# Belief in Beekeeping



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

"If you think you can or you think you can’t, you are right"--Henry Ford

How does belief influence success?
As soon as you talk about belief affecting results, there is an assumption by some that you are being unscientific and yet all the current research on the success or failure of computer projects or any projects in a business environment has established the fact that success or failure is dependent on "buy in" from the employees and from management. Anyone who has observed scientific research can see this effect as well. Whether you want to believe it or not, "buy in" is "belief". Believing it can work, and believing it needs to work. There seems to be a group that thinks that belief has nothing to do with or should have nothing to do with success or failure, but only the "facts". But all the way from "the little engine that could" to real life stories of success like Edison testing thousands of filaments to come up with a practical light bulb illustrate that belief is equally important to the success of any undertaking.

Please, do not be confused by what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Edison could just "believe" any one of those filaments into working. But he had to believe that there was a filament that would work and that is what drove him to keep trying until he found one that would work.

Cognitive Dissonance
I think part of this is that you can’t really operate well with a cognitive dissonance between what you are attempting to do and your view of the world. If you are attempting to do something that, in your view of the world, is impossible, it is very unlikely that you will succeed. If you believe there is a solution and you are focused on finding that solution within the framework of your view of the world, you will likely find something that will work. I did a page on "Beekeeping Philosophy" for that very reason. I think in order to succeed at beekeeping, you need to do your beekeeping in the framework of your beliefs.

It’s all in the details.
Success and failure of any venture is all in the details. And belief is what drives us to work out the details. I have said many times that I can prove most any controversial beekeeping question in either direction depending on what you want for an outcome. The reason it is controversial and the reason there are two directly opposing beliefs on so many subjects is exactly that--that success or failure is dependent, not on the underlying principle being discussed, but the surrounding circumstances. Someone whose experience was under one set of circumstances comes to one conclusion. Someone whose experience is under a very different set of circumstances comes to an entirely different conclusion.

Example of details
Let’s take it out of the realm of beekeeping. I’ll try this two ways, the first is the way it actually happened. A friend called up to tell me that her pressure tank on her well pump was leaking and wanted to know what she should do. I said it was probably one spot in the tank that lost whatever rust proofing the inside of the tank had and it had rusted through. I said I would:
o Buy a fine threaded self tapping oil plug.
o Buy a bit exactly the size of the shaft (not the threads) of the plug or slightly smaller.
o Buy some gasket sealer.
o Drill out the rust spot.
o Put gasket sealer on the plug.
o Screw the plug in the hole.

When I told her this, I was informed "we already tried that". So I went over and looked at her tank. There was a lag screw in the hole... and of course it was still leaking horribly. I then did exactly as I had instructed and fixed it. It lasted at least five or six years after that.
Now let’s try the other way. I also could have just told her to put a bolt in it. It would have been technically correct, but lacking in the details that would actually make it work. But since she ignored the details anyway, I guess it would have worked exactly as poorly. But now let’s look at this another way. Why did my "put a bolt in it" work and hers did not? Because I did everything I could to stack the deck in favor of success. Why? Because I believed it could work and therefore I made the effort to make it work. I did not do a halfhearted "we’ll try it and see". I went at it from the start with the belief and expectation of succeeding and then doing whatever I could to make what I believed could happen, happen. Then, even if that had failed, I had several backup plans (one of which I used and again succeeded with years later when the threads finally rusted out on that fix).

My point is that "buy in" i.e. "belief" has everything to do with success. Now I will grant that however much she might have believed that lag bolt would stop the leak (and I don’t think she really did), it never would have. But if she had focused on how to make it work, she might have succeeded by tweaking the details of the idea to optimize its chances of success and finally made it work. That tweaking of course improves with experience and sometimes it takes some experimenting to find the right details (Edison and his thousands of filaments). But you can also improve it a lot by listening to someone who has done it before (I've fixed rusted out holes in tanks for decades now and that’s how I knew what would have a good chance of working). The same is true of beekeeping.

"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."--George Bernard Shaw

Rather than work the details out yourself, learn from someone who already has.

Part of belief leading to success is that it gives you the drive to, not just give something a cursory try, but to work out the details. And this brings me to another point of frustration for me. That almost every time someone does an experiment on virtually anything they don’t bother to find someone succeeding and ask them about the details before they set up an experiment to prove it doesn't work. Pretty much if you don't believe in it, it probably isn't going to work because you won't make it work. Why not find someone who is succeeding and study them to figure out if it works and then why it works. At that point you will believe it works (because you have observed it) and have an idea how to make it work by copying someone who has succeeded. For instance, if you want to know something about natural cell size why not talk to someone with hundreds of hives with natural comb in them rather than blunder out on your own? What size the bees build depends on a lot of different things like the time of year, the intended use for the comb etc. So again, I say I can probably get you whatever results you would like because I know what affects it and I can set the stage to get what you want, in this case, larger or smaller.

_You can’t get the right answer when you are asking the wrong question._

One of the things I loved in "I Robot" was how often the hologram that is talking to Will Smith says "I'm sorry. My responses are limited. You must ask the right questions." Anytime your question is vague or your criteria are vague your results will be meaningless. Let’s try a simple mistake I made myself. When I started out beekeeping, I was too poor to buy any books and a lot of the ones at the library were old ones like Doolittle and Miller. One of the concepts in those books was "abandonment" as a means of clearing the supers. I was inexperienced and oblivious to when the flows were and when I tried the method, it turned into an unmitigated disaster. Robbing escalated to scary and out of control in a matter of minutes and I fought robbing for weeks after. I was never going to do that again. Rather than believe their might be some value to this method I gave it a one time try and gave it up.

Then I ran into someone who used the method all the time and when I shared my experience they told me it needs to be done in a flow. Never in a dearth. Now that gap between my experience and what was in the book suddenly closed. I could see how someone would think it was a good method and yet my experience was exactly the opposite. So if my question is just "does the abandonment method work well for clearing supers", I have not asked the right question. It is too vague and my results will not be useful, as other people's results will vary greatly from mine depending on other factors that are not taken into account in my question. I may come to a very distinct and obvious conclusion that is very incorrect. Faith in C.C. Miller or the method might have driven me to ask the right question rather than give up. There are probably two questions I need to answer on the issue of abandonment, in order for my answer to have any meaning:

o "does the abandonment method work well for clearing supers in a dearth"
o "does the abandonment method work well for clearing supers in a flow"
(By the way, most beekeeping questions should be asked either about "in a flow" and in a "dearth" or in the "buildup" or in the "wind down".)

If I didn't know enough to formulate those questions based on the fact that currently there are such opposing views on the subject then the question should have been:

o "under what circumstances does the abandonment method work well for clearing supers and under what circumstances does it fail"

Then I might end up with a useful answer instead of a meaningless one. In my experience, people often end up with an answer that is not useful because they are asking the wrong question.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" --George E.P. Box

Paradigm vs Reality
So let’s tie this back to our "model of the world". Reality is infinitely complex and none of us can actually grasp it, so to solve problems we distill it down to some simplified "model" that we believe includes all the relevant issues. This "model" is the paradigm by which we solve the problem. Let’s try a simple practical model. My dad always told me that what it takes to make an internal combustion engine run is: gas, air and spark. If you have these three it should start. This worked most of my life most of the time, until the problem was a jumped timing chain. At that point I had to expand my "model", my "paradigm" to include timing. I need gas air spark and correct timing. Then when you have a small single piston engine with a broken ring or a bad valve, you may have to expand it to include "compression". Now there are many other things taking place, but that’s not the point. The point is we build a model just complex enough to solve the problem because we can’t take everything into account. This particular model is just on how to get it to start. After that there are other paradigms on how to make it run well. Sometimes we find our paradigm is inadequate for the job and we need to adjust it. Our "model of the world" is never "right", it’s never "true"--it’s just useful or not useful for the problem at hand. But conversely if we try to solve a problem in a way that is at odds with our model of the world (our personal belief system) we don’t really know how to tweak the details to make it work because we are outside the bounds of our paradigm in the unknown. Unless we adjust our paradigm, we probably can’t make a solution work that is at odds with our model. In other words if we don't believe in our model we probably can't work out the details of the solution.

I had a boss once who theorized that everyone thinks their idea is best because they thought of it. He didn't mean it facetiously, the reason they thought of it is because they used their model of the world to come up with it, and the reason they like it best, is because it is in harmony with their model of the world. Their solution makes sense to them because they arrived at it within that framework. The reason it has a decent chance of success for that person is also that they know how to work in that framework and they have "buy in" to the idea. They "believe" in it because it fits how they think.

Succeeding at anything is much more likely if you are working within your belief system.

Succeeding at anything is also much more likely if you are determined to figure out how to make it work.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

The psychological side works for a lot of people. Sometimes disbelief leads to questioning that reveals the truth. Other times no belief allows one to observe what is really going on when false theories in one's head would have lead further up the wrong path.

The process of hypothesizing makes the jump from no belief to "Does this make sense?" and developing experimental methods to test hypotheses.

The bees keep on chugging along despite our hypothesizing, believing, interfering / helping, etc. They do appear to like to live in enclosures. Some hive designs have ardent supporters. Do bees care? The results in pounds of honey harvested, # of colonies produced, etc. may or may not be the whole story.

I like your approach to beekeeping, Michael. I also like Randy Oliver's inquisitive approach. These approaches probably have some differences, and I try and learn, and see what my bees seem to "think" about this topic or that.

If I believe anything, its that Beesource and a 40 year mentor seem to make me a better beekeeper. I sure appreciate your many posts and contributions here on Beesource! Thank you.


----------



## Gazelle (May 17, 2015)

Personally I "buy in" to proven methods. React on reason, not emotion. I don't want be a backyard hobbiest, I want go big. I love this stuff! Proven methods like yours and Palmers deserve "both" ears! Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Do what's proven to work!


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

Gazelle said:


> Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Do what's proven to work!


 How are those chiseled stone wheels holding up on your fancy transportation machine?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

"both ears", i like that.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

This is a favorite Ray Bradbury short story on the subject:
http://205.186.130.127/images/uploads/The Toynbee Convector by Ray Bradbury.pdf


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Some interesting analogies but analogies have their own problems. Many times they amount to a dumbed down method of influencing people on issues a bit over their pay scale. I fully agree with the power of positive thinking and it certainly can be key to uniting activity when that is the controlling element that is lacking. That said, I have been party to decision making where unbridled enthusiasm was about to send things on a calamitous path. A lot of my experience has been in industrial piping, rigging, excavation etc. Clear chain of cause and effect must be kept in mind. Opinion must be supported by load charts, safety regulation and precidents. Hard analytical examination of issues and darn little subjective opinion there. Strength of conviction does not relate to the probability of being correct.

I might have been amongst the crowd that was addressed as "Oh ye of little faith"


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Another historical example (Mike Palmer will like this one).

If you are familiar with Gershwin's 'rhapsody in blue'...especially the opening of the piece. It is a clarinet doing a long, multi octave glissando (sliding pitch) (low G trill to high C if there are any clarinetists in the house). This was not part of Gershwin's vision for the piece...it was tacked on at the last minute.

Glissandos on clarinet were doubtless common from the vaudville scene, but in concert performance situations, it was unheard of (the clarinet world can be a bit crusty...even vibrato is pretty controversial)...considered impossible.
...but the premier was being played by Paul Whiteman's Jazz Orchestra....and Gershwin heard the clarinetist performing this 'stunt' in warm up...it was so impressive (and done well enough) that he featured it in the piece...it stands out more than anything else.

Before this, no self respecting classical clarinet would even play around with such uncouth sound effects. Now, with rhapsody in blue being part of the popular playlist, even if just for this piece, glissandos are a required skill...but considered impossible before there was a demand (poplular literature) for the 'stunt'.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

deknow said:


> This is a favorite Ray Bradbury short story on the subject:
> http://205.186.130.127/images/uploads/The Toynbee Convector by Ray Bradbury.pdf


I enjoyed that. Thank you.

As far as the OP and all the other stuff goes... I believe that if your mites are under control and your bees have something to eat you'll be OK about 90% of the time. The rest is bluster.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I try to believe my bees will handle the mites on their own, must not have enough willpower to make it happen yet....


----------



## Gazelle (May 17, 2015)

Harley Craig said:


> How are those chiseled stone wheels holding up on your fancy transportation machine?


I'm not an inventer. I'll use proven methods.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm not buying it.
Any of it.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard (Jul 7, 2015)

Michael Bush said:


> Succeeding at anything is also much more likely if you are determined to figure out how to make it work.


Speaking as one who built his house against a good deal of skepticism (it is a straw bale home with a black water wetland that cleanly processes all our waste water), I will most readily second this sentiment. If necessity is the mother of invention, then determination is the father.

John


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Faith based beekeeping is nothing I can "Buy Into".


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

My bees don't care what I believe.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Tell people what they want to hear and they'll buy into it...full bore. 
Sells books. Political campaigns depend on it. Many people will pay to hear the message. Doesn't mean it has a stitch of merit to it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I try to believe my bees will handle the mites on their own, must not have enough willpower to make it happen yet....

Then you have missed the entire point. My point isn't that just believing without action changes anything. Believing changes the way you approach it and what you end up doing. Belief is the reason that you work out the details and figure out how to make it work. The first thousand or so filaments that Edison tried did not work well enough no matter how much Edison believed it was possible to make a usable light bulb. But his belief that it was possible is WHY he bothered to try those until he found one that DID work. In the story, believing he can get up the hill is not what got "The Little Engine That Could" up the hill. Believing and WORKING for all he was worth did. The point of that story, and the reason it resonates with people, is that believing was an essential part of what it took. Work alone was not sufficient.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> >I try to believe my bees will handle the mites on their own, must not have enough willpower to make it happen yet....
> 
> Then you have missed the entire point. My point isn't that just believing without action changes anything. Believing changes the way you approach it and what you end up doing. Belief is the reason that you work out the details and figure out how to make it work. The first thousand or so filaments that Edison tried did not work well enough no matter how much Edison believed it was possible to make a usable light bulb. But his belief that it was possible is WHY he bothered to try those until he found one that DID work. In the story, believing he can get up the hill is not what got "The Little Engine That Could" up the hill. Believing and WORKING for all he was worth did. The point of that story, and the reason it resonates with people, is that believing was an essential part of what it took. Work alone was not sufficient.


I got that from the original post. The belief in the idea is what motivates one to continue trying. I'll buy that.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Can work if the belief is correct. The self help industry doesn't always properly get across the need for belief, commitment, and drive, to be based on reality. There are some who crash and burn because of that.

As it relates to beekeeping, my approach is analytical, the bees have shown me what I should believe. Like many new beekeepers I started out with certain pre formed beliefs, and believing didn't make it happen I had to modify my beliefs.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I knew it was a risk to say this and that certain people would take things out of context and that most people would not bother to figure out my point. Instead they jump to their own conclusions about what I said without listening to what I said. This is clear by many of the above posts. Hopefully some of you will actually try to see my point.

I am NOT saying that you can merely believe your way to anything. I'm NOT saying that faith by itself is the solution to anything. The point is that to make something work, you have to believe that it is POSSIBLE to make it work. And then you have to figure out the DETAILS that are REQUIRED to make it work, by expanding your paradigm to include those details as you discover them. And then you have to work your behind off to MAKE it work. The point is that belief changes your actions and motivates you to figure out and deal with the details THAT, in addition to work, makes the difference between success and failure. Reality is complicated and you need the motivation that belief provides to work through the details.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

But I don't think a person can just believe ANYTHING, and make it work.

It must be reality based.

If it is reality based, then yes, it can be made to work.

The essential part of the formula is reality.

An excellent example would be treatment free beekeeping. Over the years we have seen many people start up. They have done some reading and are now 100% convinced they will succeed, and are extremely vociferous about that. But they lose all their bees. And that can be BECAUSE of their belief. They were so convinced they would succeed, and the stupidity of any other view, that they did not do the necessaries like start with the right bees. Their belief did not have enough reality in it.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Similarly... things can work that you don't believe, too. One doesn't have to believe anything for it to work.

Also something entirely unrelated could be validating the belief. A five year old believes there is a tooth fairy. So when his parents put money under his pillow he believes there is a tooth fairy. Does that make it so?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

Indeed, there is a tooth fairy, as long as the money keeps coming. It may not be the tooth fairy of his dreams, but there is someone coming in and putting the money under the pillow. Close enough.

Now, I believe it's time for about three fingers of bourbon, neat.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

>The point is that to make something work, you have to believe that it is POSSIBLE to make it work. And then you have to figure out the DETAILS that are REQUIRED to make it work

Is this your point? If so, why didn't you simply say so? Two sentences. Reminds me of a thirty minute talk I had to sit through years ago....the topic? Brevity.

Now...put it into beekeeping context.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

kevindsingleton said:


> Now, I believe it's time for about three fingers of bourbon, neat.


And your belief will make it happen, proving the OP was correct.


----------



## julieandwadeshelton (Oct 10, 2014)

I'm a total newb at beekeeping, and maybe it's because I'm extremely optimistic about my success in general down the road, but I agree with what Michael is saying. People with drive and determination, hard work and belief they can do it overcome odds all the time. Now I realize having some limited control over other living beings may be different than say, a person with a debilitating injury learning to walk again for example. But really, though I haven't seen it with my own eyes, I've read enough to know that there are people doing beekeeping in totally different ways, TF or not, and bees can survive either way. But I'm hoping that over time I can be the type to analyze my way through to do what's best practically, efficiently, cost effectively, healthily, etc for the sake of my future bees, be them a couple hives or a whole bunch.

I think it was a great post.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>Glissandos on clarinet... in concert performance situations, it was unheard of (the clarinet world can be a bit crusty...even vibrato is pretty controversial)...considered impossible...
>It must be reality based.

But being reality based you would assume a Glissando on a clarinet is impossible. After all the best concert clarinetists all agreed it was impossible...

It seems to me that most "realists" are actually "pessimists".

“No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit.”—Helen Keller

“Pessimism never won any battle.”—Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

kevindsingleton said:


> Now, I believe it's time for about three fingers of bourbon, neat.


By golly you're right. It's beer o'clock!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> The point is that to make something work, you have to believe that it is POSSIBLE to make it work. And then you have to figure out the DETAILS that are REQUIRED to make it work, by expanding your paradigm to include those details as you discover them.


While I can see the point, I still do not entirely buy into it, the order is wrong. You do not believe first, then work out the details. The details have to be worked out first & see if it's real. If it is, THEN it can be believed in and probably made to work.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> Succeeding at anything is much more likely if you are working within your belief system.


My wife can't figure out how anything works but she believes it can be done. And it usually gets done. She has about 30 articles with the word believe on it and still collecting more. If you want to sell her something no matter how ugly, put the word believe on it. She won't walk past it.

I agree with you Michael. There were countless times when I was told something won't work or can't be done so I did it because I believed. Once I did it then most of them believed but not all. You will never get all to believe Michael.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> >>Glissandos on clarinet... in concert performance situations, it was unheard of (the clarinet world can be a bit crusty...even vibrato is pretty controversial)...considered impossible...
> >It must be reality based.
> 
> But being reality based you would assume a Glissando on a clarinet is impossible. After all the best concert clarinetists all agreed it was impossible...
> ...


The post is a little muddled I don't understand it, however if someone thought a Glissando on a clarinet is impossible, and were proved wrong, it means they didn't do due diligence. Their beliefs were not fact based. An excellent of what they believed NOT happening even though they believed it.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> It seems to me that most "realists" are actually "pessimists".


Just because you think this...doesn't make it true.
You make that outrageous statement and then try to connect it to quotes by Helen Keller and Dwight Eisenhower. Show me where either one of them ever suggested that realists were actually pessimists.
Sheesh!!!!!!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> While I can see the point, I still do not entirely buy into it, the order is wrong.


This belief is actually promoted by the 'you'll see it when you believe it' crowd.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Oldtimer said:


> The post is a little muddled I don't understand it, however if someone thought a Glissando on a clarinet is impossible, and were proved wrong, it means they didn't do due diligence. Their beliefs were not fact based. An excellent of what they believed NOT happening even though they believed it.


Exactly, the implication here is that if you just believe and work hard at it you can do the impossible.

What he means (I think) is that sometimes things that people believe aren't possible are proved wrong. To that we all answer "of course".

Couple awful long posts today from the OP who said he doesn't have time to check his bees in another thread...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> It seems to me that most "realists" are actually "pessimists".


Oh I ignored that, realists are realists.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Exactly, the implication here is that if you just believe and work hard at it you can do the impossible.

If I was saying that, then I wouldn't have spent more than half of these posts pointing out that you have to figure out and adjust the details in order to make it work. What do you think you are adjusting the details to other than reality? You can work as hard as you like and fail. You can believe has much as is possible and still fail. It requires adjusting the details of your attempt to match what you discover about reality along the path. I think I have made the effort to point that out over and over in this conversation. That is the point of the "fixing the well pressure tank" story. That is the point of the entire post. That believing is the motivation to DO that. if you don't believe it is possible you will NOT do that.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK good post Mike. I can buy it, other than some reservations on the last sentence. Because some things, even good things, happen despite us.

BTW I hope you didn't take anything I said as a personal attack on you. To me, we have been discussing ideas.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I felt that there was more than a little bit of the message there that if one were not successful at reaching the conclusion, that it was analogical that you simply lacked conviction; that you did not try hard enough. I am more of the opinion that if you want to discover for truth regarding a concept that you should go into it with an open mind; be neither for nor against. Preconceptions often colors ones attribution of cause and effect. 

You are correct that there are examples of people with dogged determination who have managed to eventually pull out a chain of connectedness they foresaw. However as Oldtimer points out it must, of necessity, have been correct in the first place. I am sure there are many more who dedicated their life to an illusive dream. I dont buy the value of determination in itself.

There are matters of fact and there are matters of conviction. This seems to be more one of philosophical conviction. It should be a given that there will not be concensus.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Micheal is barking up the wrong tree this time.
Why do I say that?
Because I've been there and done that pretty much all of my adult life.

My last day job before commercial beekeeping was as a plant superintendent involved with the automation of new an old process machinery.
I worked with a very skilled team.
Our mantra was, "If you can put it into a logical sentence, we can make it happen".
And so we did. Day after day, year after year.

And it all begins with the attitude that Micheal is putting forth here.
Although just as I learned many years ago, he's best to just save his breath.
Just as the saying goes. "If beekeeping was easy, everyone would be doing it".
When it comes to engineering, design, art etc you can have all the knowledge or riches in the world, but until the day comes that you realize that , "I can do anything", you live and work with limitations.

I was setting in an airport with 3 of our team once, talking over some upcoming projects.
One of us blurted out, " You know; we can do anything!"
We all still believe that, and practice that.

But like Michael over there, frantically treading water , coughing and choking away on this thread, the general public usually look at us like we're nuts.
:bus

UNTIL IT IS UP AND RUNNING!!!
Then it's all, "Wow. That's cool. Why didn't I think of that?"

Answer: Because you were too busy repeating YOUR mantra:
Can't be done, can't be done, can't be done.

Save your breath Michael. 
Go back to bashing chemicals....


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

crofter>> post #38 well said!

reading all this I now wonder where the saying 'banging your head against a brick wall' came from. Certainly can't be any truth to it
reading MBush, HVanderpool.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

clyderoad said:


> crofter>> post #38 well said!


Yes. An open mind first...


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Good thread Michael.

I have to say, however, your timing is way off. This is excellent "cabin fever" material. You're a couple months early.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

HarryVanderpool said:


> "If beekeeping was easy, everyone would be doing it".


You automated processes and you haven't figured out that beekeeping is easy? What the hay did you automate?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Good thread Michael.
> 
> I have to say, however, your timing is way off. This is excellent "cabin fever" material. You're a couple months early.


I'm pretty confident Barry has a clause somewhere in the rules which forbids the mention of "cabin fever" before January 10, if it happens on tailgator it of course then gets shut down for a couple of weeks....oh the memories!.

Is a good post Michael, My Grandfathers people, Seneca, always taught us to dream our life and then live in that dream. Then things make sense as to what belongs and what does not. You certainly accomplish more if you dream big. When someone had a good life we would always tell them you dream well! Michael, you dream well!


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

I understand completely, Michael. Great subject.

When we opened our current restaurant 10 years ago I had a whole new kitchen crew who had never worked with me. As I set up the systems.......How to heat and cool the food safely so we didn't get anyone sick(never have!).....How to set up the walk-in, raw veggies closest to the door, raw meat in back on the bottom shelf, dairy on the top shelf...........that sort of thing. How to set up the line, the prep area, the cleaning schedule, on and on.

I got a lot of "Why". A lot of questions. Finally, in exasperation I told them, "Do the things I tell you, the way I tell you, and this kitchen will run smoothly. You'll see, give it a chance."

At first it was chaos, it took all my will power to push, cajole, intimidate my staff to do things my way. I culled the people who would not cooperate and promoted the folks who "Bought in". 

You know what? Now the kitchen runs like a sewing machine. Smooth! We win "Best of..." awards every year. 

So I understand your ideas in my own way. Beekeeping is not about blind belief, but it is about believing in a system that will work. And that belief helps you weather the inevitable mistakes, bad winters, EFB, all the challenges of beekeeping. Belief enables perseverance. Perseverance keeps you going so you learn the lessons you need. Those lessons translate into a skill. That skill eventually gives you success. 

But if you don't trust yourself and have passion you will not succeed.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Acebird said:


> You automated processes and you haven't figured out that beekeeping is easy? What the hay did you automate?


Machinery that originally had people like you pushing buttons and flipping toggle switches.
t:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

LMAO Where is the push buttons and toggle switches?:scratch:

http://vid697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Vedio/VideoResume_zps3862beae.mp4


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> The essential part of the formula is reality.
> 
> An excellent example would be treatment free beekeeping...


It applies equally to treatment beekeeping as well. If you don't buy in enough to go to the effort to educate yourself and do what has to be done at the time it needs doing you often fail just as completely. For example if you apply the wrong treatment (apiguard when it is too cool FE) or apply the treatment incorrectly or at the wrong dosage - or do everything right except the hive is already too far gone... the result can be the classic "I treated and my bees died anyway." Even those things that do work have limits outside of which they will fail.

This isn't a dig at anyone. I completely agree with Michael Bush on this. Almost anything worth doing requires a certain degree of commitment if there is any hope of it working out. It's hard to commit to something you don't really believe in. Of course no amt of faith or commitment will make the impossible work - but it* can* make the* improbable* work on occasion.


----------



## michkel (Dec 1, 2012)

Michael Bush said:


> I knew it was a risk to say this and that certain people would take things out of context and that most people would not bother to figure out my point. Instead they jump to their own conclusions about what I said without listening to what I said. This is clear by many of the above posts. Hopefully some of you will actually try to see my point.
> 
> I am NOT saying that you can merely believe your way to anything. I'm NOT saying that faith by itself is the solution to anything. The point is that to make something work, you have to believe that it is POSSIBLE to make it work. And then you have to figure out the DETAILS that are REQUIRED to make it work, by expanding your paradigm to include those details as you discover them. And then you have to work your behind off to MAKE it work. The point is that belief changes your actions and motivates you to figure out and deal with the details THAT, in addition to work, makes the difference between success and failure. Reality is complicated and you need the motivation that belief provides to work through the details.


I completely understand where you are coming from. I see it every day in my husband. He knew nothing about construction, yet we live in a house he built. (not subcontracted, his hands built this house) There isn't anything he cannot do. If he doesn't know how, he will figure it out. He is constantly telling me that without failure, you will never succeed at anything. Those who never succeed, have never failed at anything.

He also tells me that he doesn't get paid for the work he does, he gets paid because he can solve problems.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> It seems to me that most "realists" are actually "pessimists".


Pessimists are optimists with experience.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

PS:
I am pessimistic in what I am thinking.
But optimistic in what I am doing.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

I believe you can make the GoPro video camera (that you already bought) work, so we can see the wonder-bees.

Just be firm in your belief.


----------



## sharpdog (Jun 6, 2012)

Michael, I agree with your belief that mite tolarant treatment free bees are possible. I believe that they exist. And as people like you select from the successful survivors, we are impacting the speed of the treatment free evolution. But its very difficult to keep VSH in an apairy, especially for a hobbist. 

And thats where I think you do a disservice to the newbees. You convince them that they dont need to monitor, or treat for mites. This is simply not fair to them, they are not seeking the magic solution, all they want is bees that make the winter and provide a few extra bucket of honey to eat or sell. Your mission to evangilize the hobby community is the part I take issue with.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

David LaFerney said:


> Almost anything worth doing requires a certain degree of commitment if there is any hope of it working out. It's hard to commit to something you don't really believe in. Of course no amt of faith or commitment will make the impossible work - but it* can* make the* improbable* work on occasion.


Well said David. G


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

jwcarlson said:


> Couple awful *long posts today from the OP* who said he doesn't have time to check his bees in another thread...



I've seen Michael type, probably didn't take him more then 5 minutes.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

MB, I was being a little sarcastic and making a joke, I interpreted your message loud and clear. I work very hard at my beekeeping, anyone who knows me or that I've helped know this. Albeit, sometimes I don't have the time to really get the bees in the shape they need to be, but that's the reality of working full time in Ag Research and having 3 young children. My end goal is to produce TF bees that stand up to the rigors of different locations and are genetically stable. I have no inclinations of it being an easy task but I believe I can do it or at least make good progress trying.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

What one can conceive, one can build!
This is the given innate power of our creativity.
Everything follow a known principle call the universal truth.
If Langstroth did not experiment and invent then we will not
know the secret of the Langs hives today.
So what have you tweeked to improve on your apiary situation?
* The jar cell queen method. Thanks, KC!
* The stationary oav gadget. Thanks, Barry!
* The no drill, 3-way mating nuc method. Thanks, beepro!
Ongoing:
* The universal non-graft frame queen rearing method (goes with the jar cell queen method.)
* The universal stationary oav gadget--V3 (all can make them.)

If JR concentrate all his expensive mite fighting queens and drones in the
same isolated apiary then something should give. The secret is in the drones.
If he raise a grandson then the next generation will take over since the current one doesn't like his bees.
If I control the mites this winter then my apiary will grow next Spring.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> ...“Pessimism never won any battle.”—Dwight D. Eisenhower


Actually, it did. Grant was pessimistic about the book on military tactics while he was at West Point. He did not even read it. He said, "Military tactics are extremely simple. Find your enemy. Get to him as quickly as you can. Hit him as hard as you can. Hit him as often as you can. Move on to the next target." He did exactly that and defeated the author of the book on tactics. Warriors familiar with Ulysses Grant said of him, "Old 'Lys don't scare worth a [email protected]" 

A pessimist who did not want to become a soldier, who failed at farming, who kept getting promoted up in rank, who won the Civil War, and became President. While he did not believe in much, let alone himself, he did do a lot of things right. People genuinely loved him. Even his enemies respected him. He changed history.

Eisenhower knew this, but he was not going to say it.

Incidentally, optimism probably killed Pickett and his boys, but it could also be traced to very poor intel.


If only I intuitively knew when to believe, when to doubt, when to have a blank mind (and when to shut up, and when to strike first, etc.)...I might have learned more much earlier in life, and accomplished more. I am still training myself in this.
The difference seems to be the rate at which we learn.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

JRG13 said:


> MB, I was being a little sarcastic and making a joke, I interpreted your message loud and clear. I work very hard at my beekeeping, anyone who knows me or that I've helped know this. Albeit, sometimes I don't have the time to really get the bees in the shape they need to be, but that's the reality of working full time in Ag Research and having 3 young children. My end goal is to produce TF bees that stand up to the rigors of different locations and are genetically stable. I have no inclinations of it being an easy task but I believe I can do it or at least make good progress trying.


That my friend, is the post of the day.:thumbsup: G


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

When a person is venturing into the unknown I dont think it wise to entertain only positive ideas. Always have a rain day plan and an escape route. I dont feel these notions indicate less than 100% commitment. 
Now if you are trying to gather recruits for a risky undertaking then by all means minimize the risks and guarantee a happy and certain outcome. Some will think this is entrapment but it is common practice. That is probably what Sharpdog sees.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>reading all this I now wonder where the saying 'banging your head against a brick wall' came from.

From people who instead of figuring out the details and adjusting them, keep "banging their head against a brick wall". That would be the opposite of what I recommended.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Michael Bush said:


> That would be the opposite of what I recommended.


not from my perspective


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I believe you can make the GoPro video camera (that you already bought) work, so we can see the wonder-bees.

Yea. I was going to video stuff this summer, but when I got it out the battery was dead and all of the 100 weird little USB cables I have did not fit. So I ordered a new one and by the time I got the battery charged I was busy with other stuff. It's not so much belief as time. I can't make time out of no time...

>I've seen Michael type, probably didn't take him more then 5 minutes.

Yea. I've been timed at 120 wpm... Not quite as fast as I can think, but it is as fast as I can talk...

>Actually, it did. Grant was pessimistic about the book on military tactics while he was at West Point. He did not even read it. He said, "Military tactics are extremely simple. Find your enemy. Get to him as quickly as you can. Hit him as hard as you can. Hit him as often as you can. Move on to the next target." He did exactly that and defeated the author of the book on tactics. Warriors familiar with Ulysses Grant said of him, "Old 'Lys don't scare worth a [email protected]" 

Grant wasn't very pessimistic about attacking...

>Incidentally, optimism probably killed Pickett and his boys, but it could also be traced to very poor intel.

I am not advocating run away optimism. There is a huge difference between, believing something CAN work and figuring out how to do it, and believing something WILL work, charging into it headlong and NOT figuring out what it will take to make it work.

>When a person is venturing into the unknown I dont think it wise to entertain only positive ideas.

I often get accused of being a pessimist because I always plan out the best and worst case scenarios. Then I try to figure out how to make the best case scenario be the outcome. If I can live with the "worst case" and I can optimize the chances of the "best case" then it's probably worth doing.


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

crofter said:


> Some will think this is entrapment but it is common practice. That is probably what Sharpdog sees.


It IS entrapment! Shanghaied! Doubleplus uncool!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>From people who instead of figuring out the details and adjusting them, keep "banging their head against a brick wall". That would be the opposite of what I recommended.
>not from my perspective

There are more examples from the original post (#1) but here are a few:

>>Please, do not be confused by what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Edison could just "believe" any one of those filaments into working. But he had to believe that there was a filament that would work and that is what drove him to keep trying until he found one that would work.

>>Success and failure of any venture is all in the details. And belief is what drives us to work out the details. 

>>Part of belief leading to success is that it gives you the drive to, not just give something a cursory try, but to work out the details.

>>My point is that "buy in" i.e. "belief" has everything to do with success. Now I will grant that however much she might have believed that lag bolt would stop the leak (and I don’t think she really did), it never would have. But if she had focused on how to make it work, she might have succeeded by tweaking the details of the idea to optimize its chances of success and finally made it work. 

>>Let’s try a simple practical model. My dad always told me that what it takes to make an internal combustion engine run is: gas, air and spark. If you have these three it should start. This worked most of my life most of the time, until the problem was a jumped timing chain. At that point I had to expand my "model", my "paradigm" to include timing. I need gas air spark and correct timing. Then when you have a small single piston engine with a broken ring or a bad valve, you may have to expand it to include "compression".

Do any of these sound like advice to keep banging your head against the wall because you believe doing the same thing over and over (banging your head against the wall) will succeed?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I have found this principal to be generally true in a very direct and real way. I see it this way. you only have one mind. If that mind is occupied with thoughts of why something cannot be done. it will then influence many small actions decisions. hesitations and the like. influencing the outcome to the negative. if the mind is focused on getting something done. those same assurances will be influenced to the positive. opportunities that otherwise would have resulted in hesitation are acted upon. etc. very small but numerous differences. In normal daily activities such difference could easily go unnoticed. But they are magnified and far more noticeable in extreme circumstances. Public speaking. entertaining, confronting life threatening situations. those are just a few real instances I have been through that I have been able to observe this difference in myself. Public speaking for example. if my mind dwells on being nervous and messing up . I most assuredly will. If I keep my mind on my message and delivering it well. I do so far better. Frame of mind has a power influence over how we act and behave in each moment. resulting in extremely different outcomes for the effort. I know this is true. I have been there and done it many times.

Believe you can keep bees and your mind will tend toward problem solving and perseverance. It does not make it any more possible. it does not lessen the effort. the difference it makes is in you.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

crofter said:


> When a person is venturing into the unknown I dont think it wise to entertain only positive ideas. Always have a rain day plan and an escape route. I dont feel these notions indicate less than 100% commitment.
> Now if you are trying to gather recruits for a risky undertaking then by all means minimize the risks and guarantee a happy and certain outcome. Some will think this is entrapment but it is common practice. That is probably what Sharpdog sees.


Sorry to use you as an example Crofter. But these are the sort of things that stand out in comments to me.

Entertaining only positive ideas. Who exactly said that the thought of keeping bees is a positive idea? There is a huge assumption in that comment. A claim that I did not see made. What I did see was the claim that if you choose to do something do so with a positive attitude. The assumption is see being made is that if you have a positive attitude. you must believe all will go well. Truth as far as I am concerned is, I chose to keep bees because I didn't think it would be easy. I still think I can do it. Much different thing going on there than seeing beekeeping through rose colored glasses. Still the idea that I can do it and believing I can do it makes a difference stands. If what you propose was true it would be doable because it is simple. Not true.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Sounds like a lot of playing games with your mind because your mind is playing games with you. I guess some people have more problem with that than others. What works for you maybe should not be prescribed for others just as a matter of course.


----------



## Bdfarmer555 (Oct 7, 2015)

Two groups sat on a hill one night, staring at the moon. One group thought how great it'd be to go there and investigate what the moon is like. The other group was positive it was impossible. 

The first group began experimenting, failed, tried new things, failed, found problems that they never could have imagined, failed again, but eventually succeeded at putting a man on the moon. 

The second group repeated "I told you so" at every failure of the first group, then most stared in awe as Armstrong stepped onto the moon for the first time. Some of this second group still swear it was a hoax and is impossible. 

There is no difference between a beekeeper trying to eradicate varroa through breeding and a chemist doing the same with chemicals. The same goal is on the horizon, just different visions of how to get there. They will both deal with failures, and most likely dead bees. But all obstacles in life are solved by those with drive and faith that there is a solution. We call this group visionaries, pioneers, inventors, explorers, and scientists.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Michael Bush said:


> Do any of these sound like advice to keep banging your head against the wall because you believe doing the same thing over and over (banging your head against the wall) will succeed?


Maybe some clarification is necessary. "banging your head against a brick wall" does not insinuate that one is doing the same thing over and over, as you state.

It is a continous fruitless attempt to accomplish some task or achieve some goal that is or seems ultimately hopeless.

belief does not have everything to do with success. and motivation is driven by many factors.

I wonder why you made the OP.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

At one time, many people believed that man was never destined to fly. The Wright brothers were not among them. The Wright brothers would never have tried if they did not believe it was possible. They would never have succeeded without belief that it was possible, and belief that they, in particular, could do it, and the determination to work out the details. They also never would have succeeded if all they had was the optimistic belief that their first attempt was going to work and jumped off a cliff to their death. Many people had been "banging their heads against the wall" on this problem for many centuries. They could have chosen to just assume the naysayers were right... or given it one halfhearted attempt and then agreed with the naysayers... but that was not the decision they made.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> Yea. I've been timed at 120 wpm... Not quite as fast as I can think, but it is as fast as I can talk...


120... me too if I'm typing from my thoughts... not quite so fast at copying text. Even faster several years ago when I typed much much more.

I'm just struggling to make the connection... What does typing or talking speed have to do with inspecting bee colonies? :scratch:


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

I believe there is a great inspection weather coming up for this late in the year!



Can't wait to hear the report. Charge up the GoPro now.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Here is a link to the use and implication of analogy to support a claim to authority. 

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/analogy.php


----------



## sharpdog (Jun 6, 2012)

>At one time, many people believed that man was never destined to fly. The Wright brothers were not among them. The Wright brothers would never have tried if they did not believe it was possible. They would never have succeeded without belief that it was possible, and belief that they, in particular, could do it, and the determination to work out the details. 

But they did not sell tickets to people for a ride in an unproven prototype, which they "believed" would fly, then push them off a cliff.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I believe there is a great inspection weather coming up for this late in the year!

Currently I leave home before 5:00 am and get home after dark... but it's a nice idea. Yes the weather is gorgeous right now and I'm in a basement all day where I can't even see it.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> I was going to video stuff this summer, but when I got it out the battery was dead and all of the 100 weird little USB cables I have did not fit. So I ordered a new one and by the time I got the battery charged I was busy with other stuff. It's not so much belief as time. I can't make time out of no time...


Mike. Everything works if you let it.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

sharpdog said:


> But they did not sell tickets to people for a ride in an unproven prototype, which they "believed" would fly, then push them off a cliff.


Don`t put the blame on someone who tries to inform TF newcomers.

People who consider TF are mostly disappointed of mainstream beekeeping and have their own reasons to consider a more natural way.

I`m with you, Michael.


.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

Its funny how people characterize Treatment Free enthusiasts as some type of dope dealer. I don't know, maybe its because I use my brain. Not once in my studies have I ever seen someone say there was not going to be costs, losses, and time involved when trying to go successfully TF. Maybe the people that feel "Mislead" should have read further than the first line which may have been something along the lines of "TF success is possible". G


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> I'm in a basement all day where I can't even see it.


Who's basement, Michael? Do we need to send for help?


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

SiWolKe said:


> People who consider TF are mostly disappointed of mainstream beekeeping......


Yeah, that mainstream beekeeping sure is disappointing, you know, all of that feeding the world stuff....


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

biggraham610 said:


> Its funny how people characterize Treatment Free enthusiasts as some type of dope dealer. I don't know, maybe its because I use my brain. Not once in my studies have I ever seen someone say there was not going to be costs, losses, and time involved when trying to go successfully TF. Maybe the people that feel "Mislead" should have read further than the first line which may have been something along the lines of "TF success is possible". G


I think you are correct in saying that a lot of them should have read deeper. I dare say that some of rhetoric about the ease and ultimate successfulness of the TF is being toned down in the last year or so. Quite a few fairly heavy hitters have walked away from it and discussed it here. Some others have come upon a set of particular circumstances that apparently make them successful but there is not a great concensus on what these enablers are. 

Personally before I got started I read and talked to people who worked every day with bees across our geographic area. I was not mislead at all: I saw the need to be selective in what I formed my directions from.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

HarryVanderpool said:


> Yeah, that mainstream beekeeping sure is disappointing, you know, all of that feeding the world stuff....


It is, the mainstream approach brought us varroa and shb. If it was doing a good job, then there would be less need for management than more. I would say its a disaster and wouldn't depend on it feeding anyone in the long term.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

lharder said:


> It is, the mainstream approach brought us varroa and shb. If it was doing a good job, then there would be less need for management than more. I would say its a disaster and wouldn't depend on it feeding anyone in the long term.


Ummm, no.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

It is a kind of misleading to say that the "mainstream approach" brought us those pests. What brought those pests was shipping bees and other goods from all over the planet. That being done, those pests arrived whether people keep their bees treatment free, or not.

As to disaster and not depending on it long term, predictions of doom have been getting made for a while now. One thing commercial folks seem very good at is an ability to adapt.

But is the treatment free debate really the topic? I did not see it mentioned in the opening post, which seemed to be about belief. Or has it been assumed the inference of the OP must be treatment free


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

It has been popular over the ages for a certain segment of the people to see problems and think the 'system' is to blame, and if we just blew up the system and instituted a new one all would be well; no more problems.

They forget that problems are inherent to life. There is no perfect system and there will never be one. 

Let's see the plan for the new and improved system. It's easy to trash talk and point out problems. Not once has any one of those folks offered up a viable, or even nonviable, solution. Talk is cheap, criticism is easy. 

Like Michael Bush says, take your beliefs and work out the details. Put a plan together and share it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Bdfarmer555 said:


> Some of this second group still swear it was a hoax and is impossible.


Because not everyone will believe. They don't have to. It is their loss.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> One thing commercial folks seem very good at is an ability to adapt.


You think they might do something different? Could you list what they have been doing different?


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> Part of belief leading to success is that it gives you the drive to, not just give something a cursory try, but to work out the details. And this brings me to another point of frustration for me. That almost every time someone does an experiment on virtually anything they don’t bother to find someone succeeding and ask them about the details before they set up an experiment to prove it doesn't work. Pretty much if you don't believe in it, it probably isn't going to work because you won't make it work. Why not find someone who is succeeding and study them to figure out if it works and then why it works. At that point you will believe it works (because you have observed it) and have an idea how to make it work by copying someone who has succeeded. For instance, if you want to know something about natural cell size why not talk to someone with hundreds of hives with natural comb in them rather than blunder out on your own? What size the bees build depends on a lot of different things like the time of year, the intended use for the comb etc. So again, I say I can probably get you whatever results you would like because I know what affects it and I can set the stage to get what you want, in this case, larger or smaller.


Michael, I understand what you're saying. Belief in success leads one's to attempt to succeed. Doesn't mean one will succeed, no matter how strong the belief is that success can be attained. So what? I'm trying to understand why you started this thread. Where are you coming from?

So, I quoted the paragraph, and to me, that is where. Now, I never comment or criticize TF or SC or whatever. I don't agree, but I don't say so. I wish what you say were true. I don't find it so. Whatever. It does't matter what I think.

But I think that what you're attempting to say is the same old. The SC studies got it wrong. They didn't do the experiments correctly. They didn't run the experiments long enough. They didn't Housel position. Now you're saying the studies failed because the scientists didn't "believe". Really? Come on Michael. You think Seeley, Berry, et al, work that way?

I've heard this all before. The SC studies weren't done correctly, weren't done for a long enough time. In 2010, I offered someone, a popular proponent of SC and Lusby and all, a spot on the EAS 2012 program. This was going against the board, but I would have stuck my knock out for him had he followed through. All he had to do was a run a proper experiment...whatever that may be...that showed how SC beekeeping helped him with his attempt to keep bees successfully without varroa treatments. I would have made sure he was given time to present his study. Did it happen? Of course not. I have been told enough times that the SC camp doesn't need to do any experiments, as they already know SC succeeds, so why bother. They "Believe"!

Anyway Michael, I'm with you. You're a successful SC, natural comb, lazy beekeeper who doesn't have to do anything, because "All things work if you let them". You believe in what you're doing, and persist in your work because of that belief. So rather than find reasons to diss Seeley and Berry and whomever...and to me that's what you're doing here...do your own experiment and give the rest of us a reason to believe.

Now, I'm sorry to vent in this way, but understand. I work my bloody ***** off, every day. No days off for months at a time. So, when someone who hasn't got the time to look at his bees since spring, starts a thread like this, I have issues. If you want me and the other "Skeptics" in the beekeeping world to have a reason to believe, give us something concrete. Faith Based beekeeping doesn't make it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Palmer said:


> I work my bloody ***** off, every day. No days off for months at a time. So, when someone who hasn't got the time to look at his bees since spring, starts a thread like this, I have issues.


When you say " I work my bloody ***** off, every day. No days off for months at a time." the first question is why? and the second question is sour grapes maybe? So you will work your bloody **** off, every day with no days off for months at a time until you get something concrete. Ye have little faith ... and maybe a strong back to make up for it.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Arnie said:


> It has been popular over the ages for a certain segment of the people to see problems and think the 'system' is to blame, and if we just blew up the system and instituted a new one all would be well; no more problems.
> 
> They forget that problems are inherent to life. There is no perfect system and there will never be one.
> 
> ...


No! State it for what it is. If the system is working then it is better with time and takes less effort. No excuses. Management is more difficult, complicated and expensivewith time. How is that smart? It is black and white. There is case after case after case after case of agi types/beekeepers shooting themselves in the foot because they discount long term risk in favor of short term gain. They never learn. Do you want me to start outlining the billions lost, and competitive advantage lost through foolishness.


----------



## twgun1 (Jun 26, 2015)

Michael Bush said:


> I knew it was a risk to say this and that certain people would take things out of context and that most people would not bother to figure out my point. Instead they jump to their own conclusions about what I said without listening to what I said. This is clear by many of the above posts. Hopefully some of you will actually try to see my point.
> 
> I am NOT saying that you can merely believe your way to anything. I'm NOT saying that faith by itself is the solution to anything. The point is that to make something work, you have to believe that it is POSSIBLE to make it work. And then you have to figure out the DETAILS that are REQUIRED to make it work, by expanding your paradigm to include those details as you discover them. And then you have to work your behind off to MAKE it work. The point is that belief changes your actions and motivates you to figure out and deal with the details THAT, in addition to work, makes the difference between success and failure. Reality is complicated and you need the motivation that belief provides to work through the details.


I see it. Simple. I live it. You did a great job of putting it into words and I thank you for your time. 

I am a believer. 

Haters gonna hate. 

IN you spare time (ha ha), please read Maxwell Waltz's Psycho-Cybernetics. Interesting read.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Arnie said:


> Like Michael Bush says, take your beliefs and work out the details. Put a plan together and share it.


Yep, share it. % losses, crops harvested, nucleus colonies made and queens reared. The actual production records of your TF, SC, leave them be, apiary. Let's work in real numbers. Can we get the numbers from anyone?


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Acebird said:


> When you say " I work my bloody ***** off, every day. No days off for months at a time." the first question is why? and the second question is sour grapes maybe? So you will work your bloody **** off, every day with no days off for months at a time until you get something concrete. Ye have little faith ... and maybe a strong back to make up for it.


You just don't get it....


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Palmer said:


> You just don't get it....


You got that right.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

lharder said:


> No! State it for what it is. If the system is working then it is better with time and takes less effort. No excuses. Management is more difficult, complicated and expensivewith time. How is that smart? It is black and white. There is case after case after case after case of agi types/beekeepers shooting themselves in the foot because they discount long term risk in favor of short term gain. They never learn. Do you want me to start outlining the billions lost, and competitive advantage lost through foolishness.


Exactly, thank you for proving my point. I see lots of criticism but no alternative, workable plan.

How would your plan have prevented varroa and SHB from coming here? 
How would you now solve those problems? 
How would you produce viable resistant queens to sell for beekeepers to replace all their queens, so management would be easier?

You can cite case after case after case of beekeepers shooting themselves in the foot but not offer a better plan?

Like I said; easy to be critical, much harder to offer up a solution.

Edit: If you don't survive the short term you won't be around for the long term.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Acebird said:


> When you say " I work my bloody ***** off, every day. No days off for months at a time." the first question is why? and the second question is sour grapes maybe? So you will work your bloody **** off, every day with no days off for months at a time until you get something concrete. Ye have little faith ... and maybe a strong back to make up for it.


What a stupid, ignorant post. The why you'll never understand. Sour grapes? OMG. Really?? Ace, I have total faith. Faith in my beekeeping management and knowledge and in working my bloody ***** off over many years to achieve my goals. I have zero faith in Faith Based beekeeping models, by self-professed lazy beekeepers.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Well said, Mr. Palmer. There is a reason Mr. Bush is locked in a basement and you're pounding away 80+ hours a week making a living from your bees. Because you can and you know how.

As far as Ace goes... No one is really sure why he hasn't been squelched years ago. He kicks his one hive twice a year. Michael, how are you so thick that you can't figure out how to successfully keep 15,000 bees like Ace? Probably can't see through that face you're making from all the sour grapes. 
Unbelievable.


----------



## sharpdog (Jun 6, 2012)

Michael Palmer said:


> Michael, I understand what you're saying. Belief in success leads one's to attempt to succeed. Doesn't mean one will succeed, no matter how strong the belief is that success can be attained. So what? I'm trying to understand why you started this thread. Where are you coming from?
> 
> So, I quoted the paragraph, and to me, that is where. Now, I never comment or criticize TF or SC or whatever. I don't agree, but I don't say so. I wish what you say were true. I don't find it so. Whatever. It does't matter what I think.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I'll see it when I believe it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Michael Bush said:


> My point isn't that just believing without action changes anything. Believing changes the way you approach it and what you end up doing. Belief is the reason that you work out the details and figure out how to make it work.


I would appreciate your insight into my latest problem. I did change my approach after I believed. Dee made this statement about belief:



> The basic principles are simple. Basically it’s believing in a natural biologically controlled system to correct the situation without the use of essential oils, antibiotics, chemicals, artificial feed, and overuse of insemination by placing our domesticated honeybees back onto a beekeeping system compatible with that of Nature and her feral populations.


http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/honeybee-comb-size-and-ramifications-part-2/

And this:



> I believe that there is ample evidence to back this conclusion up, especially when it can be shown that retrogression back onto smaller natural comb size of 5.0mm stabilizes the death curve and further retrogression back onto 4.9mm comb size foundation further eliminates accompanying secondary diseases.


http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/honeybee-comb-size-and-ramifications-part-3/

And then this:



> On a natural biological system, the few phoretic mites that remain are quickly filtered out through the brood nest by the workers chewing-out and/or removing mites from infected larvae cells (cleansing).


http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/retrogression-back-to-normal-part-2/

Now, I caught a swarm and they drew out 20 deep frames of SC comb. Problem is, the phoretic mites are eating them up, literally. Isn't looking like I'll have these bees in the spring to work with. Is this because I didn't believe enough?


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

Reading some of the above posts reminded me of a couple quotes, I think they apply somewhere in this discussion:

*We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.

Anais Nin

I want to convince you that humans are, to some extent, natural born essentialists. What I mean by this is we don't just respond to things as we see them or feel them or hear them. Rather, our response is conditioned on our beliefs, about what they really are, what they came from, what they're made of, what their hidden nature is.

Paul Bloom*​


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Michael Palmer said:


> What a stupid, ignorant post. The why you'll never understand. Sour grapes? OMG. Really?? Ace, I have total faith. Faith in my beekeeping management and knowledge and in working my bloody ***** off over many years to achieve my goals. I have zero faith in Faith Based beekeeping models, by self-professed lazy beekeepers.


Looks to me like it is time that some have been caught in their own webs. And it couldn't come soon enough. Without the popular bee boom of the last 10-15 yrs. it would have happened much sooner. The "field of dreams" beekeeping mantra is nonsense.

Those of us who depend on healthy and productive bees have faith in our management methods and work hard to make it pay off.
We have to or we find something else to do. 
We learn something new in the yards regularly. We talk to others who have the level of knowledge and experience for intelligent conversation regarding working with bees, and do most of it in private. The braggadocio doesn't exist in these conversations, no tolerance for it. We prove ourselves every year, most have to.
And who do we prove it to? ourselves.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

LeeB,

Yes, we see the world through the filter of our experiences. No doubt.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Palmer said:


> Michael, I understand what you're saying. Belief in success leads one's to attempt to succeed. Doesn't mean one will succeed, no matter how strong the belief is that success can be attained. So what? I'm trying to understand why you started this thread. Where are you coming from?
> 
> So, I quoted the paragraph, and to me, that is where. Now, I never comment or criticize TF or SC or whatever. I don't agree, but I don't say so. I wish what you say were true. I don't find it so. Whatever. It does't matter what I think.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jwcarlson said:


> As far as Ace goes... No one is really sure why he hasn't been squelched years ago.


He sells copy. Some people can't wait to read what he comes up with next.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> The point is that belief changes your actions and motivates you to figure out and deal with the details THAT, in addition to work, makes the difference between success and failure. Reality is complicated and you need the motivation that belief provides to work through the details.


My belief is that I'm going to have vibrant healthy bees when spring arrives.... low overwinter mortality rates, and blessed with a good honey crop. I would guess that the majority posting here have similar goals (unless one is simply on a personal philosophical crusade of some sort). 

I've done my homework, worked through the details with both success and failure.... and will continue to do so. It's very true, reality is complicated and sometimes it doesn't mesh with the original plan. Just like Edison, you believe in your goals and persevere until you find the right combination that works. 

I like the idea of the perpetual expanding paradigm. TF or not.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I believe:

That if your beliefs effect your ability to observe, you will never out due those that 
can observe with impartiality, everything else being equal.


It is harder to observe if you do not open the hive.

Time is the cruel judge. Let's see who is still around in 10-20 years.


Roland Diehnelt, 5th gen beekeeper


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)




----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

marshmasterpat said:


> View attachment 21416


The trouble is the person "doing it" isn't even sure he's doing it. Some bees were buzzing around in April, so all is well?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> The SC studies weren't done correctly, weren't done for a long enough time.<

www.voralpenhonig.at

Just an example. Commercial beekeeper, living off his bees.
No small cells I think, but having success nevertheless.
Read the english version.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Since MB likes old quotes:








http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures...lly-believes-to-be-true-demosthenes-49353.jpg


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

jwcarlson said:


> The trouble is the person "doing it" isn't even sure he's doing it. Some bees were buzzing around in April, so all is well?


I have only visited one other bee keeper's yard and he worked with USDA on the Russian introduction, so that don't count. So I don't know what MB yard looks like or if it only has a few bees in it or not. I would assume he must be successful. But will leave that others to decide. 

I listen and read very closely to a few people advice on this forum, but digest what all say,. I think lots of people that have failed, take it personally as an insult when they didn't succeed with TF or SC and others say they did it wrong. Many failed before the Wright brothers. That does not mean they didn't bust their rear ends as hard or harder than the Wright brothers. The brothers succeeded because they looked at the issues of lift and steerage differently than others I believe, combined with lots of trial and error. 

I have not been at it long enough to know if I am going to fail, but it will be a long and ugly fight if I do. God rest the poor bees at my hands. Breaking common rules regularly. No feed in dreath, splits in dreaths. 

But what many on both sides of the TF arguement seem to forget is something that hit me hard when I started. 

All bee keeping is local. Or in MB words....

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

In wetland management and restoration the same is true. 

It works in Air conditioning, just saw a design build contract facing mega buck issues because the AC unit was designed for Montana and installed near Houston. Pumped outside air (and humidity) in for a year until the mold appeared from behind the walls. Major dollars will disappear in court because of the issue. System was not designed for RH in 70s to 90s, but where they are below 30 most the time. Lots of stuff is local.

I would suspect that MB bees might not do as well in places where 100Ks of commercials hives arrived and dumped unknown numbers of bees that mingle and share diseases from all over yearly. They might not work under the stress of being moved regularly. I don't know what to think, but I read weekly of people that are over run with parasites, virus, and other issues. And at the same time others are posting success by doing what others fail at. So is one group liars? Probably not. I also suspect that often we miss the one (or few) vital link that might help us succeed, so we quit and shift to another method before we get to 1000+ tries that Edison did. And Edison had a lab generating income from other things while he worked on the light bulb. Maybe MB picked the right combo after 50 tries. 

MBs efforts don't work for some people elsewhere. Does not mean he could not make them work there or if they tried something different they might be successful.. 

But I don't think he meant any of it to be insulting for anyone, but rather encouraging for folks to keep trying. 

The cumulative knowledge on this site is unbelievable. And the experience is even greater. Share what you learn, what you see, read what everyone from MB to Ace to ignorant me says, flush what you don't like, and go.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Barry said:


> Isn't looking like I'll have these bees in the spring to work with. Is this because I didn't believe enough?


No. Everything worked out as expected. 
Remember; Everything dies if you let it.

You win!


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Everybody is trying to find the holy grail. Many have not
succeeded in doing so. For the ones who have done it already then
congratulation on your success. For the rest of us the long
battle is still ahead. Might take 10 years or so to find that
mite resistant bees but it can be done. I still believe!
After many mites that crashed my hives since day one I still have bees to play with.
In Barry's situation, he has not find the resistant genetics yet. It is
still out there but you as beekeepers have to put all the right elements
together first. So what are the right elements? Perhaps Michael Bush can shine some lights
into this area for us. The how to specifically. It is like putting a big puzzle together. 
Have you found yours yet? Then the search is still on for many. I'm almost there....I believe!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I think Barry is more saying he believed in small cell. 

From other posts it seems he still believes in TF bees, but is less believing than he used to be that small cell has to be a part of that.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Back in the early part of the 20th Century AFB cases were at epidemic levels and regulation to address the problem came into being. Varroa mites have killed more colonies of bees than AFB ever has. Do we need regulation to address the problem again?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beepro said:


> In Barry's situation, he has not find the resistant genetics yet. It is
> still out there but you as beekeepers have to put all the right elements
> together first.


I'm still left scratching my head. I hope my harping on what I'm experiencing right now with this hive doesn't come across as sarcasm. Few have given the SC theory more time than I have, in practical application. This latest test and outcome has pretty much made it clear to me that SC does not play any significant role in managing mites.

As Oldtimer just posted, I'm not throwing TF out the door, but how can the claims be made about the benefits of SC ("retrogression back onto smaller natural comb size of 5.0mm stabilizes the death curve" and the whole bee to mite emergence rate where the SC bee emerges a day before the mite thus escaping the mites devastating impact) be true when the brood in my SC hive is getting wiped out? So the bee genetics are what makes the difference? Then why mess around with SC?


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

sqkcrk - My gut response is NO. But it has helped in the agriculture field for other issues. But what would it bee? Would it cover all beekeepers, just ones that move hives more than x miles, only ones that sell bees (excluding queens), or what?


----------



## Sunday Farmer (Nov 13, 2013)

Acebird said:


> why? and the second question is sour grapes maybe? So you will work your bloody **** off, every day with no days off for months at a time until you get something concrete. Ye have little faith ... and maybe a strong back to make up for it.


Why? *shrugs shoulders*
Some people get up everyday and work their **** off for their passions,
Some people get up and manage apartment complexes. 
*shrugs shoulders* Don't know why. But I'll follow the people from the first group.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Barry said:


> I'm still left scratching my head. I hope my harping on what I'm experiencing right now with this hive doesn't come across as sarcasm. Few have given the SC theory more time than I have, in practical application. This latest test and outcome has pretty much made it clear to me that SC does not play any significant role in managing mites.
> 
> As Oldtimer just posted, I'm not throwing TF out the door, but how can the claims be made about the benefits of SC ("retrogression back onto smaller natural comb size of 5.0mm stabilizes the death curve" and the whole bee to mite emergence rate where the SC bee emerges a day before the mite thus escaping the mites devastating impact) be true when the brood in my SC hive is getting wiped out? So the bee genetics are what makes the difference? Then why mess around with SC?


When it comes to complex systems, more than one factor is at work. A single failure or success is irrelevant. For instance an athlete may become fixated on diet to the exclusion of everything else. What happens on race day? Failure. So its obvious that small cell in itself is on a factor and not even a necessary one considering others have success TF without it.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Acebird said:


> the first question is why?


Your entire post doesn't deserve a reply but I'll do so anyway.

Michael Bush has stated that he couldn't make enough money keeping bees and therefore is a computer programmer. I suspect that his beekeeping income comes mainly from talking about keeping bees.

Michael Palmer makes his living from keeping bees.

One has faith and the other has genuine passion and commitment to bees and beekeeping. Can you figure out which is which?


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

I know there is some talk about numbers but the treating and tf people come to numbers from a different place. Treating people can't bear a loss and avoid them at all costs. TF people use loss as a tool to improve their stock. I haven't arrived at a number yet but I'm guessing that 10% losses would be a failure of sorts because not enough marginal bees have been eliminated. The business model is different. For TF the question is whether losses stabilize and improve to some reasonable level. MB says his losses are 20 or 30 %. Do 2 years of missing data because of other duties really put a hole in his methods? Has he been doing it long enough to know what he's talking about? If he retired from beekeeping tomorrow and phased into teaching because of age, would that negate his experience and he could no longer offer input?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

marshmasterpat said:


> sqkcrk - My gut response is NO. But it has helped in the agriculture field for other issues. But what would it bee? Would it cover all beekeepers, just ones that move hives more than x miles, only ones that sell bees (excluding queens), or what?


Who knows? Anything is possible. The low hanging fruit will get the most attention I'm sure.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

lharder said:


> I know there is some talk about numbers but the treating and tf people come to numbers from a different place. Treating people can't bear a loss and avoid them at all costs. TF people use loss as a tool to improve their stock. I haven't arrived at a number yet but I'm guessing that 10% losses would be a failure of sorts because not enough marginal bees have been eliminated. The business model is different. For TF the question is whether losses stabilize and improve to some reasonable level. MB says his losses are 20 or 30 %. Do 2 years of missing data because of other duties really put a hole in his methods? Has he been doing it long enough to know what he's talking about? If he retired from beekeeping tomorrow and phased into teaching because of age, would that negate his experience and he could no longer offer input?


"Treating people can't bear a loss and avoid them at all costs." Patently untrue. Losses are part of my management style. I depend on losses to maintain the number of hives I want to maintain. I don't want any more than 600 colonies. I do everything on my own. So each Spring, in SC, I split to fill in my Winter Die Back and make 80 or 90 nucs to use or sell when I get everything back to NY.

I had about 70 or 80% loss back in 2006 and have had 20 and 30% losses since then, until this last Winter when losses were around 13%.

If Michael had 20 or 30% losses for 2 or 3 years while absent, what did he have left to work with and did he replace his lost colonies, and how?

If you are going to keep bees you have to keep them, you can't just have them. And if you maintain TF bees you are a varroa sink for your neighbors to get mites from.

I have faith, but I believe I will have another beer.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> And if you maintain TF bees you are a varroa sink for your neighbors to get mites from.


I think it is just the opposite Mark. If you treat your bees you create a varroa sink of much stronger mites that infect your neighbors. Surely with your long experience you have seen one chemical after another become less effective. Commercial beekeeping is competitive. You are competing against your fellow beekeepers who may be your friend. The issue is if you start using a miracle drug and gain an advantage you fellow beekeeper has to follow suit. This is the exact same problem with all agriculture. The miracle drug will lose it's effectiveness over time. That is guaranteed.

On the other side of the coin if no drugs, chemicals were used there would still be bees. A natural resistance to varroa would occur. I don't think we will ever see that day because once you get on the band wagon there is no getting off. I think the only way anyone can be successful with TF is if there is not the varroa sinks around you in great numbers.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

lharder said:


> MB says his losses are 20 or 30 %. Do 2 years of missing data because of other duties really put a hole in his methods?


Yes, because he hasn't been managing them either. If he hasn't even had the time to check them do you think the losses are likely greater or less than the average given lack in management?

OF COURSE two years of missing data matters. If you were buying into anything else in your life and someone, for example, said "I harvested about 2000 pounds of apples from my small orchard. You should manage your orchard like I do." Then you find out he basically not been to his orchard in two years... wouldn't you be a little suspicious that maybe things haven't quite been going as designed? Or since you believe in the guy it doesn't matter...? :scratch:


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Any loss is an unnecessary loss. 

Wild hive living in a wall for years untreated: 




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzhSjk-XSbc

I know a couple of those hives and am observing them. It is less a question about believing but a question of setting aside wild theories on how treatment free "works". 

I come across a lot of "untreated" and "treatment free hives". At least those hives are advertised as such by their bee-havers. But what I find is reality. Poor sights of small, ill hives that barely survive instead of being alive and thriving. 

It is time to overcome those ideologies and theories and get back to real beekeeping. And that means caring and nursing and husbandry. Bees are so weakened by their surrounding, they need some help to get along. First thing is nourishment, the rest will follow.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> I have faith, but I believe I will have another beer.


At 9AM?!


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

lharder said:


> Has he been doing it long enough to know what he's talking about? If he retired from beekeeping tomorrow and phased into teaching because of age, would that negate his experience and he could no longer offer input?


present day beekeeping, like some other fields, is constantly evolving. if you are not actively engaged your experience is dated
and your input will quickly be viewed as less useful.


----------



## Gazelle (May 17, 2015)

It's sounds like different passions. Mike bush's is raising bees TF, and Palmers is making a living off bees?? Both live for bees. Me too. I have come to have so much respect for these guys. I think most of us would kill to go see their live presentations. I know I would.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Gazelle said:


> It's sounds like different passions. Mike bush's is raising bees TF, and Palmers is making a living off bees?? Both live for bees. Me too. I have come to have so much respect for these guys. I think most of us would kill to go see their live presentations. I know I would.


Bush won't walk out of his basement on an 80 degree in October to see if his bees are alive. Yet he "lives for bees"? I disagree.

I would love to see MPs. Kill... no. 

I would to see a video of MB's beeyard, though. Seems like he just can't quite make it all come together with that GoPro for the past couple years. Maybe there's a reason he doesn't have the time or the batteries are dead or his dog ate it everytime he gets close to making a video?


----------



## kevindsingleton (Jun 6, 2014)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Any loss is an unnecessary loss.
> 
> Wild hive living in a wall for years untreated:
> 
> ...


Doesn't the "wild hive living in a wall for years untreated" disprove the subsequent statements "And that means caring and nursing and husbandry. Bees are so weakened by their surrounding, they need some help to get along. First thing is nourishment, the rest will follow"?

How did bees manage to survive for eons before mankind began "beehaving"?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Many households work financially when one spouse works a job that provides benefits.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Most people seem to have a passion for something. Some it is money. Others a big house and barn with the attendant mortgages. No criticism of that from me...it's their choice, not mine. There are those who find a different passion and figure out a way to survive and at the same time pursue that passion. As a single person living a simple existence pursuing a small but successful beekeeping enterprise.....I decline to be lectured by anyone who chooses money first. It would be a bit like me telling others how to get rich.
When you earn all or the greatest part of your living keeping bees....not lecturing or writing about 'em or selling others' honey but actually keeping them and selling your own product....I'll listen. Benefits are a red herring...especially today.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I think it is just the opposite Mark. If you treat your bees you create a varroa sink of much stronger mites that infect your neighbors. Surely with your long experience you have seen one chemical after another become less effective. Commercial beekeeping is competitive. You are competing against your fellow beekeepers who may be your friend. The issue is if you start using a miracle drug and gain an advantage you fellow beekeeper has to follow suit. This is the exact same problem with all agriculture. The miracle drug will lose it's effectiveness over time. That is guaranteed.
> 
> On the other side of the coin if no drugs, chemicals were used there would still be bees. A natural resistance to varroa would occur. I don't think we will ever see that day because once you get on the band wagon there is no getting off. I think the only way anyone can be successful with TF is if there is not the varroa sinks around you in great numbers.


Actually, I meant to say, "a Varroa bomb or landmine". My mistake.

The only way that what you describe could happen is if Federal Law and State Law prohibited the use of miticides and commercial beekeeping went extinct. Then, after 30 years or so perhaps, no one really knows, we might be able to start rebuilding the commercial beekeeping industry in America. I don't think that Canada and Mexico would go along with that plan. So if only the US did that, the plan would fail.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> At 9AM?!


It's something I believe in. I don't always act on my beliefs.

I believe I will have four pallets of empty supers and four pallets of buckets of honey to bring home from the extractor today. We'll see about that.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Gazelle said:


> It's sounds like different passions. Mike bush's is raising bees TF, and Palmers is making a living off bees?? Both live for bees. Me too. I have come to have so much respect for these guys. I think most of us would kill to go see their live presentations. I know I would.


I hope not. I have been present when both of the two you mention spoke and as much as I admire and have high regard for one I would never kill anyone or anything to see either of them live. You were being facetious, weren't you?


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

The comment that those of us that are using treatments are creating resistance to those treatments keeps getting thrown out in these discussions. Well so are the small cell advocates creating resistance. The mites are evolving to counter anything that is against them. All living things have to change with the changes their environment throws at them or they would become extinct. If the advantage that small cell has is in the time to maturity of the bees, in time the mites will evolve to mature faster too. In time an equilibrium is established or one species will win out against the other. Another comment that is frequently made is that if we were suddenly out of the picture there would still be honey bees. That the bees would develop resistance to mites on their own. How many species have become extinct over time because they could not evolve to cope with a change in their environment. If everybody used drone brood culling to reduce mites, in time mites would stop breeding in drone brood. The more varied our mite protocols are the better our bees will deal with mites. I believe this to be true.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I think it is just the opposite Mark. If you treat your bees you create a varroa sink of much stronger mites that infect your neighbors. Surely with your long experience you have seen one chemical after another become less effective. Commercial beekeeping is competitive. You are competing against your fellow beekeepers who may be your friend.
> 
> On the other side of the coin if no drugs, chemicals were used there would still be bees. A natural resistance to varroa would occur. I don't think we will ever see that day because once you get on the band wagon there is no getting off. I think the only way anyone can be successful with TF is if there is not the varroa sinks around you in great numbers.


Not sure where you get your information on commericial beekeepers. We share more openly among ourselves , work together and support each other more than you could imagine. this whole use of chemicals to compete is total BS. Treatments are used to survive.. Your idea that there would still be bees if everyone stopped treating would come only after the total collapse of about 1/3 of food system, are you suggesting that is a good course of action? Totally agree eventually chems will let us down , better hope we develop a better agricultural system befor that happens. The model we have now means the bees you have in your back yard, the food on all our tables, a stable economy all depend on it.


----------



## Gazelle (May 17, 2015)

sqkcrk said:


> I hope not. I have been present when both of the two you mention spoke and as much as I admire and have high regard for one I would never kill anyone or anything to see either of them live. You were being facetious, weren't you?


Seriously ???


----------



## Colobee (May 15, 2014)

I believe I've learned a thing or two about beekeeping in the past few decades. I believe I'll keep doing the things that have worked for me (and the bees). I believe _some_ of the stuff I read here, and that it _may_ help me improve my management techniques.

I believe that some folks aren't as inclined to learn from the mistakes of others. Some folks have to make those mistake themselves, then go about figuring how to solve their own problem(s).

I believe I'll just continue beekeeping.


Best of luck to all.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

marshmasterpat said:


> View attachment 21416
> Started 9/13, building slowly, now @ 12 Lang hives and no treatment yet



View attachment 21416


Started in 2011, building at an alarming rate even though I sell nucs in spring, now going into winter with 230 colonies, treating with Apivar if necessary.

Lots of free advise here, but one thing I do know. You make your choices and manage your bees _on your own dollar_. No one giving advise is going to replace your bees if you fail.

I read everything I can and apply it to my own unique situation, my own climate, my own strain of bees with their own traits, my own goals. 

What works for others is interesting and at times is noteworthy, but I focus on what works for ME. I address what my situation in front of ME, at any given time, calls for. 

I want my bees to thrive, not simply to survive. Believe me, there is a huge difference between the two.

You all have probably read my posts about my usage of methods for (Chemical) treatment free techniques like using virgin queens, brood breaks and cutting out drone comb. In certain cases, if that's not enough or if it's the wrong time of year for those methods, I treat and don't allow folks to pressure me into feeling like a failure if I do. 

When you see the relief a colony has after a good successful treatment, you realize how miserable they have been and, in my opinion, how cruel it would be to let colonies suffer and dwindle with a lack of animal husbandry. 

Beekeepers prevent their colonies from swarming and force them to live in somewhat unnatural conditions for the sake of the honey harvest, why folks are against basic health management is still surprising to me.

We all want to be as organic as possible. I am right there up there with you on that one. But I do treat when necessary. I overwinter with no worries. And I sure as heck don't have to buy bees every year. In fact I only bought bees my first two years, and that was largely because I followed the advise of others without focusing on what MY BEES were telling me.
Wishful thinking with a side of ignorance. Glad I'm past that stage.

Excellent genetics & excellent health plays a huge part in the amount of intervention each colony needs, but a good _balance_ of VSH behavior and productiveness is what I'm looking for. I don't want a colony that survives totally treatment free but is miserable, constantly uncapping it's own brood and won't produce surplus honey. 














































No sides being taken here, I've done both T & TF and been successful at both with only 5 years experience. I go for the happy medium.

But if I do have to treat, I know HOW to treat, WHEN to treat and WHAT to use. I'm not a day late and a dollar short, scrambling at the last minute for a resolution to hive health issues.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

If Michael had 20 or 30% losses for 2 or 3 years while absent, what did he have left to work with and did he replace his lost colonies, and how?

I believe he said 20 to 30 % when he had time to maintain things. 

If you are going to keep bees you have to keep them, you can't just have them. And if you maintain TF bees you are a varroa sink for your neighbors to get mites from.

If you could maintain 20 to 30 percent losses without treatment along with a 10 % drop in honey production, or 5 to 20 % losses with treatment, what would you choose?


----------



## Sunday Farmer (Nov 13, 2013)

beemandan said:


> At 9AM?!


Dude. Don't judge.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Well said Lauri... in talking with a few folks down here on TF, I have the back up plan of getting colonies to the point of one fall treatment being a success in this area, and that is where the bees aren't collapsing at time of treatment as well. That first frame is a nice picture of capped honey btw :shhhh:

I still have this girl btw, daughters next season - 

Did have to drop in some Apivar a few weeks ago, first person to find the bee with the mite on it.... wins at life??


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Lauri you have done an amazing job, contributed a great deal here and continually set a great example with your balanced approach. I have worked with a ton of Beekeepers in my 23 years, you certainly found your niche. I was a babling idiot at 5 years, I always read your posts and look forward to the next one. I see solid brood patterns, packed hives, healthy bees, well run apiaries and someone who is thriving during an onslaught. prerty good stuff! Newbies looking for a mentor, compare their hives with Lauri's, that's how you find a mentor/teacher.


----------



## Gazelle (May 17, 2015)

Amen Joel ! She's a good one to follow on her Facebook also!


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

JRG13, top left corner.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

"The basic principles are simple. Basically it’s believing in a natural biologically controlled system to correct the situation without the use of essential oils, antibiotics, chemicals, artificial feed, and overuse of insemination by placing our domesticated honeybees back onto a beekeeping system compatible with that of Nature and her feral populations."

The above is a belief statement about how natural systems work. That the tools are there to get the job done if not interfered with. Its a model that has its shortcomings but it had enough truth in it for Dee to run her operation. She has her opinion that sc was a key component of her system, and it might have been, but whenever complex systems are involved, simplistic explanations often fall short. 

My belief or my world view about tf beekeeping is based on my background in ecology and evolution. Its a bit more nuanced and complex than what Dee has communicated, but I'm sure has its shortcomings as any world view has. But luckily, its also based on the success of a few, as well as plenty of research that indicates the bees are capable of taking care of business through a variety of mechanisms. Once the tools are assembled properly through genetic recombination/natural selection, then losses should stabilize. Its a bottom up approach that values and promotes genetic diversity and local self sufficiency. A program involving treatment negates the main tool of a tf approach, natural selection and results in a large loss of information, masking problems. This will and has resulted in long term loss of system resilience. Treatment is like steroids. A user may out bench press me in their twenties, but there are long term consequences of using them.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

beemandan said:


> At 9AM?!


You know the saying, it's 5 o'clock somewhere, besides after reading this thread, I think I will join. As stated, at the end of the day, it is your belief that drives your beekeeping practices/management, & your bottom line. Do what works for self:gh: Shake the rest off.


----------



## rookie2531 (Jul 28, 2014)

Lauri, your success is a shining light for us rookies with similar goals. I started last year with one package and sold 7 nucs this year to feel the water, sort of speak, to see if this venture had merit. It seems to have a market, but how big of one is still unknown to me, but I am still growing. Going into winter with 13 and plan on splitting and selling some more next spring to help pay for the wooden ware. I want to grow just as fast as possible and this year, I stretched them to the limit as I lost my fair share due to being too weak and the moths destroyed some comb to boot. But, I did treat last year and this year as well. As far as treatment free, I think I need enough hives to be able to sacrifice, for experimentation.


----------



## Pooh Bear (Jun 19, 2015)

The belief in success is not something I think about too often perhaps because I am an engineer and often have a mathematical way of thinking. Substitute *probability* for *belief* and that gets closer to my mindset for the dynamic biological system that is beekeeping.
Yes the problem say of TF bees can possibly be solved, but I think more along these lines: how much trial and error is necessary for that to occur and how many losses can I absorb? If I have a thousand hives and went cold turkey TF, then there’s probably a good chance that at least one hive survives the onslaught of varroa infestation (+vector viruses). Perhaps they reduce their cell size, develop acid for blood or exhibit better grooming characteristics - who knows - but if one survives and then all subsequent hives are repopulated with that strain, have I now not increased the odds of success for future generations? Most likely.
Now if I do more than just leave them alone and activity play with some variables that change the bees behavior and upset the varroas life cycle, then perhaps I can get to that solution more quickly. Has the probability of success now improved even more because I am now learning what works and doesn’t work and am helping out that selective process? One would like to think so.
Edison may have succeeded in creating the light bulb but he did try a lot. As a newbee beekeeper, I’d like to develop TF bees but I have only two hives. Chances are I am going to be wiped out time and time again if I do that. Not that I think others can absorb such losses more readily than I but they will probably have a better chance of success than me just owing to larger population numbers to work with.
I guess this is where government and university research comes in, operations that can afford to lose money on the research but whose success would benefit us all.
Apologies if I have gone off point from the original post.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

No worries most of the thread has been off point from the original post. Or maybe it's been on it, depending what was being inferred.

I see the OP hasn't been around a while.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Gazelle said:


> Seriously ???


What I should have said to you, perhaps. Seriously? You would kill to hear someone speak? I hope not.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JRG13 said:


> That first frame is a nice picture of capped honey btw :shhhh:


Get your glasses checked, JRG, Lauri's first photo was a frame of brood. Or were you joking with her?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Right there.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ha! Isn't that a bit of paint?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yeah, varroa red!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JRG13 said:


> Well said Lauri... in talking with a few folks down here on TF, I have the back up plan of getting colonies to the point of one fall treatment being a success in this area, and that is where the bees aren't collapsing at time of treatment as well. That first frame is a nice picture of capped honey btw :shhhh:
> 
> I still have this girl btw, daughters next season -
> 
> Did have to drop in some Apivar a few weeks ago, first person to find the bee with the mite on it.... wins at life??


I don't think you should worry about that one Varroa, but you should worry about all the other Varroa causing your poor looking brood pattern. That's my assessment.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks guys 

When I started, I couldn't make MB's methods work for me. Now as a more experienced beekeeper, I still can't, but I have a totally different situation than he does. Different climate, different type of bees, different goals, etc.

By using methods that did work for me with TF management, I adapted and overcame using my own observations and methods. 

That's been invaluable for my breeding stock management & continued development since that is TF. Not just TF for mites, but all treatments including antibiotic & Fumagillin use, which I feel is much more important than occasionally treating for parasites.

If I have a great TF colony, eventually it will change over the years with ether the aging queen that can't keep up anymore or the new replacement queen (s) Even with natural replacement queens their genetics will be slightly different than the parent queen, due to open mating. Maybe better, maybe not. 

While mites may be under control as long as the colony is in great shape, they will be always waiting on the fringes for an opportunity to capitalize on any weak periods the colony may experience. Seasonal changes & stresses may be all that is needed.

If I have a colony that needs help controlling the mites, but is seriously a real pleasure to work with and impresses me every time I open the hive, I don't have a problem with that.

For my small queen rearing operation, I need a _lot_ of supporting colonies and well as production colonies. If some of those need to be treated on occasion, I am happy to provide the support they need on my end of the deal and keep those bees with other positive traits alive and well. 

I'm not looking for repeat customers when it comes to selling nucs. Truthfully I don't want to sell nucs, but have to to keep my hive numbers under control. I'd rather sell them queens then next year after their colonies overwinter and have to be split.



Once again, this is just my opinion and my experience. Others may have a different scenario. To each their own and I wish them all the best.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> I don't think you should worry about that one Varroa, but you should worry about all the other Varroa causing your poor looking brood pattern. That's my assessment.


Overwintered, previously TF colony with a 4 year old queen that couldn't keep up anymore. Photos show early spring, before Apivar strip was installed and after. Not only was this the same colony & queen_* it is the same frame*_. Photos taken just a minute apart.

One side was capped before the strip was installed, the other side was capped after.

And that's MY assessment 

Now who's replacing older queens because of poor capped brood patterns? Over all performance and queen longevity are important too.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

wow.


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

Am I incorrect in saying that bees have been living with Varroa for centuries? The fact is they have been, just not all strains. 

Some claim more aggressive bees handle them better. Seems like the south texas feral hives are doing well, so is this something that has impacts to the issue of mite resistance. And is there a trade off of calm bees and high losses? I might be brave enough to open a nuc without smoke and a veil, but not one of my other hives. 

Is part of the issue that the most common genetype/phenotypes in the US are italian or western European strains. They have not evolved to with the mite. But these bees do have regressed traits to handle them, which is where the VSH are coming from. 

The Russians that evolved with mites have traits that are not quite as favorable for commercial bee keeping according to most. But USDA LA found that Russians expressed strong hygienic behavior at a much higher level (69% vs 37%) than standard bees. Just most folks don't like the other traits they are claimed to have. 

Sickle cell is common in countries with high malaria rates, and the countries have shorter life spans. Evolution's trade off. More people live long enough to mate and pass on genes but don't live to an older age. Nature's trade offs are not always kind. 

Could the small cell reduce the issue by either slowing down the increase or the exponent explosion rates some colonies of with mites. Just enough of a difference that colonies with more resistance survive.

Too many factors involved to say SC does or does not have impacts. The simple factor of proximity to "Mite Bombs" nearby that a keeper is not knowledgeable about could shove the balance back to failure.

Seems like a simple study to look at small cell versus large cell in the same apiary and do comparisons of drone pupae infestation rates. Will put it on my list of to dos. 

But Lauri does have a point, splitting have the apiary that survives in the spring and treating half and letting the other have slug it out. 

Beer time.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>>Quote Originally Posted by Arnie View Post
>>Like Michael Bush says, take your beliefs and work out the details. Put a plan together and share it.




Michael Palmer said:


> Yep, share it. % losses, crops harvested, nucleus colonies made and queens reared. The actual production records of your TF, SC, leave them be, apiary. Let's work in real numbers. Can we get the numbers from anyone?


Still waiting....


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Are you happy with this brood pattern?




JRG13 said:


>


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Palmer said:


> Still waiting....


Gonna be a long wait for that one LOL.

But Squarepeg is running a thread on his experiences and shows good numbers. Based on it, and the reluctance of some others to share anything real, to me, the thread shows that TF can be done successfully, but also perhaps ominously, that Squarepeg is likely one of the most successful TF people out there.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> Overwintered, previously TF colony with a 4 year old queen that couldn't keep up anymore (Outbreed the mites). Photos show early spring, before Apivar strip was installed and after. Not only was this the same colony & queen_* it is the same frame*_. Photos taken just a minute apart.
> 
> One side was capped before the strip was installed, the other side was capped after.
> 
> ...


Is the upper photo the one I referred to in JRG's Post? As spotty as the upper photo looks to me, I'd be looking critically at what is going on and do something about it.

If that's the same frame, and I believe you when you say it is, but opposite sides, I don't know what to say.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

beemandan said:


> Are you happy with this brood pattern?


Ugly


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> Are you happy with this brood pattern?


:s Much better (?).

I don't know why you would show me the same picture and ask for a different reaction. Something ain't right with the way your queen is laying. But, heck, if you like it, who am I to say. I wouldn't pinch her head. I'd sample for varroa and treat.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> Is the upper photo the one I referred to in JRG's Post?


No, That is an example of another old queen's brood pattern being effected by a mite load they could no longer handle with a slow growing spring colony. 



sqkcrk said:


> If that's the same frame, and I believe you when you say it is, but opposite sides,* I don't know what to say*.


Hee hee, it takes a special talent to silence the Mighty Sqkcrk!

Yes, the same frame, one side then the other.
I was amazed when I saw it too. Night and day. Yin & yang. Glad I had my camera to document that one. The timing with the Apivar strip had to be about perfect to get that result on the same frame.

Jeff mentioned he had to treat his colony too. I bet if he had taken a photo after treatment, they would also show similar results.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Lauri said:


> Overwintered, previously TF colony with a 4 year old queen that couldn't keep up anymore. Photos show early spring, before Apivar strip was installed and after. Not only was this the same colony & queen_* it is the same frame*_. Photos taken just a minute apart.
> One side was capped before the strip was installed, the other side was capped after.


Well now I'm lost.
the two photo's of a full frame in the post are the same frame, same side in early spring before apivar and after taken a minute apart??
please straighten me out.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

clyderoad said:


> Well now I'm lost.
> the two photo's of a full frame in the post are the same frame, same side in early spring before apivar and after taken a minute apart??
> please straighten me out.


 No, same frame, different sides


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

same frame different sides before apivar in spring taken a minute apart. thank you

where is the after apivar photo?


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Still not correct.

One side of the frame was laid up and capped when mites were present. Other side was apparently in the egg/larval stage when the Apivar strip was installed and killed exposed mites. By the time the young larva was capped, phoretic mites were no longer present, therefore unable to invade the cells on that side.
First side with spotty pattern still had older capped brood that had not yet hatched.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm no longer lost. thank you.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Pretty awesome advertisement for Apivar.

Got to say I have not found it to work that fast for me anyway, although it gets the job done in the end. But well done!


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

I found those old queens laid cells up very well, but would do them in spurts with a fairly long pause in between frames. I never had more than a couple frames at any one time with brood. Colonies would grow no bigger than single deeps. Strangely enough, they were rarely superceded. I still have several 2012 queens (Last time I looked) going into winter once again. Small colonies, but they seem to be content. Obviously a longevity experiment at this point.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> No, That is an example of another old queen's brood pattern being effected by a mite load they could no longer handle with a slow growing spring colony.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've almost always found you stunning, Lauri.  And you love horses, like my daughter does. Bet she could learn a thing or two from you in that area.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

No I'm not happy with it, it's why they got Apivar put in a couple weeks ago. She put out a decent pattern throughout the year but right now it's mite time in Cali if you haven't treated and I'm evaluating resistance so I tend to treat late. It is a 2013 model which isn't bad these days finishing up a fairly good 3rd season. Also, we've been in an extreme dearth for two months, no pollen, no nectar coming in, those bees haven't been fed which has also added stress on the hive, but overall the population is good and I'll see if I can post a follow up in a few weeks. I also have a few swarm queens I collected in 2013 still going, some not so mite resistant, but queens that are 3+ years of unknown age aren't anything to scoff at in this area. I have a Phil Hoffland queen from 2013 as well, whose headed 3 deep plus 3 medium super hives still kicking too, but she's in a much better area than the others. I have some VSH II breeders as well, you think their patterns look any better??? Is the TF model looking promising yet?? I will hopefully hit 200 hives next year and really start screening then, but I'm not keeping my hopes up. I've got some Old Sol queens to look at, some Bill Carpenter queens, and VSH daughters to evaluate next year as well. A daughter from WSU stock is looking promising this year, the Carpenter bees and VSH daughters show some hope since the really susceptible bees will mite out the first year and I did not have to treat these yet.

I have a few Harbo daughters to evaluate next years as well. I also hope to obtain some Latshaw daughter queens, some Zia queens and a few from some know TF beekeepers if they come through and actually ship. Michael Palmer, the two queens I got from you looked good. I did lose one, hoping her daughter mates, she laid up 3 solid frames of brood, then I found her abdomen with back legs attached outside the hive one day during an inspection where I found them queenless with a few cells started, not sure what happened there, even a few eggs left and I could've squeezed a few eggs out of that abdomen, still that fresh. I have a few Broke-t queens and Pineridge queens that did ok as well, but nothing really noteworthy in terms of build up or any kind of mite resistance. My hopes are to get some F1's with Carpenters mite maulers and the VSH queens and see how they perform, hence the collection of germplasm I've acquired. I really want to get a VP Pol Line breeder next year as well as I've heard good things but I've had no luck keeping one alive yet. That's what I believe in anyways, genetic diversity is key, and now I need to coax some good trait combinations together and with some luck and II maybe produce a few good breeder queens to really get the ball rolling.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> The only way that what you describe could happen is if Federal Law and State Law prohibited the use of miticides and commercial beekeeping went extinct.


OMG it is funny you would say that. If chemical treatment of bees was outlawed commercial beekeeping would not go extinct. Commercial beekeepers would become millionaires because the demand would still exist and outside sources would not be allowed because of the chemicals. Don't get your hopes up China likes it the way it is.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> If chemical treatment of bees was outlawed commercial beekeeping would not go extinct. Commercial beekeepers would become millionaires because the demand would still exist and outside sources would not be allowed because of the chemicals.


How would they become millionaires if their colonies were dead, oh wise one? 

And it is you who doesn't know the political power of the Agriculture Community. Fruit growers and vegetable growers and others dependent on pollination would get the border opened lickety split so Canadian and Mexican bees could come intom the States to supply what would be needed.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> lickety split?


 You dated yourself with that one.


----------



## scorpionmain (Apr 17, 2012)

I believe Lauri knows what she is doing.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> How would they become millionaires if their colonies were dead,


They all wouldn't die. Didn't you say you had 80% losses in 2006? You are still going aren't you?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> You dated yourself with that one.


No one else will. heh heh


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> They all wouldn't die. Didn't you say you had 80% losses in 2006? You are still going aren't you?


But I didn't rebuild by not using miticides, Brian.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

I have similar pictures to what Lauri posted. Not same frame like that but similar starkness. Same queen and everything before/after treatment. I would be interested in seeing some TF beekeepers brood patterns.

Before (foundationless natural cell):


After (5.4mm Rite Cell):


Same queen after some OAV.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

But that would mean going into the hive's brood nest area and remove combs.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> But that would mean going into the hive's brood nest area and remove combs.


Hehehehe


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Mark, yes I know that was capped brood, I was just jealous it was wall to wall. Lauri's queens are some of the best quality I've found so far, she knows what she's doing and puts out a great product. I look forward to getting more from her next year. Although the queen pictured needed treatment, it's not to say they didn't do better than other bees either... the worst ones mited out weeks ago and are deadouts, these still looked decent other than the brood pattern, minimal dwv and dead larvae, they cleaned out the infested cells fairly well, better than others.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

jwcarlson said:


> I would be interested in seeing some TF beekeepers brood patterns.


Here's one. Can you tell where the wires are?......... I hate foundation.... G


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I may be crazy, but in both photo setts, Lauri's 163 and JWCalson's 189, it appears that there was an increase in nectar flow between the times the two photos where taken. Notice how much lighter the cappings on the brood is in both "after" shots.

Crazy Roland


----------



## sharpdog (Jun 6, 2012)

Roland said:


> I may be crazy, but in both photo setts, Lauri's 163 and JWCalson's 189, it appears that there was an increase in nectar flow between the times the two photos where taken. Notice how much lighter the cappings on the brood is in both "after" shots.
> 
> Crazy Roland


It is quite a different looking brood colour, but after scanning the shadows, the greenery,the hive box, and the holes in the wax in the corners of the frame, I believe that is the same frame on the same day. Great pictures!


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> But that would mean going into the hive's brood nest area and remove combs.


Really Mark? Do you believe that everyone who tries to find a TF balance spends less time in the brood than you or any of the other commercial or treating hobbyist/sideliner beeks? :no:G


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Time spent, well a hobbyist of any persuasion is likely to spend more on one hive than a commercial guy obviously. Just what is done in that time may be another matter.



jwcarlson said:


> Same queen after some OAV.


Very impressive result, could you please explain your OAV method in a bit more detail?


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

Oldtimer said:


> Time spent, well a hobbyist of any persuasion is likely to spend more on one hive than a commercial guy obviously.


Without question OT. I would never expect that. But, that's not what Marks statement reflected. What it reflected, was that anyone that was TF was too lazy to dig in the brood box. I know Mark well enough to know that's not what he actually meant. It probably had something to do with cracking that first beer at 9:30am. G


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Oldtimer said:


> Very impressive result, could you please explain your OAV method in a bit more detail?


Frankly, I'm not happy with it. Pretty much all the rest of my colonies didn't have so good a result. Three treatments, one per week this summer. Can't remember the exact dates. This particular colony is pretty good about staying on top of the varroa, there is just so much brood I think it's tough once the brood ebbs a little bit. We first opened colonies March 15th this year. There was snow on the ground the week before, in fact maybe just a few days before. But it was about 65 or 70*F. She was maintaining about 5 frames of brood March 15, wax scales on bottom sticky told me they started brooding late January (after solstice). They overwintered in a deep + medium. Never touched the honey in the medium. Cluster never left the bottom board.

Anyway, this pic was taken 4/17:


She seemed to consistently have six frames capped just like this and brood in at least 6 more, opened the brood nest as much as I could following Matt Davey's thread on here. Just couldn't keep up with them and ended up splitting her off May 31st after they'd drawn their 2nd deep and started swarm cells... with a few frames of brood and a couple of food... 



She never skipped a beat and the flow cooperated. Made 2-3 nucs from her and stole brood for bee work at least 3-4 more times. They always had resources to give. Other than pollen patty (which they had pretty much non-stop into July) I think I might have fed them one maybe two gallons of syrup when I'd split her off. They're going to winter in a triple deep at something like 140 or 150#.

I hit them with MAQS about a month ago. I think there were less than 100 mites on the sticky board for them. OAV gave them the edge they needed. I should really measure mite counts more frequently. I probably would have left them alone but was treating everyone else so figured I should do them as well.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

sharpdog said:


> It is quite a different looking brood colour, but after scanning the shadows, the greenery,the hive box, and the holes in the wax in the corners of the frame, I believe that is the same frame on the same day. Great pictures!


Lauris are obviously the same frame. She must have hit the timing just right to be able to get those pics off the same frame. JW never claimed they were the same frame, nor the same day. Simply before and after, same queen. G


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

biggraham610 said:


> Really Mark? Do you believe that everyone who tries to find a TF balance spends less time in the brood than you or any of the other commercial or treating hobbyist/sideliner beeks? :no:G


I took it more as a dig at Bush, G. :gh:



biggraham610 said:


> Lauris are obviously the same frame. She must have hit the timing just right to be able to get those pics off the same frame. JW never claimed they were the same frame, nor the same day. Simply before and after, same queen. G


Mine are absolutely not the same frame. Not the same day. Not even the same apiary (I moved them to alfalfa at some point in between).

Is is the same queen, though. 
The comment regarding white wax is accurate, although moreso because the queen was on new foundation in two deeps above her bottom from the split. We had a fantastic flow they drew out three deeps like the wind, she had brood in 3-5 frames of each box at her peak in the triple before they started pushing her back down. Still had about 10 frames with brood in early September, but was cutting back absolutely.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

I have a question JW. Were those results, the ones you showed in post 189 what all your hives looked like after OAV?


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

jwcarlson said:


> I took it more as a dig at Bush, G. :gh:


Whats that good for? Its kinda like that hate filled rant in GQ from the "Tolerant" and "Inclusive" people. Makes me laugh. So, you asked for a brood frame, 2nd year daughter mid-late summer. G


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

biggraham610 said:


> I have a question JW. Were those results, the ones you showed in post 189 what all your hives looked like after OAV?


All except the package Italian decendants (who are on 100% natural or 4.9mm plastic). One I sampled 100 drones and found 151 mites on the day I did the 3rd treatment. These were mites under fat nearly capped larva (would not have been touched by OAV. The other "sister" colony was in better shape mite wise. Pattern never suffered really, but they still had loads of mites. Otherwise most of the nucs responded well and the other full size colonies similar.

Pattern in "bad" Italian hive:
http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k633/jwcarlson1984/20150723_161650_zpspjx9qxaa.jpg

Good Italian Hive:
http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k633/jwcarlson1984/20150825_154942_zpswvklpz9e.jpg

Here's an ugly frame from the granddaughter of the one I've talked about most on this thread. They were looking to swarm in late August so I split off the daughter into a nuc with two frames and they build up into 5 over 5. Before she left she laid no less than 4 frames of drone brood... full foundationless frames of drone plus another frame or more worth scattered in all the other foundationless frames. So right when she started laying I hit them with OAV two times about three days apart (to fend of mite drone bomb).

Here's the brood from a queen that mated right around September 3-6th in Iowa (after two OAVs):


Nucs after OAV:
http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k633/jwcarlson1984/20150730_170030_zpsxu26zfys.jpg

http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k633/jwcarlson1984/20150901_165928_zpswbnowyiz.jpg

A different colony after OAV:
http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k633/jwcarlson1984/20150823_172548_zpsg11l4kod.jpg

Some overwintered ones had pretty bad PMS early on this spring. Flow helped get some of it gone... OAV helped fix the rest. Still wasn't fully happy which is what lead me to doing MAQS. I think OAV has a tough time getting over a large infestation... especially treating big colonies with lots of frames of capped/almost capped brood. These Italian colonies had 3-4 pounds of bees hanging outside the hive when it got into the 80s. They were packed.



biggraham610 said:


> So, you asked for a brood frame, 2nd year daughter mid-late summer. G


That looked good. I'm just curious how they look when VSH is involved.

What's the dig good for? Nothing I suppose. I chuckled a little.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

jwcarlson said:


> That looked good. I'm just curious how they look when VSH is involved.


Funny you should ask. That *is* what they look like when VSH is involved. G


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

biggraham610 said:


> That *is* what they look like when VSH is involved. G


Oh, I know. Or rather, I assumed. I meant that it looked good and I wanted to see more. Would you say that is pretty average or does it come and go a little bit? The colonies I have that seem to like to uncap brood seems like it ramps up then slows down then ramps up and slows down. There's a bit of a pattern to it. Like the infestation gets worse and they're chewing more then they get ahead of it and it looks a little better. I suppose it's possible that is a function of the queen's laying where on the ramp up the mites are more spread out but if she slows down for several days the new brood has a greater percentage infested.

Been fun chatting tonight. I've plugged this joint up with enough pictures. I'm in the middle of a kitchen re-do so I swung into the computer for a bit to ramp down after reassembling all the cabinets after painting.

90 minutes later...
It's bed time!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

biggraham610 said:


> Really Mark? Do you believe that everyone who tries to find a TF balance spends less time in the brood than you or any of the other commercial or treating hobbyist/sideliner beeks? :no:G


Not everyone. I'm sure some spend more.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

biggraham610 said:


> It probably had something to do with cracking that first beer at 9:30am. G


Who said it was my first?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

All these camera phone photos and no selfies? Y'all spend a lot of time taking pictures. Thanks.


----------



## sharpdog (Jun 6, 2012)

I like your style Sqkcrk! "Beer, not just for breakfast anymore!" - funny t-shirt.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> All these camera phone photos and no selfies? Y'all spend a lot of time taking pictures. Thanks.


It takes 2 seconds to snap a picture, this isn't one of those deals with the magnesium in a pan like you're used to. 

Edit:
I knew I remembered taking one in my car. Hauling nucs in my Civic. Haha


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Here's another surprising comparison pic.
(Nothing to do with mite treatments)

This was from a single deep colony with a pure VSH queen I had purchased last year and over wintered. I was checking out the frames this spring and saw this, thinking laying workers or drone layer immediately since the cells were drawn out and extended from foundation.




















But when I looked on the other side of the frame, saw this:










The two frames were on ether side of the brood nest. Seems this queens traits were almost obsessively determined to rear drones in a specific area, no matter what. You know they'll rear drones here and there sporadically when foundation-less is not available. But I've never seen it quite like this before. Just thought you 'd like to see.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

How many miles you got on it? I use my civic as my bee mobile too... LOL... '92, over 500k miles.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jwcarlson said:


> It takes 2 seconds to snap a picture, this isn't one of those deals with the magnesium in a pan like you're used to.
> 
> Edit:
> I knew I remembered taking one in my car. Hauling nucs in my Civic. Haha


The first day you wore that suit? And the photo taken before leaving the house? 

My phone would need a plastic key cover to keep the wax and propolis off of it.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

I just skimmed through the original post in this thread and what I got out of it was:

'Create a plan you believe in and work out a system to make it succeed.'

Sometimes concerned moms tell me their kid wants to be a chef. They are horrified because THEY want their little precious to go to college and be a doctor or some such. I used to advise against becoming a chef, now I tell them to pick something they love and figure out a way to make it pay. I hated school, I never liked a boring sit-down job. But I love restaurant kitchens. 

So I am with Michael Bush as far as having a vision of where you want to be and getting a plan together to make it a reality. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily succeed. But what good is doing something that goes against your world view? 

Personally, I treat my bees. OAV for mites. Terramycin if they get infected. If someone does not like that,,,,, too bad.

But if you choose not to treat and can keep your bees healthy by not treating, fine by me.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

Michael Palmer said:


> >>Quote Originally Posted by Arnie View Post
> >>Like Michael Bush says, take your beliefs and work out the details. Put a plan together and share it.
> 
> 
> ...


There is no plan. Never was.
There is only self-congratulatory disparaging of the current system.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> The first day you wore that suit? And the photo taken before leaving the house?
> 
> My phone would need a plastic key cover to keep the wax and propolis off of it.


Hahah, not first day. I usually just wear a veil. I'm hauling four nucs not 400, Mark. I do have to clean propolis off my phone frequently. Couldn't imagine if I were doing it full time. My phone would be unusable. 

My Civic is 2001 with 165k on it. Still a pup.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

jwcarlson said:


> Who's basement, Michael? Do we need to send for help?












(Sorry, I couldn't resist)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

jwcarlson said:


> I usually just wear a veil.


Really! Now that would be an interesting photo.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Oldtimer said:


> Really! Now that would be an interesting photo.


Hahhaahahhahahaha, thanks OT! :rofl:


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> The first day you wore that suit?


The real question is how many strange looks do you get per 10 mile of travel with the suit on? 

My friends cannot believe I haul bees in my car at times.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I believe only 75 - 3lb packages inside is the limit of my vehicle.

Crazy Roland


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Barry, unless you have the most excellent queen that can out breed the mites, your
hive will crash without the resistant genetics built in. The bees that have a way to handle
the mites is what you want to keep. From the many elements that I have look at just the SC alone
will not work. The mites will find a way to adapt to the hive situation. Now I wonder why the SC company will not make those when the demands are there?
I still believe! That one day my little bee experiment will work. And the expanded coverage stationary
oav gadget is working on a double deep set up that I tested already. Good news for JW.
This year I bought more tf queens and pure vsh queens for next year's expansion. The goal is to flood
the DCA with many resistant genetics as possible during the grafting season. If your virgin queens return without
the resistant genetics then the whole experiment is a failure. Hopefully it will be a mix of both.
Other than using the SC, what have you done to ensure the resistant genetics are in your favor?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Oh my. A three year beekeeper lecturing Barry on tf beekeeping principles.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

beemandan said:


> Oh my. A three year beekeeper lecturing Barry on tf beekeeping principles.


:thumbsup: x2 G


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Roland said:


> I believe only 75 - 3lb packages inside is the limit of my vehicle.
> 
> Crazy Roland


I. BEt it would be an all time classic beekeeping picture!


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm guessing he's never seen Barry's boat!&#55357;&#56349;&#55357;&#56349;&#55357;&#56349;


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Lecturing? I dare not!
What do I know being a 3 year beekeeper?
I'm not even at tf yet. But I do believe. It is a goal that I set just like others. And will find a
way by incorporating the resistant genetics into my apiary while
doing my little bee experiment according to my local environment.
So why are others doing it but I cannot? What am I missing in my equation?
I pretty much like to share my findings here including my stationary oav gadget plan. Lauri has done a great job of
sharing so far.
What do you have to share to help us along? And I don't mind if you're lecturing when all are worthwhile. Give us all the
details of your set up and techniques or tips of the trade if you can.
I've been waiting for Michael Bush to share his thought here too. I want to know the other elements that enable his
apiary to be tf. The SC I got but the mites are still there. So my conclusion is to get more resistant genetics for next year along
with the stationary oav treatment to help them along. What have you got?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

beepro said:


> Lecturing? I dare not!


It certainly struck me as a lecture on tf fundamentals. If it wasn't intended as such...my apologies.
What do I have? A little more experience but not nearly enough to claim any expertness and surely not enough to be a pro.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

beepro said:


> Lecturing?
> 
> I've been waiting for Michael Bush to share his thought here too. I want to know the other elements that enable his
> apiary to be tf. The SC I got but the mites are still there. So my conclusion is to get more resistant genetics for next year along
> with the stationary oav treatment to help them along. What have you got?


Not lecturing, but repeating the theories without turning the page to real world experience. 

We're all waiting. And, where are you going to get those "resistant genetics"? You're in California. Maybe you should get some of them good Arizona Africans from the high priestess.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Yes, Mr. Palmer. We have the Northern and southern CA 
micro-climate.
In the south there are occassional reporting of the AHB at work.
In the north area I'm lucky enought to not seen any of them here. There is
a weekly local CL ads for catching feral bees or any honey bees. That should
keep the bad genes out of the gene pool for awhile. Like Soar, I'm in a fairly
isolated area with only a few beekeepers nearby. The bee association club member
and his hives are nearby only 5 minutes away. He keeps the carnis but I have the Italians and its carnis mutt. I pretty much rely on the various bee directories on the net and BS infos to get my tf and resistant bees. Here is one of them out of many at http://vpqueenbees.com/purchase/production-queens
At the same time search through the web for the small tf apiary that are gradually having their own success. Their main objective is to raise the quality queens versus quantity which is important. One guy in NY is 10 year tf because his bees do not have the mites, he said. When he thin out his stocks for this winter I took advantage of that to buy his queen. The Fall is the best time to buy queens because some generous beekeepers are thinning out their stocks. They are happy to offer a few queens for sale that meet my criteria. When they are out they're out. Having seen JR's success with his diverse expensive bee genetics ordering from many different sources, I have high hopes that this can be done here. If he can get to 200 hives I can get to 13 without any issue this year. Queen grafting I know the how to. It is getting the right genetics now that is important, I think. Growing slowly but steadily one apiary at a time. Without the real beekeeping experience and a road map to follow I think my little bee experiment will not go too far. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. 
From the many reading on the road to tf, getting the right genetics is the key to its duplication. The mite mauling beekeeper took one week to screen his apiary for an expensive potential breeder queen.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beepro said:


> So why are others doing it but I cannot? What am I missing in my equation?


How many beekeepers are there in the US? How many are keeping bees TF? I'd be surprised if it's 5%. Such a small sample size should be relatively easy to study, if someone wanted to study them.

"There are about 212,000 beekeepers in the United States, all of whom are eligible to participate in the program.(4) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) describes 200,000 of them as hobbyists, and another 10,000 as "sideliners," or part-time beekeepers. Commercial producers, those owning 300 or more colonies, number about 2,000 and produce about 60 percent of the honey extracted annually in the United States."

Seems like all of them would fall into the hobby category too.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

"Don't mix foreign bees into a virgin hive. She might get balled 100% of the time! When will you ever learn, huh?"

By "virgin hive", you mean what? A brand new previously unoccupied beehive?
"She might get balled 100% of the time!"? Some how that doesn't make sense. "might get balled" and "100% of the time"? You can't have both. "She [will] get balled 100% of the time!" or "She might get balled.", but not what you wrote.
Eventually. That's when you will learn.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

beepro said:


> I've been waiting for Michael Bush to share his thought here too.


Michael Bush did share his thoughts in the first few posts and then it got derailed. Why would he discuss a whole lot of other topics in his thread?


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Thanks, Mark and Ace.
Because in my little bee experiment I always forgot about the foreign frame of bees and killed off the many virgin queens. It doesn't matter if it is in a new nuc hive or an old nuc hive. This is a way for me to remember about my stupid mistakes every time. You know ever since I made that signature quote, the idea got stuck in my head for another queen rearing year. It worked with an idea that I believed in and tweaked it a bit on the writing. So if you are confused I understand and apologize for that. What matter to me is that I will never commit the same mistakes again, ever.
So I still believe it will work only this time I have to adjust (tweaked) it in my favor. I believed!
Going back to Michael Bush's idea of believing. I believe that a better oav gadget can be build on simple everyday household materials. Because someone here dare to challenge and I do believe, I went out to find all the necessary required components to make my stationary oav gadget work. After many trials and errors I finally got a workable prototype. All subsequent models are for their improvement only. It is because I believe that it can be done. Other members here have doubts and said it cannot be done by a ******* backyard bee hobbyist. So Michael Bush and others had found a way while others have not. There seems to be a missing link somewhere that we all have miss it somehow while attempting to duplicate his success.
When others have doubts and I joined them then I'm in the same situation that it cannot be done. Because my belief system is the same as theirs...it cannot.
However, when I set my minds to say it can be done with a simple idea and model first. And go out to find the answers, just like Edison did, then it can be done in the end. I believe!
Just like the no drill mating nuc deep partition hives I made, it can be done also. Another ongoing idea I have is a universal non-graft larvae frame at its tweaking stage now. Thanks to the small wax moth larvae to help me along.
Because in my mind I believe in it. Yes, you first have to believe in beekeeping in order to make new idea that works. Nobody say it cannot be done only your mind set of the reality world interacting with the inner world that either hinder or free up your creativity. I still believe!


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Sucks I'm so cynical. I believe it when I see it. 

Then I take a photo to document what I saw. Picture is worth a thousand words they say...

But I do envision improvement in nearly everything tho. I strive for it.

It's a curse sometimes. But it's lead me to many successful ventures.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Lauri said:


> Picture is worth a thousand words they say...


Not these days... to easy to fake.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Acebird said:


> Not these days... to easy to fake.


So Lauri is going to document, say, a frame a brood so she can reference it later. And then go photoshop it to fool herself into thinking the brood was better than it was?


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

Acebird said:


> Not these days... to easy to fake.


Are you serious Brian? Have you been reading anything over the last few years from the Poster you are insinuating is a fraud? That's a new low man. There are tons of beeks, myself included who hope to emulate Lauris success.


----------



## Gazelle (May 17, 2015)

biggraham610 said:


> Are you serious Brian? Have you been reading anything over the last few years from the Poster you are insinuating is a fraud? That's a new low man. There are tons of beeks, myself included who hope to emulate Lauris success.


Amen brotha! I'd kill to be as successful as Lauri!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

A while ago, I picked up a book that was a critique of self help techniques.

One of the most interesting points made was that 'visualization' can be effective, but not if you visualize the end result (success), but instead you visualize yourself doing the hard work that leads to the end result (usually ends up being some form of hard work).


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Very astute Deknow. Basically, work, vs navel gazing. Sounds productive of a good result to me.

A thought on that, work, might not be physical work, depending on the venture physical work may be counterproductive, the work may be organisation of others to work, or even some other form of input. Not that I've ever been much good at anything other than physical work, but I have seen others succeed by stepping back from the nitty gritty so their time is freed up for other things that matter.

I've also seen ventures fail from stepping back too much. I know someone who started a commercial cleaning business, wore a suit never did much work and was soon employing several hundred people. But what it was, the guy got lucky and the first middle management people he hired were top notch, and he thought the success was due to him. Got lazy, then his key people left, he re hired lesser quality people, and because he himself was not very hands on the business eventually went belly up.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

"I'd kill to work as hard as Lauri" is likely to lead to more success than " I'd kill to be as successful as Lauri".


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

I enjoyed the original post. 
I know and have known some big achievers in my life and they have proven to me that a person can achieve a great deal when they set their minds to it.


What I got out of the original post was that someone who is optimistic that they can accomplish something is more likely to accomplish it than someone who doesn't believe that they can in the first place. In general if I need to get something done I try my hardest to accomplish it and only accept defeat after I have truly applied myself and I have failed. Even when I have failed I still try to see what variables that I may not have accounted for or things that I may have not been doing right and I am willing to try again if I think I can achieve a better result with new knowledge and different circumstances.
I took the original post to simply be about not giving up without a thorough application of one’s self and investigation into the subject that you are trying to succeed at. I think that is a good message. Many times I have accomplished things that people didn't think I would be able to and people have accomplished things that I didn't think that they would be able to. The accomplishments of people that have applied themselves can be an inspiration for me and can challenge me to expect more out of myself and I have been able to inspire others with my accomplishments. 
I think it is important sometimes to ignore people that say that you won't be able to accomplish something and follow your vision if you think that you can achieve something. You may fail but you may succeed. Believing that you can accomplish your goals is important as well as not giving up without a thorough effort.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good post Virginia Wolf, long time no see where you been? Hope all is well and that awesome bee yard you have in the forest is going great!


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

virginiawolf said:


> I took the original post to simply be about not giving up without a thorough application of one’s self and investigation into the subject that you are trying to succeed at. I think that is a good message.


As did I. Good post VW. I wonder at times, if the posts were anonymous, would they receive a different reply. In many cases my gut says overwhelmingly YES. G


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

Thanks, things are good.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

deknow said:


> "I'd kill to work as hard as Lauri" is likely to lead to more success than " I'd kill to be as successful as Lauri".


Agreed. Wish I had the time. Day job is killin me!(and keeping me alive) G


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Some keep believes, some keep bees.

PS:
My hands down in the hives, my heart up in heaven. That's enough faith for me.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> My hands down in the hives, my heart up in heaven. That's enough faith for me.


Good one Bernhard that's quite profound. I like it.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard (Jul 7, 2015)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> My hands down in the hives, my heart up in heaven. That's enough faith for me.


Bernhard, I have the sense this will be one of those phrases that occurs to me every so often, as I am working my bees. Thanks for that.

John


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

biggraham610 said:


> As did I. Good post VW. I wonder at times, if the posts were anonymous, would they receive a different reply. In many cases my gut says overwhelmingly YES. G


Anonymity leads to abusive behavior.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Anonymity leads to abusive behavior.


Agreed, though it should be noted that most of the fireworks on this thread are the result of a clash between two respected public people with starkly different philosophies. One a highly respected professional beekeeper by anyone's yardstick and the other (I consider) more of a philosopher and advisor with acute powers of observation. I have refrained from posting on this thread because I didn't want to come across as piling on or being mean spirited. Certainly I identify with the former Mr. Palmer ) far more than the latter (Mr. Bush) but I do think Mr. Palmers assertion that what Mr. Bush is endorsing amounts to faith based beekeeping is pretty much on the mark unless he is able to offer the same degree of specificity of his concrete results in terms everyone can understand. 
Let's face it, Mr. Bush is an icon and a role model for many aspiring beekeepers and I think it's safe to assume almost all of them are expecting a return on their investment at some point in the future if they follow his model. So, yes, when you're advice is sought after to the degree that Mr. Bush's is then it's a fair question to ask and one that a lot of folks would like to hear an answer to. 
Just for the record here is my resume'. I run many thousands of hives, my operation supports four families, I treat and I feel I treat responsibly, our hives consistently out produce the statewide average, we pollinate, we raise thousands of queen cells and I have spent my lifetime doing what I do (I'm 60+). As any commercial beekeeper, I deal in hard facts. I've seen failure and I've seen success and I don't believe that just anything works if you let it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

biggraham610 said:


> Are you serious Brian?


For God's sake people look at the phrase not the person who said it. I had no intention of insulting Lauri. You guys turned it into an insult. A photo by itself, TODAY, is not proof of anything. It was 75 years ago. Lauri, in no way do I think you are a fraud and don't deserve the praise you get for your hard work.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> Just for the record here is my resume'. I run many thousands of hives, my operation supports four families,


Jim now that your resume is on the board do you attribute your success to business skills or beekeeper skills? Do you think if someone had your beekeeper skills they could attain the same success? Which is more important?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

It probably has more to do with the innate ability and integrity of the person than any one skill over another, I suspect.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Acebird said:


> Jim now that your resume is on the board do you attribute your success to business skills or beekeeper skills? Do you think if someone had your beekeeper skills they could attain the same success? Which is more important?


I don't consider myself a highly skilled beekeeper Brian. I've been through some really tough times and I have been persistent because keeping bees is really the only thing I've ever done. Never gotten a W-2 but I've sure sent a lot of them out. I like to say I know a lot more about what not to do than I know about what you should do. We "doubled down" and increased the size of the operation in the late 1990's when many were selling out and giving the industry up for dead. It's worked out great......so far. My advice to others who want commercial success is raise bees first, don't be afraid to copy successful business models and put off purchasing toys until later. Now it's off to the extracting room for another long day.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

One of early scenes in either queen of the sun or vanishing of the bees (I can't remember which), a commercial beekeeper states the following (which shows a deep understanding of his 'job').

"I'm not in business to keep bees, I'm in busineas to stay in business."

This is (IMHO) the core value of being in business.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

deknow said:


> "I'm not in business to keep bees, I'm in busineas to stay in business."
> 
> This is (IMHO) the core value of being in business.


And it is the real distinction between a hobby and a business. People who have grandioso dreams of a bee business should understand the difference.

Thanks for your honesty Jim. Good luck in the future. I am sure you deserve it.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Acebird said:


> People who have grandioso dreams of a bee business should understand the difference.


Grandiose? Why would someone's dream of a bee business necessarily be grandiose? 
I might add that the business of business is to stay in business but...if it's a beekeeping business, a necessary corollary is one must successfully keep bees. These are inseparable. 
Where do these ridiculous ideas come from?


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Relax Ace, no offence taken.
If I had any talent with photo shop, I'd look a lot better in my photos and not have a shadow for my image on my profile pic.  

My photos have probably taught me more about beekeeping than anyone, anywhere. I view them on my large computer screen and almost always notice details I missed while out in the field. Each photo is dated so I can go back and look at my 'diary' the next season and compare my progress with previous years.

I share them with you all just to help you understand what I am talking about. Without my photos, I doubt any of you would know who I am. Too much straight text to me is usually bla bla bla... bla bla bla. A photo ties the text with visual understanding. And every photo tells a story.

Also, my photos show my perspective. My opinion of a good colony, good populations, may be totally different than yours. My photos show you exactly what I am seeing, not just how I interpret the topic. If my interpretation was wrong, the comments and conclusions from readers will also be wrong and worthless. In turn maybe leading some folks to do the wrong thing down the road. And we don't want that, do we?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

>> Each photo is dated ...

Lauri, I heard that it is real easy to _deliberately _set the _wrong _date in the camera!  :no:


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Busted! 
Can that make me 20 years younger?

Wait a minute! Drat! I'd still be about 40. Make that 35 years younger please.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

deknow said:


> I'm in business to stay in business."
> 
> This is (IMHO) the core value of being in business.


I respectfully disagree. You might say it is one value; along with others. But if I was in business just to be in business.......how dreary is that? 

Like Jim Lyon, I am in the business I'm in because it's all I've ever done. But I also happen to love it. We strive to have integrity, to treat people right, to serve a quality product..... and not just because it keeps us in business. I try to do right because ...... well, because it's the right thing to do.

But your point is well taken, in that I have seen many people fail because they don't watch carefully and don't adjust.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> I don't consider myself a highly skilled beekeeper Brian. I've been through some really tough times and I have been persistent because keeping bees is really the only thing I've ever done. Never gotten a W-2 but I've sure sent a lot of them out. I like to say I know a lot more about what not to do than I know about what you should do. We "doubled down" and increased the size of the operation in the late 1990's when many were selling out and giving the industry up for dead. It's worked out great......so far. My advice to others who want commercial success is raise bees first, don't be afraid to copy successful business models and put off purchasing toys until later. Now it's off to the extracting room for another long day.


Persistence is key. Rome wasn't built in a day.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> And it is the real distinction between a hobby and a business.


 I often consider myself a 500 hive hobby beekeeper.


----------



## D.A.S. (Jun 17, 2011)

Michael l agree with you. You can't believe your way into having a full stomach , you have to take action. I am shocked at the number of people here that are so smart that they become unteachable . Even the wax moth has a purpose . In the wild when the hive has become unbearable for the bees they move to a new location. The wax moth moves in to clean it up for future generations. We as keepers have to keep the hive strong and clean, if we fail to do that the moths will move in to do there job. I know several bee keepers who have failed because they were so smart they couldn't be told anything . Have you read the book The Way To Bee ,Meditation and the art of beekeeping. By Mark Magill.?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Lauri said:


> Make that 35 years younger please.


Why would you want to be 35 years younger? Then you would be making another 35 years worth of mistakes all over again. I don't want to be younger.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I often consider myself a 500 hive hobby beekeeper.


No way Mark, not even close.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Well, that was a little more than we wanted to know. Thanks for the insight and words of wisdom Brian.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Lauri said:


> Well, that was a little more than we wanted to know. Thanks for the insight and words of wisdom Brian.


+ over 9000!


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

Acebird said:


> No way Mark, not even close.


You stalking Marks yard on the way to the Pharmacy Brian? :no: G


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

D.A.S. said:


> In the wild when the hive has become unbearable for the bees they move to a new location.
> 
> Have you read the book The Way To Bee ,Meditation and the art of beekeeping. By Mark Magill.?


I have seen that statement printed before but I have never seen it happen. I'm not from Missouri, but you are going to have to show me. I had another person, at least I think it was someone who wasn't you, who said that wax moths make things so that bees take off for a better place. Or something like that. Bupkiss. Wax moths are in indication or symptom of some other condition which weakens the colony.

But maybe I'm too old to learn.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> No way Mark, not even close.


Maybe I should have said "sometimes". It's all relative, Brian. Compared to 5,000 hive and 10,000 hive beekeepers, when I listen to them talk about things that concern them I can easily feel like someone with only a few in the back yard. I have all of my honey off and a friend of mine still has 35 yards to pull.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I have all of my honey off and a friend of mine still has 35 yards to pull.


Is that Jon? I saw his tractor trailer in the driveway last week or so. I thought maybe you were there.
If an operation is 5000-10000 strong they got payroll. Better to use less people and stretch things out then use more and get it done in a hurry.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

No, not Jon.

Fewer people and stretch things out? Brian, those who manage such operations know what they are doing and they would differ with you on that.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Acebird said:


> Better to use less people and stretch things out then use more and get it done in a hurry.


It would help if you looked at business models beyond the mom and pop size group. Many larger businesses have a narrow window of opportunity to complete projects, and if they "stretch things out" they risk losing a job or sales, and with it a tremendous amount of revenue. 

In the construction business, road paving for example, there are a limited number of days a road paving company is able to lay asphalt or concrete. If they stretch things out they will no doubt lose a job, and with it the potential revenue. Sure you will have higher payroll, and higher operational costs, but you could make an additional 1 million dollars on the project. Saving a few bucks in payroll is insignificant if it means losing a job. I'm sure it's not much different with a very large commercial beekeeping operation. They don't have the luxury of cutting labor costs and stretching things out. Things need to get done, and sometimes in a hurry.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

I personally like getting things done in a hurry. I do not understand how a person can still have 35 yards to go. I guess must be that goldenrod and aster flow. That would make me crazy. I mean N.Y. state could be getting snow anytime soon. I have sent half my crew back home. I was glad to see them go. Just means I can get a break from my over the top hobby soon. Rest of the guys will be going at the end of the month. Just a few hives to move, then tarp them for all the rain we get and pull the strips.

I get what M.B. was saying. Took me awhile to get the first 40, after that the next few thousand came relatively fast. 

Jean-Marc


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Sure you will have higher payroll, and higher operational costs, but you could make an additional 1 million dollars on the project. Saving a few bucks in payroll is insignificant if it means losing a job.


Paving is dependent on mechanized equipment. If you don't have the equipment 100 extra people isn't going to do you any good. Beekeeping is more dependent on manual labor. Of course there is equipment involved but processing and packing can be done later. Not so with paving. Using your logic Mike, Mark could take away business from the big guy because he has his work done. I don't ever think that is going to happen whether it is Mark or anyone else. I suspect the big guys already have buyers locked in before they put in orders for bees the next season. I suspect they would have to screw up before the relationship is broken.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

There are none so blind as those who will not see. I don't know what else to say.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jean-marc said:


> That would make me crazy. I mean N.Y. state could be getting snow anytime soon.


I thought about harvesting in the snow. Wouldn't need that step ladder to get to those top boxes. I wouldn't have to put them in the freezer either. Just bring them in let them warm up and extract.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> I suspect the big guys already have buyers locked in before they put in orders for bees the next season.



"Big guys"?? :scratch: You mean large scale beekeepers like _Jim Lyon_ - who has a warehouse of honey just waiting for the right offer?? 

See his post here ...
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ously&p=1325939&highlight=packers#post1325939

That doesn't sound to me as though Jim has buyers "locked in".


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

I have extracted in the snow. Was not fun. Nor is pulling honey. Not so good for the bees either, hard to feed, hard on bees to be late on mite treatments. Everything has a time and season. Best to respect that, it makes everything so, so much easier.

Jean-Marc


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

jean-marc said:


> I have extracted in the snow. Was not fun. Nor is pulling honey. Not so good for the bees either, hard to feed, hard on bees to be late on mite treatments. Everything has a time and season. Best to respect that, it makes everything so, so much easier.
> 
> Jean-Marc


That's it Jean-Marc, that's it. The Byrds sang that to us years ago. It's one of the cool things about beekeeping. Different seasons, different jobs but if they aren't done in the proper time frame you pay a price. We are belatedly nearing the end of a long honey hauling/extracting season and as anyone who has done this much knows, nothing works as well in October as it does in August. It makes me appreciate not having to do this sort of repetitive factory work all year long. 
It's nice when things slow down a little in the winter but it's also exhilarating to see the bees responding to the spring flowers. No other worries of course. Got all those prices and buyers locked in you know. :lpf:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Nothing is a sure thing, like a sure thing.

I started pulling honey using fume boards, this year, and the first pull went really well. When I started pulling the late Summer honey I used fume boards until the last 4 yds when it had gotten somewhat cool and cloudy. Fortunately my extractor, the person who does my extracting, can handle having some bees in his extracting plant. Had he helped me a couple more days than he did we would have been done earlier with fewer bees in his honey house.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

I believe this spring is going pretty well. Hope everyone else's is going well too!


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Because I believe in beekeeping 4 years ago now I still have my bees.
And collected some honey too. No mites now compared to before. Must
be those algogrooming and hygienic bees in there. Dang those, Russians and carnis!
Alright, I'm going for the vsh lighter color Italians now. Going to completely change my
local drone population at the DCAs by this Autumn to get those late after the solstice queens mated.
It is interesting that in a semi-desert area I can get 2 set of queens raised each year. A very good year for
me and my bees!


----------



## devil dog (Jul 1, 2014)

Mr. Bush, this fits perfectly with an old saying of mine: If you say you can't, you probably won't.


----------



## PepperBeeMan (Apr 27, 2016)

deknow said:


> This is a favorite Ray Bradbury short story on the subject:
> http://205.186.130.127/images/uploads/The Toynbee Convector by Ray Bradbury.pdf


Love this.


----------

