting.

If you're interested in not treating at all I would go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers


----------

