# Solomon Parker quitting beekeeping 2022



## JWChesnut

--


----------



## crofter

JWChesnut said:


> He killed all his bees and is making an exit.
> View attachment 66891
> View attachment 66891


Video wont play. How about a verbal rundown?


----------



## Oldtimer

In reality, he has killed them all multiple times but kept the illusion of continuously keeping bees by collecting swarms and thereby always having at least a few bees.

It is a story of someome attaching themselves to a certain method / philosophy / dogma, that just wasn't going to work. But once having become a guru in that philosophy, unable to accept change or learn anything new.

Sad to see the result of that 1/2 a working life wasted chasing an impossible dream. But all failures blamed on someone else, thereby avoiding the need to change ones own stance. Be interesting to see once that link is fixed, if he is still blaming all his troubles on others.

A salutory lesson.

He once told me in a private message that the best thing I could do for beekeeping would be to give it up, stop spreading my ignorance, and just fade away to oblivion.


----------



## Oldtimer

I checked his facebook page and here is the announcement -

Hey all, I have an announcement.
Been waiting a while to do this, I figure the New Year is as good a time as any.
I'm done beekeeping.
This has been a long time coming. I had considered quitting 5-6 years ago but I always thought I had something to prove with treatment-free beekeeping. Here's the thing. You can never prove anything, except to yourself. Just look at the huge anti-science movement in this country today. Well, I am finally to the point in my own personal journey and maturity that I have nothing to prove anymore. Therefore, no reason to continue beekeeping. As I told you all so many times in the podcast, have fun keeping bees, because if you're not having fun, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
I will be leaving this group in the capable hands of Michael Cox and company, as it has been for the last nine months or so, as that's when I quit participating.
The podcast will remain in place until it is no longer financially viable. I have one more episode that needs published, and then probably a goodbye episode.
I will be taking down the online forum as it has never had more than a few dozen members and costs monthly fees which I have supported for years.
The YouTube channel will remain in place. I still have more videos to post and will do that at some point, probably.
I will also begin the process of liquidating my equipment and my bees. For anybody interested in small cell comb, I have a lot of it, lots of small cell frames, boxes medium and deep, many of them with many years of use remaining, plenty of stuff is still brand new.
I will probably take my website down as well, the only thing it's still doing for me is directing people to email me with questions, which I am no longer comfortable answering.
It has been a long journey. As some of you know, I started this group when I was abused horrifically at the hands of users and moderators and owner at BeeSource. I never thought this group to grow to be one of the largest beekeeping groups on Facebook. I'm proud of that. I found my people, for a time. I thought there would be a few hundred, but here we are at over 48,000 members. I thank you for all your participation and your efforts in making the world a better place, which was the purpose of this whole endeavor. Keeping bees in a more natural way was one of my small techniques of doing that. I offered myself as an expert and was given the opportunity of traveling this large and interesting country to talk to you folks.
But I also spent uncountable hours doing work that while enjoyable and fulfilling at the time, led nowhere. I spent uncountable hours answering dishonest questions, fending off trolls (some of which called my phone to accuse me of nasty things). I took heaps of abuse from every possible angle and platform. I still feel bad for the poor guy on Twitter whose name is @solomonparker for all the abuse he took from the trolls.
I just have nothing to prove anymore. That's it. That's all. As usual, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have before I show myself to the door.
Sincerely,
Solomon Parker


145 comments
1 share

Like



Comment


Share


----------



## crofter

He seems to like his version of events and remembers them differently than the ones that were here on beesource before his was eventually banned. 

_*"abused horrifically at the hands of users and moderators and owner at BeeSource." *_

O heavy sigh!


----------



## Oldtimer

Once divisive people run out of other folks to exchange abuse with it is interesting how they then fall out with each other. See how in his last hurrah he sticks the knife into MB.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I remember when Solomon was actually a Moderator at Beesource. 


And Beesource founder/owner _Barry_ was extremely tolerant of those promoting _unconventional_ ideas. Solomon's downfall at Beesource came about after repeated conflicts with Barry over Solomon's abusive language towards those he disagreed with.


----------



## GregB

Hmm..
Thinking back I did not listen to his podcasts since about 2-3 years ago now.
Lost interest.
Pretty trivial talks rehashing the same stuff.
No one of the talkers came back 2-3 years later to report how they were *still *doing - flying treatment free.
I even offered up myself - no call back.
There was nothing useful there for me at some point.


----------



## James Lee

GregB said:


> Hmm..
> Thinking back I did not listen to his podcasts since about 2-3 years ago now.
> Lost interest.
> Pretty trivial talks rehashing the same stuff.
> No one of the talkers came back 2-3 years later to report how they were *still *doing - flying treatment free.
> I even offered up myself - no call back.
> There was nothing useful there for me at some point.


Greg. I run the Michigan TF group on Facebook. I'd be interested in discussing how things are going with your efforts in Treatment Free, what went wrong or what went right etc. 

Aside from Solomon's exit for whatever reason, I'm not affiliated with him or the group, we've also started a Sustainable Beekeeping club in Michigan with hopes to come along side the main organizations as a support for those who don't want to run the main chemical marathons.


----------



## Lee Bussy

I find it interesting how, when surrounded by only believers, the message is that much easier to believe. One thing I appreciate here is that _any_ point of view presented as authoritative is immediately (at least) challenged.

When I played pool regularly I always said I never learned anything from an easy win.


----------



## crofter

When a forum loses the expectation that unsubstantiated statements *will* be challenged, then its value as a learning source heads downwards: many posters with good content will drift away when they see drivel being allowed equal exposure. 

It is not simple since it requires moderation with good judgement, knowledge of the subject matter, and the authority to apply pressure. A thankless job taking smacks from both sides! 

One of the rules of this forum is that criticism of moderators decisions is not allowed. Oops!

I think Solomon got to thinking this was *his *forum and forgot what a moderator is supposed to be.


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> When a forum loses the expectation that unsubstantiated statements *will* be challenged, then its value as a learning source heads downwards: many posters with good content will drift away when they see drivel being allowed equal exposure.
> 
> It is not simple since it requires moderation with good judgement, knowledge of the subject matter, and the authority to apply pressure. A thankless job taking smacks from both sides!
> 
> One of the rules of this forum is that criticism of moderators decisions is not allowed. Oops!
> 
> I think Solomon got to thinking this was *his *forum and forgot what a moderator is supposed to be.


I've been challenging that as of late, but it's not just him it's the whole mod team. My most recent post touches on that. It's a tough place to post anything because it tends toward elitist. If all we do is reaffirm what we know and silence new inquiries or their questions there is no point to exist. Solomon said he started the page and podcasting to help new TF beekeepers, but it was a lot of grandstanding too.


----------



## crofter

thegospelisgood said:


> I've been challenging *that* as of late, but it's not just him it's the* whole mod team*. My most recent post touches on that.* It's a tough place* to post anything because it tends toward elitist. If all we do is reaffirm what we know and silence new inquiries or their questions there is no point to exist. Solomon said he started the page and podcasting to help new TF beekeepers, but it was a lot of grandstanding too.


I bolded some words in your post because it is not clear to me exactly what, where, or when, the reference applies to. To be clear, I am not criticising the moderation of the treatment free forum; there was a vast change in atmosphere when Squarepeg replaced Solomon. Solomon threw gas on and fanned the flames! I suspect the grandstanding issue filled some personal need; beekeeping itself may have been incidental, so easily discarded when it no longer provided the needed strokes.


----------



## GregB

thegospelisgood said:


> Greg. I run the Michigan TF group on Facebook. I'd be interested in discussing how things are going with your efforts in Treatment Free, what went wrong or what went right etc.
> 
> Aside from Solomon's exit for whatever reason, I'm not affiliated with him or the group, we've also started a Sustainable Beekeeping club in Michigan with hopes to come along side the main organizations as a support for those who don't want to run the main chemical marathons.


Feel free to review my journal and comment into it:








GregV's Alternative way to keep (have?) bees.


Not to pollute the "cost of treatment" topic anymore, putting it here..... Granted, large-scale commercial way is different from a small-scale hobby way and has different priorities and methods used accordingly - most of us get it and so just get this out of the way. There are also intermediate...




www.beesource.com


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

OK folks, if you want to post about MemberID changes, do it at this thread:



https://www.beesource.com/threads/memberid-changes-at-beesource.370072/




Do not make those off-topic posts in this thread, or they will be deleted.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hi Thegospel is good, another useful contact for you would be the moderator of this forum, Squarepeg. Highly intelligent guy, he is the real deal with a genuinely self sustaining TF operation not reliant on swarm collection etc. His bees in the last couple of years got EFB but I think he is fighting his way through that.

Back to Solomon I read his thread on Facebook, he says he will now make a living by driving a truck to haul water to fight forest fires, plus he has a trailer that can deliver shipping containers to people who bought one.


----------



## grozzie2

Oldtimer said:


> Back to Solomon I read his thread on Facebook, he says he will now make a living by driving a truck to haul water to fight forest fires


Really, do they do that down south ? Back in the day I used to haul water out to forest fires, but, we used airplanes and dropped it right on the fire. I've never heard of anybody trucking water out to a fire other than drinking water for the camp kitchen.


----------



## psm1212

_"Well, I am finally to the point in my own personal journey and maturity that I have nothing to prove anymore. Therefore, no reason to continue beekeeping." _

I find this statement both very sad and very telling.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes it says something about the mentality. Most of us me included don't keep bees to prove something, we keep bees cos we enjoy it that's all.



grozzie2 said:


> Really, do they do that down south ? Back in the day I used to haul water out to forest fires, but, we used airplanes and dropped it right on the fire. I've never heard of anybody trucking water out to a fire other than drinking water for the camp kitchen.


I too thought it a bit odd, doesn't exactly sound like a full time job. Anyhow, that's what he said.

His whole thread is here if people want to read the whole thing, just skip 2 or 3 posts down till you get Solomons one Treatment-Free Beekeepers | Facebook


----------



## Jim 134

Did anyone else read this... I found it on treatment free beekeeping Facebook... Maybe about 3 days ago...



> Year is as good a time as any.
> 
> I'm done beekeeping.
> 
> This has been a long time coming. I had considered quitting 5-6 years ago but I always thought I had something to prove with treatment-free beekeeping. Here's the thing. You can never prove anything, except to yourself. Just look at the huge anti-science movement in this country today. Well, I am finally to the point in my own personal journey and maturity that I have nothing to prove anymore. Therefore, no reason to continue beekeeping. As I told you all so many times in the podcast, have fun keeping bees, because if you're not having fun, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
> 
> I will be leaving this group in the capable hands of Michael Cox and company, as it has been for the last nine months or so, as that's when I quit participating.
> 
> The podcast will remain in place until it is no longer financially viable. I have one more episode that needs published, and then probably a goodbye episode.
> 
> I will be taking down the online forum as it has never had more than a few dozen members and costs monthly fees which I have supported for years.
> 
> The YouTube channel will remain in place. I still have more videos to post and will do that at some point, probably.
> 
> I will also begin the process of liquidating my equipment and my bees. For anybody interested in small cell comb, I have a lot of it, lots of small cell frames, boxes medium and deep, many of them with many years of use remaining, plenty of stuff is still brand new.
> 
> I will probably take my website down as well, the only thing it's still doing for me is directing people to email me with questions, which I am no longer comfortable answering.
> 
> It has been a long journey. As some of you know, I started this group when I was abused horrifically at the hands of users and moderators and owner at BeeSource. I never thought this group to grow to be one of the largest beekeeping groups on Facebook. I'm proud of that. I found my people, for a time. I thought there would be a few hundred, but here we are at over 48,000 members. I thank you for all your participation and your efforts in making the world a better place, which was the purpose of this whole endeavor. Keeping bees in a more natural way was one of my small techniques of doing that. I offered myself as an expert and was given the opportunity of traveling this large and interesting country to talk to you folks.
> 
> But I also spent uncountable hours doing work that while enjoyable and fulfilling at the time, led nowhere. I spent uncountable hours answering dishonest questions, fending off trolls (some of which called my phone to accuse me of nasty things). I took heaps of abuse from every possible angle and platform. I still feel bad for the poor guy on Twitter whose name is @solomonparker for all the abuse he took from the trolls.
> 
> I just have nothing to prove anymore. That's it. That's all. As usual, I'll be happy to answer any questions you


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Moderator Note:* I have merged two different threads, and the "new" thread title is the one from the 2nd thread started by Jim134 above.

In hindsight, I _should_ have changed the original thread title as soon as I saw it.


----------



## ursa_minor

grozzie2 said:


> Really, do they do that down south ? Back in the day I used to haul water out to forest fires, but, we used airplanes and dropped it right on the fire. I've never heard of anybody trucking water out to a fire other than drinking water for the camp kitchen.


I think that might depend, around here farmers with big tanks to fill their sprayers used to be pressed into action to furnish the ground crew and their backpacks to put out spot fires if they are in a remote area. Now the fire crew has their own tankers.


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer said:


> Hi Thegospel is good, another useful contact for you would be the moderator of this forum, Squarepeg. Highly intelligent guy, he is the real deal with a genuinely self sustaining TF operation not reliant on swarm collection etc. His bees in the last couple of years got EFB but I think he is fighting his way through that.
> 
> Back to Solomon I read his thread on Facebook, he says he will now make a living by driving a truck to haul water to fight forest fires, plus he has a trailer that can deliver shipping containers to people who bought one.


At the risk of sounding like I’m piling on, the whole tone of tf discussion made a dramatic change for the better after Solomon left. It seemed he felt threatened when forced to engage with beekeepers with far more experience. I remember when he first was learning how to graft and make increase from his own bees. He named it “expansion model beekeeping” as if something that beekeepers had been doing forever was his discovery. 😆. I do wish him well, though. Life is too short to carry the baggage of old grudges.


----------



## jim lyon

Actually his FB retirement post popped up a couple days ago as I am a member. Here’s the funny story (believe it or not) of how that happened. A grandson talked me into using my iPad one day. I‘m often on the FB commercial beekeeper site and the next time I picked it up I saw the message I’d been approved as a new member of the TF forum. 😄. I decided what the heck and left it the way it was. Never have posted on there, though, even though I’ve been tempted a few times.


----------



## GregB

psm1212 said:


> _"Well, I am finally to the point in my own personal journey and maturity that I have nothing to prove anymore. Therefore, no reason to continue beekeeping." _
> 
> I find this statement both very sad and very telling.


IMO, this is a cry about personal success not achieved and subsequently changing the subject.

Instead of accepting the lessons, learning from them, and adapting accordingly - might as well "declare a win".

Heard that before somewhere..........


----------



## GregB

jim lyon said:


> I’d been approved as a new member of the TF forum.


One of those *48,000* TF members. LOL
(Not me!)


----------



## AHudd

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this statement from the FB Page.

"Just as you don’t need to own a vineyard to be a vintner, you certainly don’t have to “keep” bees to be a beekeeper."

I mean, keep is part of the name, beekeeper.

Alex


----------



## James Lee

FWIW - Solomon's efforts helped mainstream TF beekeeping. I am grateful for that. I don't like certain philosophers or poets, or even public figures, but I can take what applies and let the rest fly. Solomon often required much more than a grain of salt to listen too - and if he's retiring fine. Whether or not his practices are valid or were "successful" is also irrelevant for the most part, as a bulk of what the TF FB page and podcasts has provided is access to the information and success of others. I'm all about that - especially as a new beeliever (see what I did there?) - facilitating access for others to make better informed decisions is the best approach in my humble opinion (which isn't so humble as my dear wife will tell you!).


----------



## Oldtimer

GregB said:


> Heard that before somewhere..........


I know to which you refer 😄


----------



## crofter

Solomon was not so big on others "better informed decisions" if they in any way were different than his own visions. _Laisser faire_ and breed from the survivors falls flat if you are constantly running out of survivors. After a while people start getting doubts about the magic of the "Emperor's New Clothes" and the vision fades to black!


----------



## Oldtimer

thegospelisgood said:


> FWIW - Solomon's efforts helped mainstream TF beekeeping.


I'm not so sure about that. His efforts certainly brought a lot of new beekeepers into TF beekeeping. Wether he helped them succeed, well that's something else. I'd be pretty sure that of that 48 thousand members of his site, most of them have failed and left the hobby.

I am a member of the site also, joined just out of interest. But I have to bite my lip reading it, much of the advice given is appallingly bad, and pretty much guaranteed to cause the (usually novice) beekeeper to fail at whatever he is trying to do, or, lose his bees completely. But then, they are told losing bees is good. You are eliminating the weak.

My advice to anyone contemplating TF beekeeping would be to join the TF forum here on Beesource.


----------



## psm1212

jim lyon said:


> I remember when he first was learning how to graft and make increase from his own bees. He named it “expansion model beekeeping” as if something that beekeepers had been doing forever was his discovery.


I remember the first time I heard him talking about "Expansion Model Beekeeping." I think it was on a podcast. Thought it was like a rooster taking credit for the sun rising.


----------



## James Lee

psm1212 said:


> I remember the first time I heard him talking about "Expansion Model Beekeeping." I think it was on a podcast. Thought it was like a rooster taking credit for the sun rising.


Actually - it's a Sam Comfort thing - he alludes in the first few podcasts that he stole the "name" and concept from Sam Comfort.


----------



## James Lee

Oldtimer said:


> I'm not so sure about that. His efforts certainly brought a lot of new beekeepers into TF beekeeping. Wether he helped them succeed, well that's something else. I'd be pretty sure that of that 48 thousand members of his site, most of them have failed and left the hobby.
> 
> I am a member of the site also, joined just out of interest. But I have to bite my lip reading it, much of the advice given is appallingly bad, and pretty much guaranteed to cause the (usually novice) beekeeper to fail at whatever he is trying to do, or, lose his bees completely. But then, they are told losing bees is good. You are eliminating the weak.
> 
> My advice to anyone contemplating TF beekeeping would be to join the TF forum here on Beesource.


I feel this is one of those conversations where association with Solomon taints the dialog and nothing can be said to the affirmative for those who detract from TF practices. I am still a novice beekeeper and I've done pretty well thus far with some of the advice, but I also source my material from many other places. I am a believer in natural selection - and wouldn't argue against losing bees to improve your apiary with stock that has genetic material to pass on that is favorable.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Treatment free beekeeping has seen it's hay day. While it never will disappear (nor should it) the con artist side of TF beekeeping will find it difficult to compete with the ever growing availability of sound beekeeping education. Hopefully this will bring a more focused approach to bees with better genetics and attention to beekeepers that are truly making efforts in a non lazy responsible manner.


----------



## Oldtimer

Agree with that TB



thegospelisgood said:


> and wouldn't argue against losing bees to improve your apiary with stock that has genetic material to pass on that is favorable.


I wouldn't argue against it either, just, for me, I would requeen rather than let them die, which achieves the better genetics, without the needless waste and cruelty.

However the bad advice I was referring to in the previous post was not so much telling people to let poor performers die (although there are still better ways). But general beekeeping advice given that would cause perfectly good bees to die, Then telling the person oh well those bees are weak you are better without them. When in fact they were killed by the beekeeper. Losing bees to breed from the best is not such a great theory when the person loses 100% of their bees. Or, telling people stuff that is just plain wrong.

My heart did bleed seeing innocent people ask a question cos they had some problem, and being given advice that I knew would result in the person losing their bees. Not to losing bad stock, advice that would kill even the best of bees. The odd time I did chip in with the correct solution, but had to resign myself that I cannot fix every problem on the internet. I do know that a lot of people would have lost their bees after they lovingly spent time building and stocking their hives, and left the hobby gutted, and sometimes with a decent packet of money down the toilet.

Here on Beesource such stuff would be likely to be corrected or at least other opinions offered.


----------



## crofter

I think you are going to have a hard sell on the necessity of losing bees to improve stock. That is a simplistic analogy. Assessment of qualities for selection does not require waiting for a deadout; Certainly you should be pinching some queens though.

You say that you are a believer in natural selection; If that takes the species in a direction that has noticeably reduced economic return or handling qualities it is going to be a tough proposition to promote. It is a noble ideology but few people really would be happy with the actual results of natural selection. Natural selection does not consult with the benefits to man. Allmost all of our consumables, animal and vegetable are the product of thousands of years of selection.

I am undoubtedley somewhat cynical but I dont swallow simplistic solutions to complex problems. There have been lots of drummers of whom you might wonder whether they were really well intentioned or were merely serving some needs of their own. When you have to wonder hard whether their followers were helped or victimized.......................

I see Kamon and Oldtimer have posted while I was pecking away. Cant argue with anything they say.


----------



## GregB

thegospelisgood said:


> Solomon's efforts helped mainstream TF beekeeping.


Nothing wrong with the TF beekeeping as long as it is NOT misleading people but rather demonstrating solid and quantifiable analysis attached to it.
If one is to be advocating for the TF - be honest and clear about the meaning of it, about the actual success probabilities, and the costs associated.
Numbers talk - that simple.
Belief system is best left to the religious organizations - it is their turf.

For example - be clear of the higher than average mortality to be expected (including total wipe-outs) - which then disrupts normal, per-annual beekeeping projects.

TF feasibility assessment needs to be done before anything else - so to not be wasting time and money where feasibility looks to be poor (instead learn the most effective and the least harmful treatments for the poor circumstances).

Actual goals of a TF-want-be beekeeper need clarification to see how and if the TF fits in (IF at all) - i.e. to explain the suburban beek with 2 hives that they are unfit to be working on resistant bee selection program or to be "saving the bees"

But why, not to rehash the same over and over, here is a good sample talk about the same (one of many on BS):








TF in a world that treats


This is my ramblings on how TF works in the real world: Advise for new beekeepers: 1. Choose hive type 2.Understand honeybee life cycles 3.understand varroa life cycle 4.knowledge of bee diseases 5. Source your bees from TF beekeepers/ or local stock if no TF is available 6. Realize bees...




www.beesource.com


----------



## Vance G

The disciples of TF and non intervention beekeeping are very appealing. Who may I ask, wants to put toxic things in the box where their honey is produced? The cost of these people is horrendous when you tote up the legion of discouraged folks who drank the snake oil and left the hobby feeling like failures. How many colonies of those trying to scientifically raise bees failed under the bludgeoning of repeated mite bombing. when someone starts bee keeping, i always advise beginners to only choose mentors who do not have to purchase replacement bees and always have jars of honey for sale. those failing those tests either lack the knowledge or ability to help others and are those most demonstrative on how to keep bees.


----------



## Lee Bussy

There was a reason I quoted a few of you here ... let's see if my fever-riddled mind can make sense of it a second time.



Solomon said:


> Well, I am finally to the point in my own personal journey and maturity that I have nothing to prove anymore. Therefore, no reason to continue beekeeping.


Yes, I had the same epiphany when I was finally potty trained. Thusly having proven my abilities, I resumed crapping my pants.



thegospelisgood said:


> I feel this is one of those conversations where association with Solomon taints the dialog


That's a very astute observation.

I am not a psychologist/psychiatrist, but I have taken cold medicine. A guy who self-describes as having autism and ADD should probably make sure he has some form of a life coach before making major life changes. I don't know the guy, wasn't here when the fun apparently happened, but just reading a few lines of the linked posts tells me there's NWIH I'd let him date my daughter. Sorry if that's cold-hearted, but this is a person who probably should not be making major decisions for himself. I'm NOT saying that to be amusing in a Twitter-post way, I am saying I am truly concerned about him making decisions for himself.



thegospelisgood said:


> and wouldn't argue against losing bees to improve your apiary with stock that has genetic material to pass on that is favorable


I think allowing bees to die vs. culling unfavorable genetics are two very different means to the same desired end. The first creates mite bombs and endless swarms until the colony (now described as "unfavorable") has dwindled to nothing. But what does that mean? It means you've let three or four swarms with poor genetics and countless drones escape before you resigned yourself to the fact that this was not a good queen.

Let me ask a question: What if you knew she was a bad queen _before_ you polluted the surrounding area with poor genetics?

Treat or do not, that's up to you, but _manage_ and know what's going on. If the inability of a colony to manage Varroa is a downside, know that _before_ you share all those mites with everyone else, and cull the queen. That's just my $0.02 after only a year of learning what it means to start this journey.



Oldtimer said:


> had to resign myself that I cannot fix every problem on the internet


From your lips to God's ears! I have to tell myself that all the time. Google used to have that was called "Google Goggles" where you could set email sent during a certain period to only send the next day after a certain time. That was supposed to prevent firing off emails with "beer goggles" on.



Vance G said:


> Who may I ask, wants to put toxic things in the box where their honey is produced?


Hop acids, oxalic acid, formic acid, that's what I call a Saturday. Let's be serious though there are chemicals that are declining in their efficacy and I think many of us would agree that there's no desire to put them in their honey. The things which are bubbling to the top are part of the environment and if given millions of years, the mites still cannot tolerate them - I think we may be starting down a favorable road.

It may have been Rinderer, or another that I have read recently: The general upshot (HUGELY paraphrased) was that allowing a hive to die because of mites (or whatever) is a micro-view and not likely to end up causing any sort of favorable Darwinian effect. Especially considering the lengths a colony will go to in order to propagate its genetics. If you have a macrocosm that allows the bees to survive, only then can the selection of the best from the survivors really happen. And of course, that has to happen over the macro, not the micro-scale.

And let me say _this place_ has challenged me and others I have seen on our myopic views. I've seen people get their feelings hurt, but that's part of life. If one's beliefs can't stand up to healthy skepticism, how is it going to stand up to real life?


----------



## username00101

that last statement on Bush was totally inappropriate - and a baseless accusation .

I just came here to say that - I was indifferent but that statement was really inappropriate, and I think mods should honestly remove it because it's libel. Even if its just a transcript.


----------



## James Lee

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Treatment free beekeeping has seen it's hay day. While it never will disappear (nor should it) the con artist side of TF beekeeping will find it difficult to compete with the ever growing availability of sound beekeeping education. Hopefully this will bring a more focused approach to bees with better genetics and attention to beekeepers that are truly making efforts in a non lazy responsible manner.


What is the con artist side? Can you quantify that?


----------



## James Lee

username00101 said:


> that last statement on Bush was totally inappropriate - and a baseless accusation .
> 
> I just came here to say that - I was indifferent but that statement was really inappropriate, and I think mods should honestly remove it because it's libel. Even if its just a transcript.


Agreed.


----------



## Oldtimer

username00101 said:


> that last statement on Bush was totally inappropriate - and a baseless accusation .


Yes in hindsight perhaps I should have cut it from the post, it was not the main thrust at the time I didn't think much about it. So I just went back to edit it out but there must be some time limit on editing, there was no edit option.

It's all over Facebook though there is more comment on it and in more detail than just what Solomon said so I guess it's in the public domain.

However when the guy is not able to respond to every post this type of thing can be pretty nasty.


----------



## A Novice

Lee Bussy said:


> I find it interesting how, when surrounded by only believers, the message is that much easier to believe. One thing I appreciate here is that _any_ point of view presented as authoritative is immediately (at least) challenged.
> 
> When I played pool regularly I always said I never learned anything from an easy win.


My father once told me "Billiards is a gentleman's game, and to play it well is the mark of a gentleman. To play it too well is the mark of a wasted life.".

I took that to heart.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Oldtimer said:


> So I just went back to edit it out but there must be some time limit on editing, there was no edit option.


Yes, there is a 24 hour time limit (72 hours for Premium members) so I edited it out.


----------



## A Novice

Oldtimer said:


> Yes in hindsight perhaps I should have cut it from the post, it was not the main thrust at the time I didn't think much about it. So I just went back to edit it out but there must be some time limit on editing, there was no edit option.
> 
> It's all over Facebook though there is more comment on it and in more detail than just what Solomon said so I guess it's in the public domain.
> 
> However when the guy is not able to respond to every post this type of thing can be pretty nasty.


Mike could have a case for defamation.

Never interacted with Solomon, but I suspect his version of events wouldn't play well in a deposition.

Never met Michael Bush either, so I have no opinion about that situation.

As a general observation, all women are crazy, and all men are jerks. So it is a good idea to avoid situations where there aren't any witnesses.

This is especially true when people are prominent. 

I liked Billy Graham's rule.

His personal secretary never flew on the same plane, and never stayed in the same hotel as him, and they never ate together unless with other people, and never sat next to each other.

No one ever accused him of anything.


----------



## Oldtimer

thegospelisgood said:


> What is the con artist side? Can you quantify that?


I'm not TB LLC but I believe I can answer that, as back 5 or 10 years when there were lots of people attempting to be TF, this was discussed quite a bit.

The allegation at the time was that certain people became regarded as gurus in TF, achieving an almost cult like following of believers. The problem being that mainstream beekeeping was held up to be evil, and yes, the word evil was actually used. So the newby followers who knew no different, were not even open to any beekeeping advice from other beekeepers, they were indoctrinated to ignore it. Problem with that is that good beekeeping is a complex endevor, and there is much more to it than just not treating them. Much more. But the new TF beekeepers were programed to ignore all advice that did not come from their guru. As a consequence of that just a tiny percentage of those thousands still have bees. Or, they turned to treatment and are still around.

This may all seem a bit overstated but it's not, you would have needed to have been there to experience it, they were cantancerous and divisive times in the beekeeping world.

If you read for example Solomon, you will quickly see he is still of this mindset. He is constantly referring to abuse and attacks from the assumed "enemies", he thinks he is involved in a war. Good vs evil. Himself representing good, and other beekeepers evil. And in particular commercial beekeepers, who are especially evil .

So to the con artist side. Certain individuals, usually those with the gift of convincing speech, but not necessarily much beekeeping skills, were able to charge money to people to go hear them speak, or go to courses they ran. Often times these pay per view talks and courses were almost devoid of anything useful, sometimes more akin to so called "self improvement" seminars but for beekeepers, and in fact could have been net negative, if you factor in the poor information and misinformation that was imparted.

The gurus doing this may or may not have been knowingly deceptive, they probably genuinely felt that whatever it was they were saying had value. But in the eyes of many, it was blind leading the blind, and stealing candy from beekeeping babies.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

thegospelisgood said:


> What is the con artist side? Can you quantify that?


It would be hard to quantify being as it has been piled pretty deep over the last 2 decades and I don't care to take the time to call out the names on here and unpack all of that. I do that on my youtube channel enough. 
Basically when it comes to TF beekeeping, beekeeping, and life in general.
If it sounds easy I get suspicious.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Oldtimer said:


> I'm not TB LLC but I believe I can answer that, as back 5 or 10 years when there were lots of people attempting to be TF, this was discussed quite a bit.
> 
> The allegation at the time was that certain people became regarded as gurus in TF, achieving an almost cult like following of believers. The problem being that mainstream beekeeping was held up to be evil, and yes, the word evil was actually used. So the newby followers who knew no different, were not even open to any beekeeping advice from other beekeepers, they were indoctrinated to ignore it. Problem with that is that good beekeeping is a complex endevor, and there is much more to it than just not treating them. Much more. But the new TF beekeepers were programed to ignore all advice that did not come from their guru. As a consequence of that just a tiny percentage of those thousands still have bees. Or, they turned to treatment and are still around.
> 
> This may all seem a bit overstated but it's not, you would have needed to have been there to experience it, they were cantancerous and divisive times in the beekeeping world.
> 
> If you read for example Solomon, you will quickly see he is still of this mindset. He is constantly referring to abuse and attacks from the assumed "enemies", he thinks he is involved in a war. Good vs evil. Himself representing good, and other beekeepers evil. And in particular commercial beekeepers, who are especially evil .
> 
> So to the con artist side. Certain individuals, usually those with the gift of convincing speech, but not necessarily much beekeeping skills, were able to charge money to people to go hear them speak, or go to courses they ran. Often times these pay per view talks and courses were almost devoid of anything useful, sometimes more akin to so called "self improvement" seminars but for beekeepers, and in fact could have been net negative, if you factor in the poor information and misinformation that was imparted.
> 
> The gurus doing this may or may not have been knowingly deceptive, they probably genuinely felt that whatever it was they were saying had value. But in the eyes of many, it was blind leading the blind, and stealing candy from beekeeping babies.


Once again Oldtimer, well said. Couldn't have said it better or that nice lol


----------



## James Lee

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> It would be hard to quantify being as it has been piled pretty deep over the last 2 decades and I don't care to take the time to call out the names on here and unpack all of that. I do that on my youtube channel enough.
> Basically when it comes to TF beekeeping, beekeeping, and life in general.
> If it sounds easy I get suspicious.


Maybe you shouldn't have inserted your comment then? Lots of generalizations occurring here, kind of frustrating. Who said TF was easy. I think the con artist label fits both camps readily.


----------



## Lee Bussy

thegospelisgood said:


> Lots of generalizations occurring here, kind of frustrating.


I can see how that could be frustrating. I also can see that people who were here “then” are remembering with each other without dragging anyone else’s name in the mud.


----------



## Oldtimer

Exactly. You are a perceptive man LB .


----------



## AHudd

thegospelisgood said:


> Maybe you shouldn't have inserted your comment then? Lots of generalizations occurring here, kind of frustrating. Who said TF was easy. I think the con artist label fits both camps readily.


Well, the following is a comment from a member of the facebook page and the equally disturbing reply from the martyr himself. He betrayed all of his virtue signaling with his short 3 word reply.

Alex



Good luck man. I’ve been doing it treatment free for 21 years. I love to laugh at the trolls - keep buying bees and worrying about your treatments losers… suck my mite bombs, lol- I release my mean bees to rob your hives of all their honey and leave them at the mercy of SHB since you leave your entrances wide open like fools! Mwahahaha!







Solomon Parker
Author
Sounds like fun.


----------



## Lee Bussy

Just … wow.


----------



## jim lyon

I’ll carefully wade in one more time. My problem has never been with those who choose to keep bees treatment free, are honest about their endeavor and aren’t shy about sharing both the challenges they have faced and successes they have achieved. I find it all quite informing though Im not sure it applies to a commercial migratory operation like mine and most in the country. We, of course, constantly select from our best hives and use a large base of breeders using general bee health along with honey production as our criteria. What I find offensive is disparaging those beekeepers with descriptions of their tainted equipment and assumptions that the honey they produce is also laced with nasty beekeeper applied pesticides and/or HFCS and that our honey couldn’t possibly be as pure as their “treatment free” honey. 
While I acknowledge there are some irresponsible beekeepers, there are good management and responsible treatment techniques that can assure the honey you harvest is completely free of any beekeeper applied substances. I currently deal with packers that, before any deal is made, require testing by an independent lab and readily share the results with us. We have yet to get a positive reading from any of our sampling. The dirty little secret is that, of course, ALL beekeepers can only control what we can control. Bees forage from an approximate 10 square mile area so for any beekeeper to imply that “treatment free” honey is somehow better isn’t being totally honest with the consumer. Speak well of your product and the effort you take to make it pure but trashing the competition with unfounded implications is dishonesty. This is all stuff I’ve faced on here in the past, whether they necessarily apply specifically to Solomon, in all honesty I can’t recall as it’s been a number years since I’ve interacted with the guy, suffice it to say it was never easy to have a polite conversation with him. Sorry for the mini rant, stepping off soap box now. Peace out everyone. 😁


----------



## crofter

thegospelisgood said:


> Maybe you shouldn't have inserted your comment then? Lots of generalizations occurring here, kind of frustrating. Who said TF was easy. I think the con artist label fits both camps readily.


Who said Treatment free was easy? Actually many did. To suggest otherwise is probably not going to be easy to substantiate.

Defending this character is not going to be easy. In the process, I suggest it probably weakens the promotion of treatment free beekeeping in general.


----------



## Lee Bussy

I just figure my bees will tell me if they need treatments or not. Me trying to tell them they are not sick when they are is inhumane.


----------



## jim lyon

Lee Bussy said:


> I just figure my bees will tell me if they need treatments or not. Me trying to tell them they are not sick when they are is inhumane.


If you’re really vigilant and know what you’re looking for you’ll see the precursor of a collapse in a ”shotgun” brood pattern but collapse can happen pretty quickly late summer/early fall. Its a typical refrain you hear often on here that you go from “they looked great last time I checked” to “what happened to my bees” in pretty short order and it happens to all of us. The wild card is the virus factor. Often similar mite counts don’t yield a similar end result.


----------



## AHudd

Lee Bussy said:


> I just figure my bees will tell me if they need treatments or not. Me trying to tell them they are not sick when they are is inhumane.


There it is in a nutshell. I believe it was you that asked, "How do you know who to believe?" Well, I'll tell you, you need to believe in yourself and what you see with your own eyes.

I tried the treatment free experiment myself, in large part because of Parker and others and their influence on many people I know in Northwest Arkansas. I was also influenced by the ad campaign of BeeWeaver Bees.

I had the advantage of having kept bees in the pre-varroa past, so I knew what a strong healthy colony looked liked. I knew nothing about varroa until I got bees again. I was fortunate to have found BeeSourse and people such as OT and the creator of this thread, who were patient enough to hammer it into my hard head that varroa were the problem. The description of a colony failing from varroa fit to a T what was happening in my hives, while all I got from the TFers I spoke to, while looking into their failing hives, was what I was doing wrong. These people I am talking about are all decent people with good intentions that are, still, constantly cleaning dead-outs while blaming wax moths, shb and their own perceived short commings for the demise of their colonies.

I will cut this short because I have not had my blood pressure meds this morning. 

I fervently hope someone comes up with a bee that can thrive treatment free outside their area of origin, if they do I will gladly purchase some and sing their praises. Just please be honest in your endeavors, I believe there are a few.

Alex

Edit; Added creator of this thread.


----------



## Lee Bussy

jim lyon said:


> If you’re really vigilant and know what you’re looking for you’ll see the precursor of a collapse in a ”shotgun” brood pattern


Maybe we're going afield - but isn't a shotgun brood pattern also indicative of hygienic behavior?


----------



## Gray Goose

Lee Bussy said:


> Maybe we're going afield - but isn't a shotgun brood pattern also indicative of hygienic behavior?


It can mean many things, most not good.
the rest of the hive would offer context as to the why and how.
Rarely when I see Shotgun brood pattern do I think yea I have a very hygienic hive.
uasually it is Crap now what is going on here? and the sleuth side of me takes over.

GG


----------



## Lee Bussy

I'll file that one away. I expect to be taking a LOT of pictures this year.


----------



## johno

Is this the thread where I should tell all you beekeepers that you need some of the Rudolph Steiner type of polished spheres, just hang them near you apiaries and they will absorb cosmic energy which will neutralise and magnetic interference from power lines and your cell phones, they will also sycronise all those lay lines to fit where your hives are and also keep mites out of your hives. These spheres are readily available from your local chapter of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society. Get your today and all your beekeeping problems will soon be over.


----------



## GregB

crofter said:


> Who said Treatment free was easy? Actually many did. .......


That, indeed, was the idea propagated around (at least as of 5-6 years ago).
SP/MB/etc - made it sound very simple - "just do not treat and you will see for yourself" was the standard premise.


----------



## Lee Bussy

I heard somewhere that only works if you have around 40 hives?


----------



## GregB

Lee Bussy said:


> I just figure my bees will tell me if they need treatments or not.  Me trying to tell them they are not sick when they are is inhumane.


Actually - they may tell you about the "final stage" of the infestation. 
Meaning it is too late to correct the situation.
Been there - done that - telling you what I know now.

This is a fine approach - with the understanding that you are prepared to take high losses (and possibly impact your neighbors - a consideration - robbing prevention is high priority).
Consistently high losses (related to mites!) will tell you that your local TF feasibility is poor.
But you certainly can assess your situation by this binary approach - though at much higher costs.

But just as well - one can do general mite counts and the excessively high numbers will tell you the same story BEFORE the bees will die. At least you then have a chance to rescue some colonies and regroup at lower costs.


----------



## A Novice

johno said:


> Is this the thread where I should tell all you beekeepers that you need some of the Rudolph Steiner type of polished spheres, just hang them near you apiaries and they will absorb cosmic energy which will neutralise and magnetic interference from power lines and your cell phones, they will also sycronise all those lay lines to fit where your hives are and also keep mites out of your hives. These spheres are readily available from your local chapter of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society. Get your today and all your beekeeping problems will soon be over.


I really prefer the cow magnets.
Put two of them, one on each side of the hive entrance, with their poles aligned to the earth's magnetic field.
It really works! The mites get confused by the magnetic fields and crawl out of the hive!!
I plan to try it next year, so I know it works already!

I'm sorry... Couldn't resist.

One of the advantages of being a contrarian by nature is you don't really copy anybody. Makes you immune to popular trends, but also makes you somewhat immune to good advice.


----------



## GregB

Lee Bussy said:


> but isn't a shotgun brood pattern also indicative of hygienic behavior?


One of X possibilities - nothing more.

PS: keep in mind - shotgun brood pattern has been around for millions of years - way, way before anyone even thought or cared of the so-called 'hygienic behavior"; certainly before the Varroa-host transition took place


----------



## GregB

Lee Bussy said:


> I heard somewhere that only works if you have around 40 hives?


One of X possibilities, again.


----------



## jim lyon

Lee Bussy said:


> Maybe we're going afield - but isn't a shotgun brood pattern also indicative of hygienic behavior?


It’s difficult to describe but they have a certain look to them. Sort of like pornography vs statue of David. Kind of hard to describe but you know it when you see it. 😄


----------



## Gray Goose

Lee Bussy said:


> I'll file that one away. I expect to be taking a LOT of pictures this year.


Shotgun brood
Can be:
failing Queen
lack of pollen, bees eating the larvae
haploid issue "poor mating"
dearth
contaminated comb
nurse bee population decline
poisonings
Hygienic bees removing larvae, but why?
Likely to be Varroa related, IE one of the many vectored Virus.
and several others reasons that do not come to mind at this moment.

"needs attention" is what Shotgun brood means.
hopefully you do not have it.

GG


----------



## Oldtimer

Lee Bussy said:


> but isn't a shotgun brood pattern also indicative of hygienic behavior?


EDIT - sorry to the last 2 posters, when I posted this, your posts on the subject appeared while I was writing so I covered some of the same ground.

Shotgun brood could indicate queen issues, or even a manky old comb that some cells are less preferred to raise a larva in. But if it is caused by varroa and their associated viruses is relatively easy to tell, there will be dead larvae.
Of course you have to determine that the dead larvae are not caused by something else such as foul brood or chilling. But a little experience will show you the particular characteristics of varroa related brood deaths. One of those is varroa killed brood is in all stages, right up to attempting to hatch but could only get 1/2 way out and died. Whereas the two foul brood diseases have their own characteristics and age ranges.

It's all stuff best learned by experience, while in the learning stage if any suspicious brood is found just get some good resolution pics and post here.


----------



## A Novice

Oldtimer said:


> EDIT - sorry to the last 2 posters, when I posted this, your posts on the subject had already appeared so I covered some of the same ground.
> 
> Shotgun brood could indicate queen issues, or even a manky old comb that some cells are less preferred to raise a larva in. But if it is caused by varroa and their associated viruses is relatively easy to tell, there will be dead larvae.
> Of course you have to determine that the dead larvae are not caused by something else such as foul brood or chilling. But a little experience will show you the particular characteristics of varroa related brood deaths. One of those is varroa killed brood is in all stages, right up to attempting to hatch but could only get 1/2 way out and died. Whereas the two foul brood diseases have their own characteristics and age ranges.
> 
> It's all stuff best learned by experience, while in the learning stage if any suspicious brood is found just get some good resolution pics and post here.


I thought if there was dead larvae, it meant your nurse bees couldn't keep up, and the collapse of the colony from PMS was imminent.
Is that an over reaction?
Just asking, because I don't know..


----------



## GregB

To begin with this "shotgun pattern" talk - one needs to define what it is anyway. 
For example - is dead larvae present or not?

Typical "shotgun pattern" does not mean that dead larvae is present - classic case of poorly mated or failing queen or something along that line. 
Heck, my Dad showed me that when I was a "smoker boy".
It went like: "See, boy, this is a crappy queen". 
So on....
Most often this has nothing about the TF and the related, sexy junk


----------



## Oldtimer

A Novice said:


> I thought if there was dead larvae, it meant your nurse bees couldn't keep up, and the collapse of the colony from PMS was imminent.


Mostly, yes. But once PMS (parasitic mite syndrome) is bad enough, the bees will not or cannot remove all the dead larvae. Even the hygienic hives.



A Novice said:


> Is that an over reaction?


Not at all. Dead brood in a hive is not normal and is almost always an indicator of a serious issue of some kind brewing. It should not be ignored because in most cases the end result will be the death of the hive.


----------



## James Lee

I do appreciate your response - and find it thoughtful. So as to establish myself as an individual with capacity for individual thought I'd like to offer some in-line comments as well!



Oldtimer said:


> I'm not TB LLC but I believe I can answer that, as back 5 or 10 years when there were lots of people attempting to be TF, this was discussed quite a bit.


I've only heard rumors and rumors of rumors and don't really care to create a dialog associated with the failures or poor sportsmanship of others.



Oldtimer said:


> The allegation at the time was that certain people became regarded as gurus in TF, achieving an almost cult like following of believers. The problem being that mainstream beekeeping was held up to be evil, and yes, the word evil was actually used. So the newby followers who knew no different, were not even open to any beekeeping advice from other beekeepers, they were indoctrinated to ignore it. Problem with that is that good beekeeping is a complex endevor, and there is much more to it than just not treating them. Much more. But the new TF beekeepers were programed to ignore all advice that did not come from their guru. As a consequence of that just a tiny percentage of those thousands still have bees. Or, they turned to treatment and are still around.


Again, I think there is too much us vs. them in the debate, there is a reason that 'mainstream' beekeeping is what it is. The allegation of indoctrination is a strong one, as the same issue exists in the 'mainstream', it's a malady owned by all sides in this arena. New beekeepers start the trade all the time and are thumped voraciously at beekeeper meetings for even asking about the viability of Treatment Free - be it as a goal to attain or a 'live and let die' mentality, it gets thumped and dismissed. I would plead for mindfulness of this matter - your statement basically precludes individuals from the capacity to make individual rational decisions. Of the tiny percentage, only a tiny percentage of beekeepers at large are even remotely "TF" or "Natural", this is another unfair generalization in my opinion, but I get where you come from here.



Oldtimer said:


> This may all seem a bit overstated but it's not, you would have needed to have been there to experience it, they were cantancerous and divisive times in the beekeeping world.


I get it. Solomon is often labeled as the most notorious of the bunch for this very problem. It is sad that TF discussions always default to Solomon's legacy, which is sad, because the body of research and science behind TF is remarkable globally. Despite what @Tennessee's Bees LLC says about the 'Hay Day', we have only just begun to see what promises to be a turning point in beekeeping, and the intent behind the natural/TF crowd is not Solomon's opinions, it's better beekeeping. Stereotypes are deadly and only being propagated because of the collateral damages in this debate.



Oldtimer said:


> If you read for example Solomon, you will quickly see he is still of this mindset. He is constantly referring to abuse and attacks from the assumed "enemies", he thinks he is involved in a war. Good vs evil. Himself representing good, and other beekeepers evil. And in particular commercial beekeepers, who are especially evil .


I agree.



Oldtimer said:


> So to the con artist side. Certain individuals, usually those with the gift of convincing speech, but not necessarily much beekeeping skills, were able to charge money to people to go hear them speak, or go to courses they ran. Often times these pay per view talks and courses were almost devoid of anything useful, sometimes more akin to so called "self improvement" seminars but for beekeepers, and in fact could have been net negative, if you factor in the poor information and misinformation that was imparted.


Again, TF beeks are an extreme minority in the beekeeping world, but that's changing. This quote makes me think that speaking on the beekeeping circuit is akin to televangelist charlatanism and extremely lucrative? Bee Clubs and conferences can't possibly be paying so much that one could purposefully be deceptive to a minority that has so little global impact on the beekeeping world as a whole. I would be interested in tangible examples of these talks and their invalidity of anything useful? Can you provide any for me to review and evaluate?



Oldtimer said:


> The gurus doing this may or may not have been knowingly deceptive, they probably genuinely felt that whatever it was they were saying had value. But in the eyes of many, it was blind leading the blind, and stealing candy from beekeeping babies.


Again - I disagree here - this says that people are stupid and experiencing a TF guru lures them into some Jim Jones Kool-Aid cult mindset. I would restate the former, this is true of the 'mainstream' too is it not?


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> Who said Treatment free was easy? Actually many did. To suggest otherwise is probably not going to be easy to substantiate.
> 
> Defending this character is not going to be easy. In the process, I suggest it probably weakens the promotion of treatment free beekeeping in general.


I am not defending Solomon. I however and salvaging what benefits there may have been from his contributions - which any wise person would do with anyone who has contributed thought or speech to life in general. And again, because the thread is associated with Solomon, I have made a grave mistake attempting to have a discussion about the merit in an otherwise poor example of a beekeeping philosophy that gets projected on to any mention of TF.


----------



## James Lee

AHudd said:


> Well, the following is a comment from a member of the facebook page and the equally disturbing reply from the martyr himself. He betrayed all of his virtue signaling with his short 3 word reply.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck man. I’ve been doing it treatment free for 21 years. I love to laugh at the trolls - keep buying bees and worrying about your treatments losers… suck my mite bombs, lol- I release my mean bees to rob your hives of all their honey and leave them at the mercy of SHB since you leave your entrances wide open like fools! Mwahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solomon Parker
> Author
> Sounds like fun.


I read that comment - but again what does this have to do with anything I have stated in the thread? TF is not Solomon Parker. That's the point of engaging this dialog.


----------



## James Lee

jim lyon said:


> I’ll carefully wade in one more time. My problem has never been with those who choose to keep bees treatment free, are honest about their endeavor and aren’t shy about sharing both the challenges they have faced and successes they have achieved. I find it all quite informing though Im not sure it applies to a commercial migratory operation like mine and most in the country. We, of course, constantly select from our best hives and use a large base of breeders using general bee health along with honey production as our criteria. What I find offensive is disparaging those beekeepers with descriptions of their tainted equipment and assumptions that the honey they produce is also laced with nasty beekeeper applied pesticides and/or HFCS and that our honey couldn’t possibly be as pure as their “treatment free” honey.
> While I acknowledge there are some irresponsible beekeepers, there are good management and responsible treatment techniques that can assure the honey you harvest is completely free of any beekeeper applied substances. I currently deal with packers that, before any deal is made, require testing by an independent lab and readily share the results with us. We have yet to get a positive reading from any of our sampling. The dirty little secret is that, of course, ALL beekeepers can only control what we can control. Bees forage from an approximate 10 square mile area so for any beekeeper to imply that “treatment free” honey is somehow better isn’t being totally honest with the consumer. Speak well of your product and the effort you take to make it pure but trashing the competition with unfounded implications is dishonesty. This is all stuff I’ve faced on here in the past, whether they necessarily apply specifically to Solomon, in all honesty I can’t recall as it’s been a number years since I’ve interacted with the guy, suffice it to say it was never easy to have a polite conversation with him. Sorry for the mini rant, stepping off soap box now. Peace out everyone. 😁


I won't argue with your response - On this we agree. It's the same as labeling honey "organic." We can't assure the foraging is "organic" that label only sells to a specific demographic. But If I am trying to minimize toxin input - I would choose what I believe to be the most toxin free possible - as is with many other lifestyle choices. Honesty is important. 

Commercial beekeeping is commercial because its what retail demands. The future of bees really are dependent on what we do as a whole and until there is a viable solution from the TF proponents that a Commercial Beek (there are TF commercial beeks) can benefit from, the debate will rage. But, I'm not gonna stop you from making money.


----------



## James Lee

Lee Bussy said:


> I can see how that could be frustrating. I also can see that people who were here “then” are remembering with each other without dragging anyone else’s name in the mud.


That's fair. But give the person talking an opportunity to demonstrate their own merit in the discussion.


----------



## James Lee

Lee Bussy said:


> I think allowing bees to die vs. culling unfavorable genetics are two very different means to the same desired end. The first creates mite bombs and endless swarms until the colony (now described as "unfavorable") has dwindled to nothing. But what does that mean? It means you've let three or four swarms with poor genetics and countless drones escape before you resigned yourself to the fact that this was not a good queen.
> 
> Let me ask a question: What if you knew she was a bad queen _before_ you polluted the surrounding area with poor genetics?
> 
> Treat or do not, that's up to you, but _manage_ and know what's going on. If the inability of a colony to manage Varroa is a downside, know that _before_ you share all those mites with everyone else, and cull the queen. That's just my $0.02 after only a year of learning what it means to start this journey.


Do you actually want to discuss my answer to this? I'd be okay sharing my thoughts if so. Because our perspectives aren't going to line up - even if I demonstrate my responses with research and evidence etc...do you want to actually know my answer?


----------



## Lee Bussy

thegospelisgood said:


> Do you actually want to discuss my answer to this? [...] do you want to actually know my answer?


Yes, I'd actually like to hear a well-thought-out response in opposition to those points. Since I'm on cough medicine and rambling, let me put them more succinctly:

Allowing bees to die vs. culling unfavorable genetics are two very different things
Not culling the unfavorable queen/drones and replacing the queen results in mite bombs and swarms until the colony has dwindled to nothing or finally absconds
Knowing whether your genetics are favorable before you impact the genetics in your area is more effective than not


----------



## James Lee

GregB said:


> That, indeed, was the idea propagated around (at least as of 5-6 years ago).
> SP/MB/etc - made it sound very simple - "just do not treat and you will see for yourself" was the standard premise.


This is not logical. Doesn't make sense. I've never gathered that from MB TBH...Ive read and researched quite a few "gurus" as it seems they are being called. I've never gotten that from MB.

If anything, I find the most ardent of the "see yourself" guys are the ones who failed and are angry with TF beeks now...good grief..


----------



## JWChesnut

thegospelisgood said:


> Do you actually want to discuss my answer to this? I'd be okay sharing my thoughts if so. Because our perspectives aren't going to line up - even if I demonstrate my responses with research and evidence etc...do you want to actually know my answer?


Yes, I am interested in your "evidence". From your earlier answers in this thread, you seem to believe that 'natural selection' of Apis can operate in the context of a suburban backyard with 16 or so colonies. 
One of my major irritations with TF partisans is there inability to actually present verifiable life histories of their apiaries and colonies.

Several of the "big names" in TF rebuild their apiaries annually through a business of swarm extractions for pay. In that context, if a colony lives or dies matters not one whit to them, as they are endlessly replaceable by another paid removal.
Several long-running TF names report regular "crashes" and recovery, with no evidence the recovered apiary has any greater resistance to Varroa than their previous collection.
The core "origin" story is BeeWeaver, where a deliberate "let them die" approach collapsed a population in E Texas to a rump. As I investigated the BeeWeaver story it appears the actual beekeeper today, manages numerous scattered yards in a patently Africanized region. A satellite image of the BeeWeaver farm shows little actual queen mating nuc landscape (though the adjacent RWeaver property has an obvious mating yard). BeeWeaver repeats its origin story, as if the bees scattered in a landscape of AHB ferals, breed by immaculate conception today. The BeeWeaver and RWeaver families appear to be in a long-simmering feud with little cooperation.


----------



## grozzie2

This conversation makes it pretty easy to see who has been around on the site for years, and who is a relative newcomer. I remember the 'good old days', the TF zealots would hijack virtually every conversation on the site, most threads ultimately turned into a shouting match of 'us vs them'.

That whole slant disappeared overnight when SP was shown the door. As far as I'm concerned, that was a long overdue 'good riddance'.

This thread is getting kinda like the old days in that respect. Get stuff posted by a dozen folks that have been around a long time, well versed in keeping bees. Along comes the new kid on the block that knows better, and they have to respond to every single post because, well, they know better. We are all wrong yet again, just like the old days.


----------



## GregB

thegospelisgood said:


> This is not logical. Doesn't make sense. I've never gathered that from MB TBH...Ive read and researched quite a few "gurus" as it seems they are being called. I've never gotten that from MB.
> 
> If anything, I find the most ardent of the "see yourself" guys are the ones who failed and are angry with TF beeks now...good grief..


How it can be any *simpler *than this presentation below?
That WAS the point and people LOVED it.
LOL

Here you go - directly from MB.
Just follow the very simple prescription and you will be TF in no time. 

*Four Simple Steps to Healthier Bees By Michael Bush Copyright 2008*





Four Simple Steps to Healthier Bees By Michael Bush Copyright ppt download


Presentations online Before you take copious notes, all these presentations are online here:



slideplayer.com


----------



## James Lee

GregB said:


> How it can be any *simpler *than this presentation below?
> That WAS the point and people LOVED it.
> LOL
> 
> Here you go - directly from MB.
> Just follow the very simple prescription and you will be TF in no time.
> 
> *Four Simple Steps to Healthier Bees By Michael Bush Copyright 2008*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four Simple Steps to Healthier Bees By Michael Bush Copyright ppt download
> 
> 
> Presentations online Before you take copious notes, all these presentations are online here:
> 
> 
> 
> slideplayer.com


I think that your response here is oversimplifying his approach to support your point. He is fairly logical in stating:

"I don't know what all the rest of you have experienced, but with no treatments (on large cell size) I lost all my bees whenever I wouldn't treat for a couple of years. But finally I lost them even after treating with Apistan. It was obvious that the mites had built resistance. I've heard of big outfits losing their entire operation _while_ treating with Apistan or CheckMite. So we have reached the point where whether you treat or not, they all die anyway quite often. I think the problem here comes down to us not wanting to "do nothing". We want to attack the problem and so we do whatever the experts tell us because we are desperate. But what they are telling us is failing anyway. Once I lost them all _after_ I treated them, I could no longer see any reason to treat them. Treating only perpetuates the problem. It breeds bees that can't survive whatever you are treating for, contaminates the comb and upsets the whole balance of the hive."

He then goes on to state that the objective is to be breeding. People seem to forget that part of TF beekeeping and just lump TF beeks into the SOLOMON PARKER AHHHHHHHHHHHHH DEATH AND DESPAIR camp...

"Worst case, if you implement this a little at a time, you lose some bees, which you're already doing. Best case you lose less." ~Michael Bush


----------



## ursa_minor

thegospelisgood said:


> Again - I disagree here - this says that people are stupid and experiencing a TF guru lures them into some Jim Jones Kool-Aid cult mindset. I would restate the former, this is true of the 'mainstream' too is it not?


I don't think it is a case of stupid nor to I believe the poster meant it as such, but as a new beekeeper myself who did want to be TF and did follow Solomon Parker for a short time, it is a case of starting out with no knowledge and looking for any information to help. When you find a person who says what you would like to hear, and he throws in some darwinian idea that the bees will adapt if you only keep the ones that live, without also telling you that the losses will be massive, the adaptation of the bees will take eons, and that it is not attainable unless you live quite isolated, you tend to believe him, why? Because he is saying what you want to hear. Everyone, everyone, who keeps bees, even the commercial guys, would jump at the chance to be TF if possible. Think of the decreased workload that would result not to mention the lower costs.

Mainstream beekeeping is not ,IMO, the same as the TF mindset. Mainstream ideas follow the known and emerging science, they question new studies, and when science comes up with data which they can prove is sound, then they are willing to adjust and change. 

I am more inclined to keeping my bees as we keep our cattle, give them what they need to survive in the captive environment we have imposed on them. And, when that environment results in a disease or pest, treat as needed with the least harmful method we can find. We have confined them, we have a responsibility for their welfare and taking down the fences and letting them run the neighbourhood might be a life they would welcome and possibly thrive in, but is not a responsible action on our part. 

I will also add that we have a very, very remote piece of property on which I would love to put a few hives. Will they be the bond type of TF, nope, but hopefully chemical free. I might be able to attain that status after a few years of making sure the mites are gone first.


----------



## James Lee

grozzie2 said:


> This conversation makes it pretty easy to see who has been around on the site for years, and who is a relative newcomer. I remember the 'good old days', the TF zealots would hijack virtually every conversation on the site, most threads ultimately turned into a shouting match of 'us vs them'.
> 
> That whole slant disappeared overnight when SP was shown the door. As far as I'm concerned, that was a long overdue 'good riddance'.
> 
> This thread is getting kinda like the old days in that respect. Get stuff posted by a dozen folks that have been around a long time, well versed in keeping bees. Along comes the new kid on the block that knows better, and they have to respond to every single post because, well, they know better. We are all wrong yet again, just like the old days.


Didn't say you were wrong? Didn't say anyone else is wrong either? I've not once vilified anyone in this dialog?


----------



## GregB

thegospelisgood said:


> I think that your response here is oversimplifying his approach to support your point.


My point was (and is) all along - before telling people all kinds of things - the very first slide in the presentation should be about *feasibility*.

The word "feasibility" does not even exist in MB's publications (or it is very well hidden in some back corner).
It should be the #1 word.
The word "simple" should be deleted from his website and his publications to never be seen again.
Then maybe we can talk something up.


----------



## GregB

thegospelisgood said:


> He then goes on to state that the objective is to be breeding. People seem to forget that part of TF beekeeping


Who's objective?
Not mine.
Nor of the owner of those two hives sitting a block away (with all his drones that don't care of my "breeding efforts").


Breeding is a serious undertaking for which only few people are fit for - TF or not TF.
Breeding <> simple.
OK, it made sound to be simple - that is true.


----------



## ursa_minor

thegospelisgood said:


> "I don't know what all the rest of you have experienced, but with no treatments (on large cell size) I lost all my bees whenever I wouldn't treat for a couple of years. *But finally I lost them even after treating with Apistan. It was obvious that the mites had built resistance. I've heard of big outfits losing their entire operation while treating with Apistan or CheckMite*. So we have reached the point where whether you treat or not, they all die anyway quite often.* I* think the problem here comes down to us not wanting to "do nothing". We want to attack the problem and so we do whatever the experts tell us because we are desperate. *But what they are telling us is failing anyway*. Once I lost them all _after_ I treated them, I could no longer see any reason to treat them. Treating only perpetuates the problem. It breeds bees that can't survive whatever you are treating for, contaminates the comb and upsets the whole balance of the hive."



Bolding is mine.

Nothing is logical in that paragraph. He only used Apistan which has been proven to be mite resistant and so he has come to the conclusion that therefore all methods of mite control are doomed to fail, so why bother.

The problem comes down to a narrow mindset that sources out only the results that justify his stand, is based on a couple of methods and then he comes to the conclusion that therefore what they are telling us is failing. How about brood breaks, Oxalic Acid, Formic Pro, Hopgaurd3, drone culling, or even the icing sugar, which if done repeatedly has some level of mite control, these are all treatments but ones that do result in live bees.

edited for clarity


----------



## James Lee

JWChesnut said:


> Yes, I am interested in your "evidence". From your earlier answers in this thread, you seem to believe that 'natural selection' of Apis can operate in the context of a suburban backyard with 16 or so colonies.
> One of my major irritations with TF partisans is there inability to actually present verifiable life histories of their apiaries and colonies.
> 
> Several of the "big names" in TF rebuild their apiaries annually through a business of swarm extractions for pay. In that context, if a colony lives or dies matters not one whit to them, as they are endlessly replaceable by another paid removal.
> Several long-running TF names report regular "crashes" and recovery, with no evidence the recovered apiary has any greater resistance to Varroa than their previous collection.
> The core "origin" story is BeeWeaver, where a deliberate "let them die" approach collapsed a population in E Texas to a rump. As I investigated the BeeWeaver story it appears the actual beekeeper today, manages numerous scattered yards in a patently Africanized region. A satellite image of the BeeWeaver farm shows little actual queen mating nuc landscape (though the adjacent RWeaver property has an obvious mating yard). BeeWeaver repeats its origin story, as if the bees scattered in a landscape of AHB ferals, breed by immaculate conception today. The BeeWeaver and RWeaver families appear to be in a long-simmering feud with little cooperation.


I will formulate a response I feel is grounded in evidence I find viable to support my efforts. As to BeeWeaver, the very fact they are in AHB territory tells me several things- as I am from Michigan - They aren't local, I don't want AHB genetics in my region, and I'm just not a BeeWeaver in BeeWeaver. If it's too good to be true, probably is.

As to Natural Selection, backyard apiaries etc., I'd ask politely folks not insult the intelligence of others unless they demonstrate the lack of said intelligence. I know - and many others know that selection occurs on much broader scale. The notion that you cannot breed constructively in a specific region because of the poor contributions of others or the lack of preferred contributions of others is a tired argument for me. I get it - but I need to influence the genetics to benefit me by saturating DCA's with the characteristics we need to see occurring to sustain a TF approach. This requires assessment and observation as well as cooperative engagement and education of local beekeepers. Which is fully underway. I won't belabor it, but I monitor feral populations in the area and intentionally leave them, often convincing homeowners to leave them - especially if they are aged 3 or more years with consistent observation of activity in those colonies each spring.

SO I would agree with you about verifying heritable traits requires knowledge of the contributors and life histories - it also requires purposefully replenishing and contributing to those pools. But I would also counter with the observation that colony adaptation as long been known to be generational, especially in Apis and those adaptations and tolerances are occurring inside singular colonies -- not whole apiaries, up too however many times a season based on each apiary. I don't believe selection occurs just in a singular yard - I believe it starts there. Every yard is different to some extent - and I am (maybe overly) optimistic about my area's pool, as I am not the only TF beek in the region and many are much longer more established than I. 

This notion I am putting forth is what I think needs to differentiate the course we've taken with the TF ideal - let Solomon Parker retire - I'm fine with that. Let's look at the real culprit in the room - IN BOTH CAMPS and that's beekeeper education.


----------



## crofter

It comes acr


thegospelisgood said:


> Didn't say you were wrong? Didn't say anyone else is wrong either? I've not once vilified anyone in this dialog?


It does come across though as talking down and virtue signalling. You are telling a group of experienced people that they are misinterpretting their experience. I suggest that perhaps many of them have more experience in both treatment free beekeeping and otherwise. Solomon ran into the same problem. Never ever considered the possibility that he was the misguided one.


----------



## James Lee

GregB said:


> Who's objective?
> Not mine.
> Nor of the owner of those two hives sitting a block away (with all his drones that don't care of my "breeding efforts").
> 
> 
> Breeding is a serious undertaking for which only few people are fit for - TF or not TF.
> Breeding <> simple.
> OK, it made sound to be simple - that is true.


So does selection ignore favorable traits and only pass on unfavorable traits? By default the unfit drones only carry unfavorable recessive data that benefits nobody and because of that you are unable to favorable breed and thus have to treat, and thus continue to select for dependent bees? This is an honest question? From what I have learned and am studying in Haploid/Diploid breeding limitations - favorable genetics will still pass if they are preferred, this is the very essence of selection right?


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> It comes acr
> 
> 
> It does come across though as talking down and virtue signalling. You are telling a group of experienced people that they are misinterpretting their experience. I suggest that perhaps many of them have more experience in both treatment free beekeeping and otherwise. Solomon ran into the same problem. Never ever considered the possibility that he was the misguided one.


If I've said that or virtue signaled, I digress and apologize. My responses were promoting the merits of TF beekeeping and not associating TF beeks with SP - it's a slippery slope. Anytime I say TF to someone they say SP? 

Again - I dont recall telling people they are misinterpreting their experience?


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> It does come across though as talking down and virtue signalling. You are telling a group of experienced people that they are misinterpretting their experience.


I went back through my posts and I don't see what you are saying - but if you want to point them out to me in DM i'd be happy to recant - I'm merely trying to communicate what I said in the first place:




thegospelisgood said:


> FWIW - Solomon's efforts helped mainstream TF beekeeping. I am grateful for that. I don't like certain philosophers or poets, or even public figures, but I can take what applies and let the rest fly. Solomon often required much more than a grain of salt to listen too - and if he's retiring fine. Whether or not his practices are valid or were "successful" is also irrelevant for the most part, as a bulk of what the TF FB page and podcasts has provided is access to the information and success of others. I'm all about that - especially as a new beeliever (see what I did there?) - facilitating access for others to make better informed decisions is the best approach in my humble opinion (which isn't so humble as my dear wife will tell you!).


----------



## AHudd

thegospelisgood said:


> I read that comment - but again what does this have to do with anything I have stated in the thread? TF is not Solomon Parker. That's the point of engaging this dialog.


You are correct that Solomon is not TF, but he is to thousands of followers of the practice. From your other posts I see you have taken what is useful to you and leaving behind the rest. One down and 47,999 to go. 

Alex


----------



## James Lee

AHudd said:


> You are correct that Solomon is not TF, but he is to thousands of followers of the practice. From your other posts I see you have taken what is useful to you and leaving behind the rest. One down and 47,999 to go.
> 
> Alex


Yes...47,999 more to go. That's the point. Education, not rhetoric. Example, not browbeating.


----------



## GregB

thegospelisgood said:


> I think that your response here is oversimplifying his approach to support your point.


Can discuss it here - big enough subject to stand alone:








Four Very Difficult Steps to Healthier Bees


Lets look at this slide show and dissect it slide by slide and see how true or how misleading it actually is. :) Should be simple enough so even my Mom-In-Law can do this. Four Simple Steps No Treatments Breeding Local Survivors Natural Food Natural Comb Four Simple Steps to Healthier Bees...




www.beesource.com


----------



## James Lee

GregB said:


> Can discuss it here - big enough subject to stand alone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four Very Difficult Steps to Healthier Bees
> 
> 
> Lets look at this slide show and dissect it slide by slide and see how true or how misleading it actually is. :) Should be simple enough so even my Mom-In-Law can do this. Four Simple Steps No Treatments Breeding Local Survivors Natural Food Natural Comb Four Simple Steps to Healthier Bees...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.beesource.com


Sounds worthwhile - You start, should be educational....at the very least I hope.


----------



## A Novice

It is probably not a good idea to have a debate about whether or not treatment free is better or worse.

It is old ground. Each man should do what is right in his own eyes (on this topic) 

In any case, it is probably bad judgement to defend treatment free or small cell on this thread. The Ghost of Solomon Parker hovers over this thread, and it influences everyone who posts on it. Even me, and I never met the guy.

My bias - Two guys I got into beekeeping were deceived by the treatment free evangelists - they knew nothing and just followed the guy with the most self-confidence. They thought I wasn't a good beekeeper, like they were. Both lasted 2 years. Lost all their bees, two years in a row. That wasn't necessary. The TF crowd owns that. They made superstars of people who were obviously dishonest and not very smart, to put it bluntly. And they still defend them.

I think you can go treatment free and have some success, if you know how to keep bees. If you are learning, going treatment free is like keeping free range chickens in rural northern Minnesota. (If you have a good dog, it works fairly well, but that isn't _natur__al)_

I am not a good enough beekeeper to go treatment free. Even if I was, I wouldn't do it.


----------



## AHudd

thegospelisgood said:


> This is not logical. Doesn't make sense. I've never gathered that from MB TBH...Ive read and researched quite a few "gurus" as it seems they are being called. I've never gotten that from MB.
> 
> If anything, I find the most ardent of the "see yourself" guys are the ones who failed and are angry with TF beeks now...good grief..


Well, you're half right. I'm not angry with the TF beeks, but I am angry with some of the Gurus. I was lied to and I am angry about it. I freely share my opinions with those that ask me how I keep my bees healthy enough to be able to harvest honey.

Alex


----------



## Oldtimer

Wow there is so much here I could pick apart or show from historical quotes to be incorrect.

But I won't, it's all been done before, the exact same arguments. Us vs them.

People rarely change their mind from being earbashed on the internet so these discussions have historically been mostly fruitless. What changes things is what happens on the ground. 70% of Beesource membership used to be TF, largely one and two year beekeepers, and you could only mention treatment if you were prepared to be called ignorant, yes literally, plus be generally gang banged and admonished. By righteous people who felt they held the moral high ground. 
What changed that was time, and natural attrition. Just about all those beekeepers are gone after losing all their hives over and over, many never accepted it was mites though. Or they went to the dark side (treatment). Treatment can now be freely discussed here without repercussion.

Some though have made it and do have a genuine TF operation, and for them I am very happy. There is an occasional TF beekeeper who does not carry this us vs them burden, one such is Sam Comfort, for him I have a lot of respect. He has found his niche and making it work, for him.

But this particular discussion is going off topic. Turning into an us vs them argument and these debates never end well.


----------



## James Lee

Oldtimer said:


> Wow there is so much here I could pick apart or show from historical quotes to be incorrect.
> 
> But I won't, it's all been done before, the exact same arguments. Us vs them.
> 
> People rarely change their mind from being earbashed on the internet so these discussions have historically been mostly fruitless. What changes things is what happens on the ground. 70% of Beesource membership used to be TF, largely one and two year beekeepers, and you could only mention treatment if you were prepared to be called ignorant, yes literally, plus be generally gang banged and admonished. What changed that was time, and natural attrition. Just about all those beekeepers are gone after losing all their hives over and over, many never accepted it was mites though. Or they went to the dark side (treatment). Treatment can now be freely discussed here without repercussion.
> 
> Some though have made it and do have a genuine TF operation, and for them I am very happy. There is an occasional TF beekeeper who does not carry this us vs them burden, one such is Sam Comfort, for him I have a lot of respect. He has found his niche and making it work, for him.
> 
> But this particular discussion is going off topic. Turning into an us vs them argument and these debates never end well.


Still not seeing it. 

I had no idea about the beesource TF mafia coup that folks keep alluding too - I'm new here. I came here to learn and share with others, not bash and separate. There's alot to beekeeping outside the treating that occurs - and as a noob all I was told was treat treat and treat some more. I lacked alot of the basics of beekeeping and even simple things like making increase. I had a good mentor (who still is, and treats proactively). I never intended to reference the history that keeps getting drummed up and I'm sorry my responses got lost in all that baggage. It's sad that we can't carry on a conversation based on what I actually said - and I'm okay with that. Sam's a swell guy - and like he said - Im treatment free, not stupid.


----------



## Oldtimer

thegospelisgood said:


> Still not seeing it.


Which proves my point LOL. Like I said - 



Oldtimer said:


> People rarely change their mind from being earbashed on the internet


😉


----------



## Oldtimer

But just out of interest, what is this TF Beesource mafia coup you mentioned?


----------



## GregB

thegospelisgood said:


> Im treatment free, not stupid.


You may want to review this statement.
Surely you have not meant it.


----------



## Lee Bussy

Oldtimer said:


> People rarely change their mind from being earbashed on the internet so these discussions have historically been mostly fruitless.


Wrong! I came here convinced I was going to small cell blah blah blah and a couple of you grumbled at me publically and, thankfully, took me aside privately to share some hard-learned truths. For that, I am exceedingly grateful.



thegospelisgood said:


> I'm new here. I came here to learn and share with others, not bash and separate.


And you are welcome! You learned what I did early on, albeit in a somewhat more public manner.  And you are right, there's enough to talk about that's not TF, and there is a well-moderated TF forum here.

Nobody wants to buy treatments and take the time to treat. I daresay every beekeeper in the world wants Treatment Free to actually be a widely viable thing. I don't think most of the methods I have read about are truly viable, and I have not seen a lot of "tests" that pass critical scrutiny. If you have some, by all means, share it. I might suggest the TF forum though.


----------



## Gray Goose

thegospelisgood said:


> Yes...47,999 more to go. That's the point. Education, not rhetoric. Example, not browbeating.


You mention "Education" several times.
So where are you getting this education from that you wish to deliver to us?

Every one here is "educated" so IMO education is not the answer. Depending on the source it can be very different even polar opposite. 

As well many/most of the "older" keepers have done the TF, I did it for 20 years. it worked until it didn't.
So talking like we do not get it is not going to work ..

GG


----------



## LarryBud

I started reading this thread but after the initial announcement my head started to hurt-this guy sounds like a tool. I would rather have a 3-day argument with Greg V (or B or whatever he is this week) or have the Goose remind me of my screw ups than read any more. Do people really believe his stuff?


----------



## G3farms

Gray Goose said:


> As well many/most of the "older" keepers have done the TF, I did it for 20 years. it worked until it didn't.
> So talking like we do not get it is not going to work ..


Been there done that!!!
Been wiped out a couple of times and had to finally open my eyes that what I was doing was not working. Was up to 44 hives a couple of years ago, most in double deeps and boiling with bees and stores going into winter. Plan was to split hard and early selling off 40 to 50 nucs come spring I only had 2 hives left. It was a pitiful site and I just about hung it up, but as stuborn as I am I went swarm chasing and doing cut outs...............and treating with OAV and now apiguard.

As for me TF is not sustainable, at least the way I keep bees.


----------



## Litsinger

In my very humble view, the basis for this thread precludes thoughtful dialogue about treatment-free and as it has developed might be accused of engaging in the very pile-on tactics that many bitterly remember about the old days. 

Further, I have been following @thegospelisgood for the past couple of years on the Michigan TF Beekeepers Group- and he is a serious and thoughtful person who I do not believe is trying to fan the flames of dissention, but rather trying to remind us to chew on the meat and spit out the bones.

As such, my sincere hope is that we can afford him a little latitude while he learns about the history and personalities of those of us who while we might differ in approach or conclusions, approach these discussions with good-will, mutual respect and a desire to become better at our craft.


----------



## johno

You know when I started beekeeping some 12 years ago, I went out and found a couple of beekeepers in my area and introduced myself, said I was interested in beekeeping and would like to help them when working their bees. Spent the first year helping them, joined the local bee club, and went through their beginners course. After helping my now buddies for a year the beginners course was boring as I was already past most of those lessons, however got my first bees from my buddies, just a couple of frames of brood watched them rear their own queen and away we went. A few years later I was supplying nucs to most of the clubs mentors. I eventually became a mentor for the club but soon gave that up as a waste of time as all the newbees wanted was for me to come to their homes and work their bees for them. When ever I would set up something at my home yards for instruction purposes none of these new beekeepers could find the time to come on by although I kept on suplying 10 frame nucs for $100 year after year to the same keepers and eventually just gave up. The moral of the story is: if you want sound finacial advice, go get it from some homeless guy you see in the street. If you want good beekeeping advice, go see some beekeeper who has yards full of bees, has boxes of honey to sell, and can also supply you with bees.


----------



## James Lee

johno said:


> You know when I started beekeeping some 12 years ago, I went out and found a couple of beekeepers in my area and introduced myself, said I was interested in beekeeping and would like to help them when working their bees. Spent the first year helping them, joined the local bee club, and went through their beginners course. After helping my now buddies for a year the beginners course was boring as I was already past most of those lessons, however got my first bees from my buddies, just a couple of frames of brood watched them rear their own queen and away we went. A few years later I was supplying nucs to most of the clubs mentors. I eventually became a mentor for the club but soon gave that up as a waste of time as all the newbees wanted was for me to come to their homes and work their bees for them. When ever I would set up something at my home yards for instruction purposes none of these new beekeepers could find the time to come on by although I kept on suplying 10 frame nucs for $100 year after year to the same keepers and eventually just gave up. The moral of the story is: if you want sound finacial advice, go get it from some homeless guy you see in the street. If you want good beekeeping advice, go see some beekeeper who has yards full of bees, has boxes of honey to sell, and can also supply you with bees.


I wish we could get back to mentees working with the elder generation and then getting a box of bees when you've demonstrated worthiness. Almost like the defunct boy scout beekeeping badge Terry Combs talks about. I've got about 500lbs of honey and a bunch of nucs if you or your peeps needs some Johno..


----------



## James Lee

Gray Goose said:


> You mention "Education" several times.
> So where are you getting this education from that you wish to deliver to us?
> 
> Every one here is "educated" so IMO education is not the answer. Depending on the source it can be very different even polar opposite.
> 
> As well many/most of the "older" keepers have done the TF, I did it for 20 years. it worked until it didn't.
> So talking like we do not get it is not going to work ..
> 
> GG


I don't really know what to say to that. I never said anything like someone doesn't get it. Are you guys still fighting with Solomon here? Did he show up? Why do you keep saying this lol?


----------



## Gray Goose

LarryBud said:


> I started reading this thread but after the initial announcement my head started to hurt-this guy sounds like a tool. I would rather have a 3-day argument with Greg V (or B or whatever he is this week) or have the Goose remind me of my screw ups than read any more. Do people really believe his stuff?


Now Larry,,
It was done in an educational manner.
BTW Happy New year.
Hope your hives do so good This year you hardly have time to sleep.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

thegospelisgood said:


> I don't really know what to say to that. I never said anything like someone doesn't get it. Are you guys still fighting with Solomon here? Did he show up? Why do you keep saying this lol?


you mentioned Education, more than once.
So I presume you have the curriculum lined up.
straight up Question.

So where is the re education coming from, A University, a particular set of research papers, just wondering.

Why do you wish to not answer the question? I asked YOU I did not mention Sol at all.

Kindly post the curriculum you have for us to learn up on, I am slow so I may need an early start.

GG


----------



## A Novice

thegospelisgood said:


> I don't really know what to say to that. I never said anything like someone doesn't get it. Are you guys still fighting with Solomon here? Did he show up? Why do you keep saying this lol?


Look back at the title of this thread.

Your case may be good, but you are a cat, and the judge and jury are all dogs.

If you are going to continue to plead your case, I suggest you get a rabbit for an attorney.


----------



## James Lee

Gray Goose said:


> you mentioned Education, more than once.
> So I presume you have the curriculum lined up.
> straight up Question.
> 
> So where is the re education coming from, A University, a particular set of research papers, just wondering.
> 
> Why do you wish to not answer the question? I asked YOU I did not mention Sol at all.
> 
> Kindly post the curriculum you have for us to learn up on, I am slow so I may need an early start.
> 
> GG


There is no "re-education" GG.

Education as a premise for approaching beekeeping - the education comes from seasoned beekeepers with experience to provide direct mentoring and example, field time, frame time, direct engagement time. "Education" It's a collaborative environment.

What do you want education on GG? I can't but to help like your intent is to bait so not sure how far to take the dialog in legitimacy?


----------



## Gray Goose

thegospelisgood said:


> There is no "re-education" GG.
> 
> Education as a premise for approaching beekeeping - the education comes from seasoned beekeepers with experience to provide direct mentoring and example, field time, frame time, direct engagement time. "Education" It's a collaborative environment.
> 
> What do you want education on GG? I can't but to help like your intent is to bait so not sure how far to take the dialog in legitimacy?


was a serious question
was odd the first pass you side stepped.
the answer you came up with was fairly good , the accusation shallow.
I am not looking for education, I am mentoring 4 people now , not really looking for more.
I was try to understand your approach that's all.

your words "_the education comes from seasoned beekeepers with experience_" you know like the ones you are arguing with here, there is way over 100 years of beekeeping experience in this 1 thread, hence I used the re in front of education.
Sorry if that was not appropriate.
first I have seen you post, just trying to understand where you come from "training and education" wise.
your tag line _"My mentor treats his bees and I don't - and we get on just fine."_ suggests you had hands on mentoring and did not follow it. so it created a curiosity, you plainly went against what you were taught and are touting education from the experienced keeper. I can comment and offer help better if I understand where you are at/have come from.
Not trying to trick you into something, more wondering what it is you want or need.

GG


----------



## Oldtimer

Gray Goose said:


> As well many/most of the "older" keepers have done the TF, I did it for 20 years. it worked until it didn't.


Oh that's interesting GG, I thought you were a TF guy and assumed you still were.

Amazing that after 20 years of being successful at it, it stopped working for you.

What is your analysis of what went wrong with it, and why?


----------



## grozzie2

Oldtimer said:


> What is your analysis of what went wrong with it, and why?


my guess is ’varroa arrived’.


----------



## Lee Bussy

thegospelisgood said:


> I wish we could get back to mentees working with the elder generation and then getting a box of bees when you've demonstrated worthiness.


We can. If you want to team up with a very worthy cause, check out Hives for Heroes (different than the Heroes to Hives program I just finished.) The program is described as:



Hives for Heroes said:


> Hives for Heroes is a national military veteran 501(c)(3) non-profit organization focusing on honey bee conservation, suicide prevention, and a healthy transition from service. Through the national network of beekeepers and veterans we provide connection, purpose, and healthy relationships fostering a lifelong hobby in beekeeping.


I tried to participate this past year, but the mentor I was paired with had issues that pulled him away. I want to maybe revisit it after a year or so on my own as a mentor to others and help spread the program.



A Novice said:


> Your case may be good, but you are a cat, and the judge and jury are all dogs. If you are going to continue to plead your case, I suggest you get a rabbit for an attorney.


I don't want to seem like I am piling on, but _that_ was _funny_!!

The point is valid as well - in this thread you are fighting an uphill battle. It might be best to leave the argument about the efficacy and validity of TF beekeeping to a different thread. Your arguments here are overshadowed by the topline story.


----------



## Cloverdale

AHudd said:


> Well, the following is a comment from a member of the facebook page and the equally disturbing reply from the martyr himself. He betrayed all of his virtue signaling with his short 3 word reply.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck man. I’ve been doing it treatment free for 21 years. I love to laugh at the trolls - keep buying bees and worrying about your treatments losers… suck my mite bombs, lol- I release my mean bees to rob your hives of all their honey and leave them at the mercy of SHB since you leave your entrances wide open like fools! Mwahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solomon Parker
> Author
> Sounds like fun.


😣yikes….


----------



## Gray Goose

Oldtimer said:


> Oh that's interesting GG, I thought you were a TF guy and assumed you still were.
> 
> Amazing that after 20 years of being successful at it, it stopped working for you.
> 
> What is your analysis of what went wrong with it, and why?


when I started, I was "ignorant" of treatments, and I really did not need them.
10-12 years ago the mites came into my area, had 50% loss for 2 years which I split back from, then a 100% loss year.
Was a wake up , but I have been wiped out 3 times by bears so I just sucked it up and restarted, with 6 Saz packages (Olveriz) as I recall, left them first year, as is , (2 deep 1 medium) intending to split to 12 the next year, here "smallish" hives do not seem to winter well, this was before I insulated. all 6 died, same story the next year,.( 6 packages from a load to a commercial near me)
so 50.50 ,100,100 was the 4 year record, with many 100% survival years under my belt, was an eye opener. Beekeeping changed for me. About then I got on Rusty Berlews site and BS and tried to figure out the issue, soon became apparent it was "the mites"
tried "resistant stock the next year" 80% loss. Always had 10-20 hives. then in 2017ish I treated 1/2 with OA and the other 1/2 Not , in spring the 1/2 with OA was all still alive and only 1 of the non treated 1/2.
So somewhat the same story as Greg, it worked until it didn't.
I would do TF if I could get to 75-80 percent survival, if the "right bee " comes along I will go back there. Really it is A PITA to schedule the treatments. and the costs, I have bees up on the hunting property 4 hours north from my house, always did great, until 2014 or so then wham, heavy losses. need to camp out for a couple weeks to get the OAV done.

so what went wrong is mites came into the area, these seem virulent, cleaning dead outs in spring and scrambling for bees in spring just got old. I talked to a few friends of mine (farmer types) and got into the "livestock mentality", when something gets in the stock , they either dig a hole or treat. they live from the farm so hope is not on the table.

looking for a better bee, while treating with soft acid, is a fair assessment of my status.
reason I have 40ish hive now is I need 20 in the spring, I have a couple pollination Gigs and bee less in spring is a bust for that gig. with a spring and fall regiment I am at 85%-90% depending on the winter.

Grozzie2 nailed it with less words.

sorry to get into my past on the tread.

GG


----------



## James Lee

Gray Goose said:


> was a serious question
> was odd the first pass you side stepped.
> the answer you came up with was fairly good , the accusation shallow.
> I am not looking for education, I am mentoring 4 people now , not really looking for more.
> I was try to understand your approach that's all.
> 
> your words "_the education comes from seasoned beekeepers with experience_" you know like the ones you are arguing with here, there is way over 100 years of beekeeping experience in this 1 thread, hence I used the re in front of education.
> Sorry if that was not appropriate.
> first I have seen you post, just trying to understand where you come from "training and education" wise.
> your tag line _"My mentor treats his bees and I don't - and we get on just fine."_ suggests you had hands on mentoring and did not follow it. so it created a curiosity, you plainly went against what you were taught and are touting education from the experienced keeper. I can comment and offer help better if I understand where you are at/have come from.
> Not trying to trick you into something, more wondering what it is you want or need.
> 
> GG


I still work with my mentor. Your statement that the experience in the thread begets any new knowledge or diligent research and study one begets is nullified by experience as a default. I'd respond to that by saying, education is providing the experience and allowing someone to make an informed decision for themselves. Hitler had lot's of experience being a genocidal maniac, that doesn't mean that he should be blindly followed and listened to. If your experience is treating and not-treating relates to our engagement I will take your experience to heart, but just because your outcome was one way doesn't mean mine will be also. A wise man once told me you need to "make people want to disciple you." It's an earned relationship as much as it is a necessity. I've said it several times - I've not discounted ANYONE's experience in these threads nor told them I think they are wrong or evil or horrible people. I don't give two rips if you treat your bees. 

My mentor did not "tell me to treat" he educated me on treating and still does. He has mentored more beekeepers in his lifetime than many will ever shake a stick at I am sure. What makes him a mentor is that he does just that - teaches and educates - not berate and dictate. So no - I did not go against what I was taught and my intent to not treat was transparent from the start. We still talk weekly all things bees and when I succeed he encourages and when I fail he offers his opinion. And frustratingly when I need him he usually tells me I've already done what I should've as it is what he would have done. I would much prefer he just give me the answer as opposed to working it out sometimes.

I reference the "trick" concern because these conversations oft are bait and switch versus actually inquiry into what I was saying in an attempt to prove the argument wrong with a gotcha. I am not interested in those - and will converse opposing viewpoints all the day with all interested parties in the spirit of socratic reason to better learn what I know and why I know and if I need to adjust.


----------



## johno

James Lee, I do not get your point of this discussion. Did you join Beesource to try to gain knowledge or like some others to give knowledge. If the latter is the case please unlighten us as to what you would like us to learn from you. Tell us of all your successes with your system of beekeeping. I personally joined Beesource to glean information from the many commercial beekeepers who used to frequent this forum, unfortunately most of which no longer participate due to being told that they are doing it all wrong. Rhetorical education is not really the answer here as one needs the practical ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and to rely more on science than faith based solutions. Furthermore if you wish to enhance your TF claims with data from the BeeInformed crowd you are wasting your time, most of us have been there and done that and no longer bother with them as you will find with data, garbage in is garbage out. I personally got tired of giving out data of less than 10% overwinter losses with more than 100% gains the following spring and then get told by Beeinformed that losses were in the 30 to 40% area, and this was unsustainable. Pray inform us of your methods so that we may become enlightened.


----------



## James Lee

johno said:


> James Lee, I do not get your point of this discussion. Did you join Beesource to try to gain knowledge or like some others to give knowledge. If the latter is the case please unlighten us as to what you would like us to learn from you. Tell us of all your successes with your system of beekeeping. I personally joined Beesource to glean information from the many commercial beekeepers who used to frequent this forum, unfortunately most of which no longer participate due to being told that they are doing it all wrong. Rhetorical education is not really the answer here as one needs the practical ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and to rely more on science than faith based solutions. Furthermore if you wish to enhance your TF claims with data from the BeeInformed crowd you are wasting your time, most of us have been there and done that and no longer bother with them as you will find with data, garbage in is garbage out. I personally got tired of giving out data of less than 10% overwinter losses with more than 100% gains the following spring and then get told by Beeinformed that losses were in the 30 to 40% area, and this was unsustainable. Pray inform us of your methods so that we may become enlightened.


Johno -

You don't have to engage me - that's fine. I've never once posted anything asking any of the responders here to change their minds. But it seems that you are just waiting to respond as opposed to actually reading what I've posted in my responses.


----------



## James Lee

Gray Goose said:


> when I started, I was "ignorant" of treatments, and I really did not need them.
> 10-12 years ago the mites came into my area, had 50% loss for 2 years which I split back from, then a 100% loss year.
> Was a wake up , but I have been wiped out 3 times by bears so I just sucked it up and restarted, with 6 Saz packages (Olveriz) as I recall, left them first year, as is , (2 deep 1 medium) intending to split to 12 the next year, here "smallish" hives do not seem to winter well, this was before I insulated. all 6 died, same story the next year,.( 6 packages from a load to a commercial near me)
> so 50.50 ,100,100 was the 4 year record, with many 100% survival years under my belt, was an eye opener. Beekeeping changed for me. About then I got on Rusty Berlews site and BS and tried to figure out the issue, soon became apparent it was "the mites"
> tried "resistant stock the next year" 80% loss. Always had 10-20 hives. then in 2017ish I treated 1/2 with OA and the other 1/2 Not , in spring the 1/2 with OA was all still alive and only 1 of the non treated 1/2.
> So somewhat the same story as Greg, it worked until it didn't.
> I would do TF if I could get to 75-80 percent survival, if the "right bee " comes along I will go back there. Really it is A PITA to schedule the treatments. and the costs, I have bees up on the hunting property 4 hours north from my house, always did great, until 2014 or so then wham, heavy losses. need to camp out for a couple weeks to get the OAV done.
> 
> so what went wrong is mites came into the area, these seem virulent, cleaning dead outs in spring and scrambling for bees in spring just got old. I talked to a few friends of mine (farmer types) and got into the "livestock mentality", when something gets in the stock , they either dig a hole or treat. they live from the farm so hope is not on the table.
> 
> looking for a better bee, while treating with soft acid, is a fair assessment of my status.
> reason I have 40ish hive now is I need 20 in the spring, I have a couple pollination Gigs and bee less in spring is a bust for that gig. with a spring and fall regiment I am at 85%-90% depending on the winter.
> 
> Grozzie2 nailed it with less words.
> 
> sorry to get into my past on the tread.
> 
> GG


This is transparency - and cannot be vilified, and I appreciate you sharing your approach.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hey thanks GG, that was a very interesting read. And thanks for spending the time and putting down a full explanation. That should be a compulsory read for every new beekeeper. What used to sadden me back when most were TF, was the ones losing most or all their hives, but not understanding it was mites, just thought it was bad luck or something, so kept repeating the same mistakes each year. Until they gave up in despair.



Gray Goose said:


> I would do TF if I could get to 75-80 percent survival, if the "right bee " comes along I will go back there.


An important statement. One of the sad things that used to appear on the TF forum was the inference that "treaters" would "pour chemicals into their hives" because they liked doing it. Kind of missing that the treatment was actually necessary.

Having said all that, to be fair it should be said that there are some who are genuinely treatment free, and with just moderate losses. It would be nice to know just why that is, something nobody not even the beekeepers themselves, have much been able to put into an exact formula.

Be interesting to hear from James Lee as to what he attributes his success to, and over what time frame he has been doing it. And what his typical annual losses are, etc..


----------



## Gray Goose

Oldtimer said:


> Hey thanks GG, that was a very interesting read. And thanks for spending the time and putting down a full explanation. That should be a compulsory read for every new beekeeper. What used to sadden me back when most were TF, was the ones losing most or all their hives, but not understanding it was mites, just thought it was bad luck or something, so kept repeating the same mistakes each year. Until they gave up in despair.
> 
> 
> 
> An important statement. One of the sad things that used to appear on the TF forum was the inference that "treaters" would "pour chemicals into their hives" because they liked doing it. Kind of missing that the treatment was actually necessary.
> 
> Having said all that, to be fair it should be said that there are some who are genuinely treatment free, and with just moderate losses. It would be nice to know just why that is, something nobody not even the beekeepers themselves, have much been able to put into an exact formula.
> 
> Be interesting to hear from James Lee as to what he attributes his success to, and over what time frame he has been doing it. And what his typical annual losses are, etc..


Right it was not really a choice and I would go back to TF if I can find a way.

IMO there are different types/strains of mites, and/or they have different Viral loads.
that is why move the hive and its behavior changes. Or maybe a "medicinal plant" that is in the pollen , Nectar, Propolis Water, or a combination. Too many times move the bees 24 months later not TF any more.

some one needs to try "moving the Mites" from a successful TF apiary to a non successful one , not the bees, maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. Treat the hives, move in Mites from a successful TF apiary, let them reestablish. Maybe the sissy mites should be marketed instead of the super bee.

GG


----------



## James Lee

Gray Goose said:


> Right it was not really a choice and I would go back to TF if I can find a way.
> 
> IMO there are different types/strains of mites, and/or they have different Viral loads.
> that is why move the hive and its behavior changes. Or maybe a "medicinal plant" that is in the pollen , Nectar, Propolis Water, or a combination. Too many times move the bees 24 months later not TF any more.
> 
> some one needs to try "moving the Mites" from a successful TF apiary to a non successful one , not the bees, maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. Treat the hives, move in Mites from a successful TF apiary, let them reestablish. Maybe the sissy mites should be marketed instead of the super bee.
> 
> GG


You might be on to something.


----------



## Gray Goose

James Lee said:


> You might be on to something.


predator and prey
faster gazelles or slower lions each can be the workable solution.

GG


----------



## James Lee

Gray Goose said:


> predator and prey
> faster gazelles or slower lions each can be the workable solution.
> 
> GG


I'm serious. It's novel - and revolutionary. Who is researching these bugs? Where is Dr. Sammy when you need him?


----------



## ursa_minor

Hmmmm?? The idea that the mites could vary in their characteristics and so be partly responsible for some of the differing experiences with the survivability of colonies is interesting to say the least.


----------



## James Lee

ursa_minor said:


> Hmmmm?? The idea that the mites could vary in their characteristics and so be partly responsible for some of the differing experiences with the survivability of colonies is interesting to say the least.


It would end the whole debate once and for all wouldn't it!  It's the one true olive branch we need to retire this thread and move it on over to "Treatment Free Mites"

Whaddya say gang? GG you need to get on the phone. Before someone makes money off this idea before you do.


----------



## Litsinger

ursa_minor said:


> Hmmmm?? The idea that the mites could vary in their characteristics and so be partly responsible for some of the differing experiences with the survivability of colonies is interesting to say the least.


Some interesting recent scholarship on this topic (click the quote to get to the post with the study links):



Litsinger said:


> There have been a few recent studies which have examined the genetic make-up of varroa mites in two resistant populations (Gotland and Toulouse) in an attempt to understand whether:
> 
> The genetic signature of the mite populations in resistant colonies differ from susceptible colonies and;
> 
> The relative diversity of the mite population impacts their virulence.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oldtimer said:


> Be interesting to hear from James Lee as to what he attributes his success to, and over what time frame he has been doing it. And what his typical annual losses are, etc..


What do you say James?


----------



## Gray Goose

James Lee said:


> It would end the whole debate once and for all wouldn't it!  It's the one true olive branch we need to retire this thread and move it on over to "Treatment Free Mites"
> 
> Whaddya say gang? GG you need to get on the phone. Before someone makes money off this idea before you do.


HA HA
well I have some nasty mites I can sell you to "test" your latest out cross.
$45 a drone frame guaranteed loaded with the nattiest mites I can find, shipped with extra adult mites on the outside to cover losses. 
The Sissy mites are not from around here.

Are we not trying to change the bees "assuming" the mites are a constant, hmm any see a hole in that.

I never was one to follow the trail, somewhat out of the box thinker.
Sometimes helps sometimes not so much.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> Some interesting recent scholarship on this topic (click the quote to get to the post with the study links):


relative density,, I read some where they think some bees can control the reproductive rate, that is also a good place to look, slow the reproduction down enough and they are not a big of a problem.

thanks Russ


----------



## Litsinger

Gray Goose said:


> $45 a drone frame guaranteed loaded with the nattiest mites I can find, shipped with extra adult mites on the outside to cover losses.


Now that's funny... I can see the infomercial now. "But wait- if you call within the next 5 minutes, we'll throw in a frame loaded with AFB scales at no extra charge... but hurry supplies are limited. We're having a fire sale..."


----------



## James Lee

Litsinger said:


> Some interesting recent scholarship on this topic (click the quote to get to the post with the study links):


IF it took ALL THE ABOVE to get to this - I'd buy that for a dollar....


----------



## GregB

Oldtimer said:


> Oldtimer said:
> Be interesting to hear from James Lee as to what he attributes his success to, and over what time frame he has been doing it. And what his typical annual losses are, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> What do you say James?
Click to expand...

James did account for his 100% loss the first year out his three years of TF beekeeping.
Though the colony # involved is unclear to me.
Just to be sure ...



> 3 years TF. ........lost all my colonies the first year ....











treatment free member listing


Near Oxford, UK. BritishTF beekeepers tend to gather in loose local peer networks and kept their heads down until a couple of years ago, when a threshold was reached and we realised how many of us there are. About half the TF beekeepers I know do not want to be on any kind of register.




www.beesource.com


----------



## crofter

Oldtimer said:


> Be interesting to hear from James Lee as to what he attributes his success to, and over what time frame he has been doing it. And what his typical annual losses are, etc..


What do you say James?

*Crickets-*----------


----------



## GregB

James Lee said:


> Sam's a swell guy - and like he said - Im treatment free, not stupid.


I meant to say and forgot, and now remembered again.

Added: I recall the actual quote is "I'm treatment free but I am not stupid" (changes the meaning!).

Sam C. seems to command a lot of respect. Okay, fine. Never bought from him. Dunno.
All I know I watched some of his funky videos (including with Sol. P.) and saw his funky equipment  ; that's cool.

But why would any kinda-sorta serious guy still maintain on his public website gimmicks like the quoted.
I get it - being sort of clownish stand out helps with image and sales.
But this popular content (*169536* reads!!) also keeps alive the idea of the TBH hives being mite-resistant.
That's right - mite-resistant hives.
Directly from Sam C. 


> A top bar hive requires NONE of the following:.
> .....................
> • Chemical miticides, antibiotics (don’t get me started on this again)





Less Invasive Beekeeping | Anarchy Apiaries


----------



## grozzie2

johno said:


> I personally joined Beesource to glean information from the many commercial beekeepers who used to frequent this forum, unfortunately most of which no longer participate due to being told that they are doing it all wrong.


I miss the good old days, sit down with morning coffee, good chatter from folks with hundreds and thousands of colonies. Most of them would take the time to answer questions. For the most part they have all drifted away because they just got tired of the constant bombardment from folks keeping a couple hives for a couple years telling them they are doing it all wrong.


----------



## johno

Right guys you have convinsed me, I am now going to go treatment free, as soon as I join my daughter in Australia. Quite frankly not sure how long that will last either. The problem I find with most treatment free folks is they cannot define why their bees are not effected by mites or their vectored virususes. Even with John Kefus there is some sort of explanation as he paid beekepers for any mites found in his colonies, so if you do not have mites you do not have problems. Of course we would all like to know why his bees have few mites and that yet cannot be explained. Then there are cstain places that do not have virrulent strains of viruses, also difficult to explain. But when you have TF experts proclaiming that all is well with their colonies whenever you ask a few questions you are met with a stone wall. Ever come across a TF expert who does mite counts? or who will explain their method of beekeeping? I have been hearing about this subject for 10 plus years with nothing realy but bee survival by splits and swarms so eventually have to reach the conclusion that most of this is voodoo beekeeping, Just spit in the grass put your hat on top and run around your hat three times then all is taken care of.


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> What do you say James?
> 
> *Crickets-*----------


I shared what I was doing and what my experience is this far in the thread way back when. More evidence my responses are being responded too not read.


----------



## GregB

Oldtimer said:


> What do you say James?





James Lee said:


> I shared what I was doing and what my experience is this far in the thread way back when. More evidence my responses are being responded too not read.


OK, fine.
No need to be cryptic about it. 
Pretty much three years of 100% loss as I understand.
Onto the season #4.
Good luck!



> My name is James. I keep bees in SE Michigan. I have 26 colonies right now and have never treated. This will be *the first winter* I expect to get bees through.











treatment free member listing


Just found this tread, and I am impressed with the experience and geographic representation in the TF arena. As a previous poster mentioned, I am not sure I qualify as a TF beekeeper, but I am wrapping up my first year of treatment-free bee husbandry following a long absence post-varroa mite...




www.beesource.com


----------



## crofter

James Lee said:


> I shared what I was doing and what my experience is this far in the thread way back when. More evidence my responses are being responded too not read.


_"My name is James. I keep bees in SE Michigan. I have 26 colonies right now and have never treated. This will be the first winter I expect to get bees through. Had to change quite a few things this last year, what I was doing previously was t going to work for me"._


Ah yes; A few of us apparently missed that.


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> _"My name is James. I keep bees in SE Michigan. I have 26 colonies right now and have never treated. This will be the first winter I expect to get bees through. Had to change quite a few things this last year, what I was doing previously was t going to work for me"._
> 
> 
> Ah yes; A few of us apparently missed that.


Maybe now my charlatan credentials will carry some weight.


----------



## Cloverdale

I am not sure if this belongs here; an email from our NYS Dept. Of Entomology ( Emma Mullen, Senior Honey Bee Extension Associate) regarding: Penn State University is hosting a zoom series dedicated to organic honey bee colony management this winter. In the spring, they also plan to hold an in-person workshop in Pennsylvania. If you or your club members are interested in managing colonies with an organic farming approach, feel free to pass along the info below to them! Dr Robyn Underwood ([email protected]).Via zoom.


----------



## msl

Ahhh
Treatment free and survival free but full of "answers" explains a lot of this weeks threads


----------



## johno

After all that I hope we don't lose any more of the experienced beekeepers.


----------



## crofter

James Lee said:


> Maybe now my charlatan credentials will carry some weight.


Well in the big picture there is no denying the value of a bad example!


----------



## JWChesnut

Cloverdale said:


> Dr Robyn Underwood ([email protected]).Via zoom.


She organized the "COMB" project which compared TF, Oxalic, and Amitraz management in apiaries scattered over PA, MD and WV. 75% of the TF colonies died, and the rest were too weak to split and make up losses. She promised to publish the results (the data is from an Apimondia 2019 presentation), but has not released it. 

In Robyn Underwood's naming convention, "Organic" means using Oxalic and Formic (and I suppose Thymol). Her name for "TF" is "Chemical Free (CF)"


To make it relevant to "Solomon" she attended the final Dee Lusby shindig where she was interviewed by SP (with MB before they started throwing bombs at each other). The two convinced Robyn that one had to use 4.9 foundation (only available easily from the Mann Lake plastic frames), but her protocol had them using wood frames, so they cut the 4.9 plastic out of the center of the ML frames. Solomon had the torn up frames (minus the foundation center) and flogged them on his website.

Screen grab from the Underwood Apimondia COMB project update. She uses a curious naming convention "CF" == TF. Organic == Oxalic and Formic (which did just dandy) to keep the hives alive).


----------



## LarryBud

James, not to be a wise guy but its sounds like you kill bees not keep them. Sorry, but that's how it reads.


----------



## Gray Goose

Cloverdale said:


> I am not sure if this belongs here; an email from our NYS Dept. Of Entomology ( Emma Mullen, Senior Honey Bee Extension Associate) regarding: Penn State University is hosting a zoom series dedicated to organic honey bee colony management this winter. In the spring, they also plan to hold an in-person workshop in Pennsylvania. If you or your club members are interested in managing colonies with an organic farming approach, feel free to pass along the info below to them! Dr Robyn Underwood ([email protected]).Via zoom.


for thoes who live out a bit, will there be recording to watch?
Or is than an Ask Robyn question?

thanks
GG


----------



## James Lee

LarryBud said:


> James, not to be a wise guy but its sounds like you kill bees not keep them. Sorry, but that's how it reads.


That's fine. You're not hurting my feelings. I'll publish my results in the spring.


----------



## James Lee

JWChesnut said:


> She organized the "COMB" project which compared TF, Oxalic, and Amitraz management in apiaries scattered over PA, MD and WV. 75% of the TF colonies died, and the rest were too weak to split and make up losses. She promised to publish the results (the data is from an Apimondia 2019 presentation), but has not released it.
> 
> To make it relevant to "Solomon" she attended the final Dee Lusby shindig where she was interviewed by SP (with MB before they started throwing bombs at each other). The two convinced Robyn that one had to use 4.9 foundation (only available easily from the Mann Lake plastic frames), but her protocol had them using wood frames, so they cut the 4.9 plastic out of the center of the ML frames. Solomon had the torn up frames (minus the foundation center) and flogged them on his website.
> 
> Screen grab from the Underwood Apimondia COMB project update. She uses a curious naming convention "CF" == TF. Organic == Oxalic and Formic (which did just dandy to keep the hives alive).
> View attachment 66970


Yeah not a Solomon fan.


----------



## crofter

What conditions did you decide to change in this years approach? Let us learn from your mistakes.


----------



## Gray Goose

crofter said:


> _"My name is James. I keep bees in SE Michigan. I have 26 colonies right now and have never treated. This will be the first winter I expect to get bees through. Had to change quite a few things this last year, what I was doing previously was t going to work for me"._
> 
> 
> Ah yes; A few of us apparently missed that.


wow 
shocked I am.
Well the air is cleared.

We welcome the newbie James.
Hi James, If you are looking for a tip.
I spent a month reading all the threads from the last 6 years, Learned a lot.
some are way long but there are wee nuggets in them.

Glad you Joined.
said with the wisdom of those who can before I
"Seek and ye shall find"

GG


----------



## LarryBud

James Lee said:


> That's fine. You're not hurting my feelings. I'll publish my results in the spring.


Great, I'm hearing you.
I am (I'm guessing from that chart published earlier) an organic treatment guy, formic and OAV. I have 31 hives going into my 3rd winter and so far am at 100% survival except one split out of 10-a walk away where the queen just didn't make it. I don't treat recklessly, I test (washes) and monitor-1 hive per yard every month. Ok, couldn't resist in the last warm spell and gave them all a shot of OAV. I have the luxury of (and enjoy spending the) time visually watching the hive's landing board which I think can tell you a lot. I've listened to and read a lot of posts here, taken courses, talked with other beekeepers and at then at the end of the day, mites are real, they kill your bees. I have been working with some new VSH F1 queens and am hoping to add some poly-lines this spring-dispersed through my yards. The breeders I've dealt with all have said, these ain't magic-keep treating. So far, everyone I've met and had the opportunity to discuss it with, from sideliners to seriously large guys hope that someday a magic bee will find us. I don't think it will come through killing bees year after year but through selective breeding, reduction of treatments over time.

One saying that stuck with me from a breeder was "If you want to wait a thousand generations you can get a Black Angus out of a Texas Longhorn-if you want to wait." I'm pretty sure that's a long time and the Good Lord gave us all brains but apparently not everyone got common sense.


----------



## gator75

Is creating a brood break by temporarily removing the queen considered a "treatment"?


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> What conditions did you decide to change in this years approach? Let us learn from your mistakes.


I was listening to Solomon?


----------



## James Lee

LarryBud said:


> I don't think it will come through killing bees year after year but through selective breeding, reduction of treatments over time.


So you've nailed it...and I've never promoted the live and let die approach in a single solitary post on this entire thread. Treatment Free is not Solomon Parker. I've based much of what I do in research and evidence from others both local and in the scientific community. I didn't follow 4 easy steps and declare myself a guru.

As to treatments, the definition needs to be modified and divorced from the likes of SP, treatment free is not a starting point, it's a goal.

I'm proud to say I took a queen and a handful of bees from a deadout that was in topper and revived when I started cleaning it to 3 colonies. I multiplied through beekeeping principles, not TF principles to 30 colonies by the end of the season.

My mentors have a combined have over a century of TF success. If you read what I posted initially you'll also see I never asserted my knowledge over the experience of others. You'll not find me giving bee talks or claiming guru status. Now I am zealous for TF and Sustainability, and I am organizing others, and I am fostering relationships that will mentor people who to venture off into treatment free because there is a sincere lack of hands-on education and you can slap a package in a colony and call yourself a beekeeper without ever stepping foot into bee yard previously.

Again, TF is a goal, not a starting point.

And @Oldtimer, every goal is a goal...from a point..


----------



## James Lee

gator75 said:


> Is creating a brood break by temporarily removing the queen considered a "treatment"?


Technically. As the far extreme view of it yes. But if you are building an apiary in which you have bees to select from in the first place because your not going to get there killing then all...it's not a treatment. That's the problem with TF as defined by SP, everyone forgot that he was an advocate of building your apiary before killing them all...


----------



## grozzie2

crofter said:


> _"My name is James. I keep bees in SE Michigan. I have 26 colonies right now and have never treated. This will be the first winter I expect to get bees through. Had to change quite a few things this last year, what I was doing previously was t going to work for me"._
> 
> 
> Ah yes; A few of us apparently missed that.


Ahh, ok, no successful winters yet, but hoping this will be the first. My wife often reminds folks, 'Hope is not a plan'.

Hi, my name is Gerry. I've been keeping bees for 11 years now, that's 11 summer seasons and 10 complete winters, winter number 11 is in progress. We've never had a total wipeout, but, ya never know, this year could be the one. right now the hives are out back on stands, but even that hasn't helped, they are all completely buried in snow. Will find out in the spring how they did. We usually start putting on first pollen patties around Valentines day, and that's when we will find out how many are still alive in February. Based on that, if it's really bad, I'll order some packages to replenish a few dead outs. I've done that before, read on. FWIW, we dont count a colony as 'survived' until April 1. Lots of losses occur after folks think the have 'made it', but the first round of brood after the winter is critical. If for some reason that round fails, maybe a cold snap chilled it, or maybe they ran out of food, then the colony is doomed, you just dont realize it yet.

I typically run 20 to 30 colonies over the summer, produce around a ton of honey. I've started into raising queens on a larger scale over the last few years. For summer 2022 the plan is to be running 30 mating nucs on a 3 week schedule to produce 10 queens a week over the season.

Our wintering average over the last 10 years is right around 70% for full size colonies. We started wintering 'spare queens' in mating nucs 5 years ago, and they have a much higher survival rate up to now. I'm almost certain this year is going to destroy our averages on the wintering in mating nucs, we've had 100% 4 out of 5 years that way, and one died last year (out of a dozen). I have reason to believe the mating nuc survival this year is going to be dismal, under 50%, just based on entrance activity on a warm day in early December. but they have fooled me before, sometimes the colonies that dont fly at all in the winter turn out to b the boomer come spring. But under no circumstances will we open them to check at this time of the year.

One thing I can say with 100% certainty, on the years where we have the time to 'do it right' for mite control, we get stellar survival of our bees. but there have been a few years where 'real work' and 'life' got in the way, so the bees didn't get the type of mite control they deserve. those years our survival has been pretty poor. Not a wipeout, but a huge setback for sure.

As one example, winter 2018. One saturday morning in early August my wife said to me over breakfast, 'You need to get out and start treating the bees today'. My response was, 'yep, the bees need some mite control, but, today I am going to go spend the day with Dad, the bees can wait'. Had a fantastic day with my father. He passed away 5 days later, something we all knew was imminent. After that, I was buried in administrative work dealing with the details for a month, so the bees got ignored. I did get to some treatments later in September, but, it was to little, to late. 32 into winter, 8 alive in the spring, we bought some packages. I have no regrets. Can always buy more bees in a pinch, will never get another wonderful day of visiting with my Dad.

For reasons I wont get into other than 'life got in the way', I'm expecting spring 2022 to be somewhat similar. Our mite management in fall of 2021 may have turned out to be 'to little, to late', but I wont know for sure till February.

For us here, the bees are an interesting sideline. It's become a small business, I've posted before many times about our journey here on the farm, I call it a hobby that generates $20K in revenue annually, but the Canada Revenue agency and BC Assement authority both say we are a farm operating as a business. We have reached the point where we have a facility for dealing with extracting honey, and all the equipment we need to manage upwards of 50 colonies in the process. All of this has been paid for by revenue from honey sales. A lot of the 'how and why' of our beekeeping comes from things I learned here on beesource, back in the days when serious commercial beekeepers still participated regularly. Part of why I still participate is the concept of 'pay it forward' to help other folks that want to head down the same path. We have reached the point where our financial investment in bees and equipment has all been recovered, plus a bit. The assets are now at a point where they were paid for by 'sweat equity', and we are now at the point where all the big expenses are covered, and there is a decent little slush fund in the 'bee kitty'.

Over my decade of participation on Beesource, I've learned a lot. I learned from Micheal Palmer the details of what is needed to produce quality queens, and another very important tidbit, READ THE OLD BEE BOOKS. I learned from Roland the correct way to use a queen excluder to help maximize honey production. I learned from Ian that the most important thing about keeping bees is to learn the life cycle, and how to manage it such that one has the population needed, at the time it is needed, and in time I added to that of my own accord, learn the life cycle of the varroa mite, and how it interacts with the life cycle of the colony. There are many more, but I cant remember them all off the top of my head. You will note, most of these folks no longer participate here. That's a shame, they were a wealth of knowledge, but essentially chased away by the zealots.

So if somebody new shows up, and wants to show us a better way of keeping bees, I'm all ears. show me a decade of statistics and how it worked for you thru good years, and poor years, why it's better, and how it'll either reduce my workload, or increase my revenue stream, I'm game to try.

But to be blunt about it, I have no interest in taking beekeeping advice from somebody that has never successfully wintered any colonies. A person in that position should possibly stop talking, and start listening.


----------



## A Novice

gator75 said:


> Is creating a brood break by temporarily removing the queen considered a "treatment"?


it is a form of IPM. You won't lose your TF cred by doing that.

If you are TF, please monitor your mites, and if they get to be too numerous, please treat your bees. There are no bees that can resist mites if the mites are virulent.

I was TF for about 6 months and then found that I had a lot of mites. Oxalic Acid, which occurs naturally in nectar, saved my bees.


----------



## James Lee

grozzie2 said:


> Ahh, ok, no successful winters yet, but hoping this will be the first. My wife often reminds folks, 'Hope is not a plan'.
> 
> Hi, my name is Gerry. I've been keeping bees for 11 years now, that's 11 summer seasons and 10 complete winters, winter number 11 is in progress. We've never had a total wipeout, but, ya never know, this year could be the one. right now the hives are out back on stands, but even that hasn't helped, they are all completely buried in snow. Will find out in the spring how they did. We usually start putting on first pollen patties around Valentines day, and that's when we will find out how many are still alive in February. Based on that, if it's really bad, I'll order some packages to replenish a few dead outs. I've done that before, read on. FWIW, we dont count a colony as 'survived' until April 1. Lots of losses occur after folks think the have 'made it', but the first round of brood after the winter is critical. If for some reason that round fails, maybe a cold snap chilled it, or maybe they ran out of food, then the colony is doomed, you just dont realize it yet.
> 
> I typically run 20 to 30 colonies over the summer, produce around a ton of honey. I've started into raising queens on a larger scale over the last few years. For summer 2022 the plan is to be running 30 mating nucs on a 3 week schedule to produce 10 queens a week over the season.
> 
> Our wintering average over the last 10 years is right around 70% for full size colonies. We started wintering 'spare queens' in mating nucs 5 years ago, and they have a much higher survival rate up to now. I'm almost certain this year is going to destroy our averages on the wintering in mating nucs, we've had 100% 4 out of 5 years that way, and one died last year (out of a dozen). I have reason to believe the mating nuc survival this year is going to be dismal, under 50%, just based on entrance activity on a warm day in early December. but they have fooled me before, sometimes the colonies that dont fly at all in the winter turn out to b the boomer come spring. But under no circumstances will we open them to check at this time of the year.
> 
> One thing I can say with 100% certainty, on the years where we have the time to 'do it right' for mite control, we get stellar survival of our bees. but there have been a few years where 'real work' and 'life' got in the way, so the bees didn't get the type of mite control they deserve. those years our survival has been pretty poor. Not a wipeout, but a huge setback for sure.
> 
> As one example, winter 2018. One saturday morning in early August my wife said to me over breakfast, 'You need to get out and start treating the bees today'. My response was, 'yep, the bees need some mite control, but, today I am going to go spend the day with Dad, the bees can wait'. Had a fantastic day with my father. He passed away 5 days later, something we all knew was imminent. After that, I was buried in administrative work dealing with the details for a month, so the bees got ignored. I did get to some treatments later in September, but, it was to little, to late. 32 into winter, 8 alive in the spring, we bought some packages. I have no regrets. Can always buy more bees in a pinch, will never get another wonderful day of visiting with my Dad.
> 
> For reasons I wont get into other than 'life got in the way', I'm expecting spring 2022 to be somewhat similar. Our mite management in fall of 2021 may have turned out to be 'to little, to late', but I wont know for sure till February.
> 
> For us here, the bees are an interesting sideline. It's become a small business, I've posted before many times about our journey here on the farm, I call it a hobby that generates $20K in revenue annually, but the Canada Revenue agency and BC Assement authority both say we are a farm operating as a business. We have reached the point where we have a facility for dealing with extracting honey, and all the equipment we need to manage upwards of 50 colonies in the process. All of this has been paid for by revenue from honey sales. A lot of the 'how and why' of our beekeeping comes from things I learned here on beesource, back in the days when serious commercial beekeepers still participated regularly. Part of why I still participate is the concept of 'pay it forward' to help other folks that want to head down the same path. We have reached the point where our financial investment in bees and equipment has all been recovered, plus a bit. The assets are now at a point where they were paid for by 'sweat equity', and we are now at the point where all the big expenses are covered, and there is a decent little slush fund in the 'bee kitty'.
> 
> Over my decade of participation on Beesource, I've learned a lot. I learned from Micheal Palmer the details of what is needed to produce quality queens, and another very important tidbit, READ THE OLD BEE BOOKS. I learned from Roland the correct way to use a queen excluder to help maximize honey production. I learned from Ian that the most important thing about keeping bees is to learn the life cycle, and how to manage it such that one has the population needed, at the time it is needed, and in time I added to that of my own accord, learn the life cycle of the varroa mite, and how it interacts with the life cycle of the colony. There are many more, but I cant remember them all off the top of my head. You will note, most of these folks no longer participate here. That's a shame, they were a wealth of knowledge, but essentially chased away by the zealots.
> 
> So if somebody new shows up, and wants to show us a better way of keeping bees, I'm all ears. show me a decade of statistics and how it worked for you thru good years, and poor years, why it's better, and how it'll either reduce my workload, or increase my revenue stream, I'm game to try.
> 
> But to be blunt about it, I have no interest in taking beekeeping advice from somebody that has never successfully wintered any colonies. A person in that position should possibly stop talking, and start listening.


1. For the 100 millionth time - I didn't give any of you advice.
2. In order to participate in dialog - ON A FORUM you need to speak and post and uhhhh talk.
3. Grozzie, I really have no interest in conversing with you further, about anything. You've made no sincere attempts to engage my statements or posts productively or hospitably. You're a pretty mean dude and attacked me unprovoked. So - thanks but no thanks.

I am glad you got an opportunity to spend time with your father.


----------



## crofter

James Lee said:


> I was listening to Solomon?


And it took that long to decide?? I started reading the forum 10 years or so ago and dismissed him being worth listening to after reading about the second post of his. I think he was in a discussion with Oldtimer.

So you were not discerning enough to not listen to SP yet you say you are collecting information to educate would be beekeepers.

_ " I am zealous for TF and Sustainability, and I am organizing others, and I am fostering relationships that will mentor people who to venture off into treatment free because there is a sincere lack of hands-on education and you can slap a package in a colony and call yourself a beekeeper without ever stepping foot into bee yard previously."_

Actually being zealous when appraising the merits of an ideology is a serious handicap. I can believe your zeal and understand your defensiveness. I think it amounts to collecting information selectively to influence an uninformed audience in a certain direction. It is your conviction of course that it is the right direction. Sounds suspiciously like programming!

I dont know who to attribute it to but it has been said that "the strength of ones convictions is no indication of their degree of veracity".


----------



## A Novice

grozzie2 said:


> Ahh, ok, no successful winters yet, but hoping this will be the first. My wife often reminds folks, 'Hope is not a plan'.


Thanks for taking the time to write that


----------



## gator75

A Novice said:


> it is a form of IPM. You won't lose your TF cred by doing that.
> 
> If you are TF, please monitor your mites, and if they get to be too numerous, please treat your bees. There are no bees that can resist mites if the mites are virulent.
> 
> I was TF for about 6 months and then found that I had a lot of mites. Oxalic Acid, which occurs naturally in nectar, saved my bees.


I oav one of my hives and am letting a cutout and a small nuc from that cutout go natural (amazingly the cutout hive never did get a mite count high enough to require OAV) Hoping at least one makes it though winter. Both the larger hives had a ton of brood hatch yesterday and today. We'll see. It's my first winter. Still learning how much work bees are. I asked because I was curious. I will implement a brood break moving forward for OAV treatment. Which is the only one I plan on using. In Florida, treating with oav without one is pissing in the wind as there is no natural brood break.

I extremely intrigued by TF beekeeping. I'd never give anyone a hard time for putting a whole lot of effort into it. I'd also never give anyone a hard time for treating. Commercially, there are no viable options.


----------



## Oldtimer

James Lee said:


> And @Oldtimer, every goal is a goal...from a point..


True enough LOL.

And thank you James for your honesty, I respect that as do others.

I do hope you succeed this coming season. We would all love to have treatment free bees if someone could figure out how we could all do it.

Just a tip. Anecdotally from data submitted on Beesource, it would appear that TF beekeeping is possible in some regions, and not others. If your mentor is treating, there will be a reason for that. 
It just may be that TF is never going to work for you, in your area. It has been said _the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result_. There may come a time when the plan needs to be changed.

Beyond that, I would question the wisdom of promoting something and organising others into it, when one has not succeeded oneself. However, that is how TF beekeeping has mostly been promoted so perhaps it is the norm in the field.

And also a note to myself and others, this is the TF forum and critisism of TF is not supposed to be permitted, myself and others have probably pushed the boundaries, just a reminder of that.

Long as some folks are trying, and some succeeding, perhaps someone will crack the code and we all stand to benefit.


----------



## AHudd

gator75 said:


> Is creating a brood break by temporarily removing the queen considered a "treatment"?


It is according to these folks; Log into Facebook It is a treatment if you are trying to stay ahead of mites, but not if your bees are dying and you need to make increase. Someone seems to have figured out you can't, "not" treat dead bees, however you can call yourself a beekeeper even if you have no bees. 

Alex


----------



## James Lee

crofter said:


> And it took that long to decide?? I started reading the forum 10 years or so ago and dismissed him being worth listening to after reading about the second post of his. I think he was in a discussion with Oldtimer.
> 
> So you were not discerning enough to not listen to SP yet you say you are collecting information to educate would be beekeepers.
> 
> _ " I am zealous for TF and Sustainability, and I am organizing others, and I am fostering relationships that will mentor people who to venture off into treatment free because there is a sincere lack of hands-on education and you can slap a package in a colony and call yourself a beekeeper without ever stepping foot into bee yard previously."_
> 
> Actually being zealous when appraising the merits of an ideology is a serious handicap. I can believe your zeal and understand your defensiveness. I think it amounts to collecting information selectively to influence an uninformed audience in a certain direction. It is your conviction of course that it is the right direction. Sounds suspiciously like programming!
> 
> I dont know who to attribute it to but it has been said that "the strength of ones convictions is no indication of their degree of veracity".


I was being facetious re SP. 

It only has merit if you agree with it right? Who is the arbiter of what is right here? I'm saying there are other ways, not only one way. Another response to the ghost of SP instead of actually engaging me, you resort to ad hominem again. Why do you keep responding to me?


----------



## James Lee

AHudd said:


> It is according to these folks; Log into Facebook It is a treatment if you are trying to stay ahead of mites, but not if your bees are dying and you need to make increase. Someone seems to have figured out you can't, "not" treat dead bees, however you can call yourself a beekeeper even if you have no bees.
> 
> Alex


This is what bothers me about the "cult" mentality of it all.


----------



## James Lee

Oldtimer said:


> True enough LOL.
> 
> And thank you James for your honesty, I respect that as do others.
> 
> I do hope you succeed this coming season. We would all love to have treatment free bees if someone could figure out how we could all do it.
> 
> Just a tip. Anecdotally from data submitted on Beesource, it would appear that TF beekeeping is possible in some regions, and not others. If your mentor is treating, there will be a reason for that.
> It just may be that TF is never going to work for you, in your area. It has been said _the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result_. There may come a time when the plan needs to be changed.
> 
> Beyond that, I would question the wisdom of promoting something and organising others into it, when one has not succeeded oneself. However, that is how TF beekeeping has mostly been promoted so perhaps it is the norm in the field.
> 
> And also a note to myself and others, this is the TF forum and critisism of TF is not supposed to be permitted, myself and others have probably pushed the boundaries, just a reminder of that.
> 
> Long as some folks are trying, and some succeeding, perhaps someone will crack the code and we all stand to benefit.


Im promoting information to be analyzed assessed dissected and evaluated and discussed. Finding what works in each situation based on beekeeper needs. The groups I've initiated are born out of necessity, and the Michigan Treatment Free Group is full of treating beekeepers from the larger Michigan groups. Here's the problem, the topic cannot even be engaged proactively or intelligently in those venues, because the treating proponents are also militant and cult-like, there's no reasoning with them either. In our groups, filled with people who treat and don't treat, and people who are successful at TF moderating discussions, in a region specific, local beekeeping group - we have civility. In the primary conventional bee groups every single discussion regresses into attacks on person or Solomon Parker lol - amazing he's had that much of an impact, and sad really.

My mentor is not in my immediate area, and he treats because he is old as dirt and that's what he does. But he doesn't treat prophylacticly, sometimes he doesnt treat a colony, and maybe that's why he tolerates me? My mentor also mentored Meghan Milbrath. For what that's worth I don't know, but she's well revered so he must've done something right to set her off on her course.

AS to plans changing - I said that from the get go - but people keep responding to the ghost of SP.

I would like to change the tone, modify the dialog, and create a medium where civility permits us to find that magic bee. If I'm willing to fail for you to benefit if that bee does show up in my apiary - what have you lost?


----------



## AHudd

James Lee said:


> Technically. As the far extreme view of it yes. But if you are building an apiary in which you have bees to select from in the first place because your not going to get there killing then all...it's not a treatment. That's the problem with TF as defined by SP, everyone forgot that he was an advocate of building your apiary before killing them all...


Someone over there was explaining, it is advisable to allow your bees to swarm, capture it and also cut out the extra queen cells to make increase because this is how bees naturally increase. 
I didn't realize the chasm between Chemical Free and Treatment Free was so extreme.

Alex

P.S. You might want to rethink the added second line in your signature, there once was a poster by the name of Acebird that had a very high post count.


----------



## James Lee

AHudd said:


> Someone over there was explaining, it is advisable to allow your bees to swarm, capture it and also cut out the extra queen cells to make increase because this is how bees naturally increase.
> I didn't realize the chasm between Chemical Free and Treatment Free was so extreme.
> 
> Alex
> 
> P.S. You might want to rethink the added second line in your signature, there once was a poster by the name of Acebird that had a very high post count.


Help me understand what you mean about the chasm between CF/TF? 

Im more of the mind to prevent swarming so I can increase if I can by splitting them. If I am fortunate enough to capture my swarms - which this season proved I wasn't able to (save the two landed in my swarm traps not far from the apiary). When I have swarm cells, I make more bees - that's just what makes sense to me. 

There are lots of folks there who are labeled TF, but are not TF by Solomon's definition. I'm of the mind that things will change if he ever actually follow through on stepping down from the forum. Which I don't think he will so it's lack of transparency will likely continue.


----------



## AHudd

Oldtimer said:


> And also a note to myself and others, this is the TF forum and critisism of TF is not supposed to be permitted, myself and others have probably pushed the boundaries, just a reminder of that.
> 
> Long as some folks are trying, and some succeeding, perhaps someone will crack the code and we all stand to benefit.


I've stayed out of the TF forum since I started treating, I don't know why I didn't notice where I was. I'll step out now.

Alex


----------



## A Novice

Oldtimer said:


> True enough LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> And also a note to myself and others, this is the TF forum and critisism of TF is not supposed to be permitted, myself and others have probably pushed the boundaries, just a reminder of that.


I didn't know that. Thank you for letting me know.

My apologies if I transgressed.

Now I have to go back and possibly edit my posts.
.


----------



## AHudd

James Lee said:


> Help me understand what you mean about the chasm between CF/TF?


I said I was stepping out, but it would be rude to not respond to your question.

By their definition splitting, drone brood culling, powdered sugar dusting, etc., are considered treatments. A large bee club in my area has a majority that wear the mantle of TF, yet they dust with powdered sugar and use propane foggers with Food Grade Mineral Oil (FGMO). My point is, TF is ill defined and far from universal, hence the need for another acronym, CF. OA is a chemical but has been recently elevated to organic status. It's enough to make a fella' lose his mind.

Good luck in your endeavor, I truly hope you and others succeed.

Alex


----------



## AR1

crofter said:


> You say that you are a believer in natural selection; If that takes the species in a direction that has noticeably reduced economic return or handling qualities it is going to be a tough proposition to promote.


Look at the trouble even a serious guy like Randy Oliver has had keeping resistance. Heavy, directed, selection for years, over a decade now, and still the next generation is highly variable. Gotta respect that guy's honesty, tells the good and the bad.


----------



## A Novice

AR1 said:


> Look at the trouble even a serious guy like Randy Oliver has had keeping resistance. Heavy, directed, selection for years, over a decade now, and still the next generation is highly variable. Gotta respect that guy's honesty, tells the good and the bad.


True enough.
He is an excellent beekeeper, with loads of experience, and huge resources, keeping bees in an extremely benign climate.

A new beek with 2 hives in Urban Milwaukee has zero chance of succeeding withTF. Zero. I mean, I talked with a guy and he said how there were big bees trying to get into his hive, and the little bees were keeping them out. He thought the big bees were robbers. It was August in Wisconsin. - The big bees were drones. That is the sort of beekeeper who tries TF, and after a couple of years decides not to keep bees.


----------



## James Lee

A Novice said:


> True enough.
> He is an excellent beekeeper, with loads of experience, and huge resources, keeping bees in an extremely benign climate.
> 
> A new beek with 2 hives in Urban Milwaukee has zero chance of succeeding withTF. Zero. I mean, I talked with a guy and he said how there were big bees trying to get into his hive, and the little bees were keeping them out. He thought the big bees were robbers. It was August in Wisconsin. - The big bees were drones. That is the sort of beekeeper who tries TF, and after a couple of years decides not to keep bees.


Darn anti-vaxxers they need to follow the science.


----------



## GregB

Oldtimer said:


> this is the TF forum and critisism of TF is not supposed to be permitted, myself and others have probably pushed the boundaries, just a reminder of that.


However..
However...
Misrepresentation and misleading as far as

TF context applicability
TFs abilities and short falls (including the realistic expectations)
of what IT is and what it is NOT
faulty methodologies and ideas regarding the TF
feasibility of the TF application
These should be totally called out and fairly criticized so to prevent people from doing unnecessary, overly costly, or outright stupid and harmful things.

Wasn't enough nonsense going around yet about "mite-resistant hives"?


----------



## A Novice

James Lee said:


> Darn anti-vaxxers they need to follow the science.


*?*


----------



## AR1

GregB said:


> However..
> However...
> Misrepresentation and misleading as far as
> 
> TF context applicability
> TFs abilities and short falls (including the realistic expectations)
> of what IT is and what it is NOT
> faulty methodologies and ideas regarding the TF
> feasibility of the TF application
> These should be totally called out and fairly criticized so to prevent people from doing unnecessary, overly costly, or outright stupid and harmful things.


I got no problem with helpful criticism. Some people here are more 'snippy' than others. I see a particular name and I just think 'oh, that's just X. He always talks that way.' As long as the info is useful and honestly given, critique is good, even if it comes across as a bit harsh.

I have had one year out of 5 of total losses, and another year of near-total losses. I blame a lot of the losses on my own poor but hopefully improving skills and knowledge. What killed my bees? Mites. Wet bees in winter. Excess splitting into too-small hives. Yellow jackets (the small hives again, and probably mites weakened the hives). So, pretty much all stuff I could have prevented if I had better skills.

Except that one big mite year, mites have not CLEARLY been the problem. But it's a background, low-level debilitating issue. If anything else goes wrong, the mites are enough to finish off the colony. That's my current working hypothesis. This year I tried oxalic acid on shop towels. 

I don't advise any one-two-year new beekeeper to go TF. Too much else to learn and too many other things that can go wrong, too many sources of human error, so you can't figure out what it was that killed your bees. If you are new and TF, it was probably mainly mites.


----------



## Oldtimer

A Novice said:


> Now I have to go back and possibly edit my posts.


The moderators have been watching and decided to let it run, so you are good.

I just thought I'd mention it, these kind of threads have got ugly in the past so I thought why ruin an interesting thread.


----------



## LarryBud

Oldtimer said:


> The moderators have been watching and decided to let it run, so you are good.
> 
> I just thought I'd mention it, these kind of threads have got ugly in the past so I thought why ruin an interesting thread.


Actually, this has been a pretty good thread-James Lee held his own and got his points across-as did others. Well done people!


----------



## ncbeez

johno said:


> Is this the thread where I should tell all you beekeepers that you need some of the Rudolph Steiner type of polished spheres, just hang them near you apiaries and they will absorb cosmic energy which will neutralise and magnetic interference from power lines and your cell phones, they will also sycronise all those lay lines to fit where your hives are and also keep mites out of your hives. These spheres are readily available from your local chapter of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society. Get your today and all your beekeeping problems will soon be over.


Don't mention wrapping the hives in tin foil or the price of aluminum foil will go up again.


----------



## LarryBud

ncbeez said:


> Don't mention wrapping the hives in tin foil or the price of aluminum foil will go up again.


But do they make Julian Fries?


----------



## grozzie2

ncbeez said:


> Don't mention wrapping the hives in tin foil or the price of aluminum foil will go up again.


The tin foil crowd isn't to bright, and doesn't think things thru. Use reflectix and you get two layers of tin foil, with some insulation as a bonus.


----------



## AR1

grozzie2 said:


> The tin foil crowd isn't to bright, and doesn't think things thru. Use reflectix and you get two layers of tin foil, with some insulation as a bonus.


Been years since I could find real TIN foil. It's all aluminum now. 

Oops, this TF forum. Debating relative merits of tin/aluminum is verboten.


----------



## ncbeez

LarryBud said:


> But do they make Julian Fries?


I had to research that term to understand, had me wondering for a while.


----------



## msl

James Lee said:


> I would like to change the tone, modify the dialog, and create a medium where civility permits us to find that magic bee. If I'm willing to fail for you to benefit if that bee does show up in my apiary - what have you lost?


what have I lost form a TF guy with 20 something hives such as your self? 2021-2022 it was close to 10k




for context the video was the 2nd week of nov.. Nucs were made up in july and given a OA treatment in Aug when they went broodless... rolling washes of 0 in early sept
I lost 85% in this yard VS 11% in the 5 out yards with the same stock and management .. this guys "choice" not to treat, cost me my overwintered nuc crop for the spring 4k (20 @$200) the spring nuc crop they would have made 3k (20$150) and the resorces needed for queen production 2600(75$35) ,... so thats what I have lost in a single year to some one elces miss management
I have no care what anyone does with their bees, but very few of us keep in isolation and poor mite control (gentnic or outher wize) effects several klicks away..
it the case of the 2021 video... the total apiary crash of this guy caused a almost total wipe out for close to a mile radius, affecting 5 beekeepers (that I know of) robbing screens and the killing of weak colonies (or treatment and requeeening, same genetic effect) is needed to protect those around you

side bar.... magic bees don't exist, never did, never will
your not going to find it in your 26 hives and cerntial not a breeding pop worth even if you did find it, its gone in outcross in 2-3 splits/swarms

so if your were wondering were some of the anmoisty people have to TF comes form, there you have it.
The faith based beekeeping methods (no insult the the real guys doing real breeding and real beekeeping) demanding that colony's be sacrificed on the alter of "bond" (with most not having an understanding of true bond and why what there doing isn't) while showing complete lack of understanding on what it takes to breed bees....maters not, Its a hurtle to clear commutation, but what ever

its the shear damage they do to others (and indeed local ferals) all they while firmly entrenched in the beliefe they are some how helping the bees or outhers. as you say "I'm willing to fail for you to benefit"...
when the realty is most are willing to kill my bees for thier baisless actions

TF can be done ethically and with respect to your nehobores!! Seeley breaks it down quite well, but (it would seem) to grab market share and membership the gurus bill it as cheap/easy/lazy beekeeping

talking with TF zealots reminds me of when I worked with cult survivors... scarily so... The abilty of the internet to create an echo chamber showing you the results you want and casue radicaltion is impresive...

the reason you should find that last statment so intersting is as many here know, I used to be one of those Zealots firmly intrenched in some ones 1/2 truths about natural selection and a firm disdain for all and any conventional beekeeping


----------



## James Lee

msl said:


> what have I lost form a TF guy with 20 something hives such as your self? 2021-2022 it was close to 10k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for context the video was the 2nd week of nov.. Nucs were made up in july and given a OA treatment in Aug when they went broodless... rolling washes of 0 in early sept
> I lost 85% in this yard VS 11% in the 5 out yards with the same stock and management .. this guys "choice" not to treat, cost me my overwintered nuc crop for the spring 4k (20 @$200) the spring nuc crop they would have made 3k (20$150) and the resorces needed for queen production 2600(75$35) ,... so thats what I have lost in a single year to some one elces miss management
> I have no care what anyone does with their bees, but very few of us keep in isolation and poor mite control (gentnic or outher wize) effects several klicks away..
> it the case of the 2021 video... the total apiary crash of this guy caused a almost total wipe out for close to a mile radius, affecting 5 beekeepers (that I know of) robbing screens and the killing of weak colonies (or treatment and requeeening, same genetic effect) is needed to protect those around you
> 
> side bar.... magic bees don't exist, never did, never will
> your not going to find it in your 26 hives and cerntial not a breeding pop worth even if you did find it, its gone in outcross in 2-3 splits/swarms
> 
> so if your were wondering were some of the anmoisty people have to TF comes form, there you have it.
> The faith based beekeeping methods (no insult the the real guys doing real breeding and real beekeeping) demanding that colony's be sacrificed on the alter of "bond" (with most not having an understanding of true bond and why what there doing isn't) maters not , its the shear damage they do to others (and indeed local ferals) all they while firmly entrenched in the beliefe they are some how helping the bees or outhers. as you say "I'm willing to fail for you to benefit"...
> when the realty is most are willing to kill my bees for thier baisless actions
> 
> TF can be done ethically and with respect to your nehobores!! Seeley breaks it down quite well, but (it would seem) to grab market share and membership the gurus bill it as cheap/easy/lazy beekeeping


This is an honest question. You are saying a mite-bomb devastated your whole apiary?


----------



## GregB

James Lee said:


> This is an honest question. You are saying a mite-bomb devastated your whole apiary?


Not just a mite-bomb.
A mite-breeding-apiary.
You heard him.

And to be clear - this is not general TF bashing by MSL.
Rather, this is a good example of circumstances where you should not be trying to be a TF beekeeper.
Not going to work.
Not a good place.
Pretty much similar to my place.


----------



## James Lee

msl said:


> what have I lost form a TF guy with 20 something hives such as your self? 2021-2022 it was close to 10k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason you should find that last statment so intersting is as many here know, I used to be one of those Zealots



I am sorry you suffered such significant losses - both beewise and revenue wise its not cool. Do you assume I am not actively breeding my bees and am a live and let die beekeeper?


----------



## msl

GregB said:


> Rather, this is a good example of circumstances where you should not be trying to be a TF beekeeper.


of note 12 years ago, before it had nehobores, this was a TF yard



James Lee said:


> Do you assume I am not actively breeding my bees


with only 26 hives, yes I would assume you not doing any sort of breeding, and only fooling you self if you think you are.
Ad on no talk of using II and no overwintered stock of your own to select from.. yep, no breeding, not even stock selection at this point



James Lee said:


> a live and let die beekeeper?


some have lived? I thought they all died....
sorry had to
yes, I am assuming you haven't been taking mite counts and euthanizing hives that have hit threshold




GregB said:


> And to be clear - this is not general TF bashing by MSL.


right... this is about what happens when you allow hives to colipase, regardless of your position in the TF/TX camp


----------



## James Lee

msl said:


> of note 12 years ago, before it had nehobores, this was a TF yard
> 
> 
> with only 26 hives, yes I would assume you not doing any sort of breeding, and only fooling you self if you think you are.
> Ad on no talk of using II and no overwintered stock of your own to select from.. yep, no breeding, not even stock selection at this point
> 
> 
> some have lived? I thought they all died....
> sorry had to
> yes, I am assuming you haven't been taking mite counts and euthanizing hives that have hit threshold
> 
> 
> 
> right... this is about what happens when you allow hives to colipase, regardless of your position in the TF/TX camp


Your assumption is discouraging. You are also not reading what I write, nor have you bothered to ask what I have accomplished.

They did not all die. I have been working the same two queen lines in my Apiary for two seasons. I have been purposeful in saturating my area with drones from the two lines, and I don't keep all my colonies in one basket. I have small outyards scattered in a 10mile radius. I also have "alleged" feral populations within that radius that have been monitored for the last 3 seasons and are a bit of a control.

You can't get to your destination if you dont start somewhere. Problem with folks who have all the experience and knowledge, you forget where you came from and become pompous and elitist. That's a tragedy.


----------



## Oldtimer

Interesting video.

My 2 cents, having been mite bombed myself but in my case not by TF guys, but by a negligent commercial beekeeper.

OAV works for it's practitioners because when the mites emerge from the brood cell, they then stay phoretic for several days before re entering a brood cell to reproduce. This few days phoretic gives opportunity for them to be killed by OAV if the OAV is done regularly enough.

But when the bees bring mites home from a collapsing hive they robbed, those mites have likely been phoretic for some time due to shortage of suitable brood in the collapsing hive. So when the mites arrive in the new hive they are ready to enter a brood cell as soon as they find one.

So me anyway, I have found the most effective defence against this is chemical strips, such as apivar. Because then you have a steady and constant leaching of mite killing toxin into the hive ready to kill any new arrivals.

Not decrying OAV, clearly it's practitioners such as say, Johno, get excellent results. But if under mite bomb pressure it does allow for a weakness in that case.

The commercial beekeeper who used to be the main culprit in my case has now cleaned up their act. But what was happening some years ago was when it was manuka time they would sort through their hives and only take the good ones to the manuka. The "dinks" went to dump sites, one of which unfortunately within easy flying distance of one of my apiaries. When I got suspicious I did a "walk by" of the dink site. Didn't open any hives but saw crawlers all over the ground, distressed bees at hive entrances, hives with almost no bees and complete dead outs. And unfortunately for me, robbing. As a person can put hives anywhere they like I couldn't do anything about it, just had to ramp up the mite treatment regime at my site. I found mite bombs can be rendered close to harmless to ones own hives, long as you got a decent and steady stream of something to kill the mites, in your own hives.


----------



## GregB

> Your assumption is discouraging. You are also not reading what I write, nor have you bothered to ask what I have accomplished.
> 
> They did not all die. I have been working the same two queen lines in my Apiary for two seasons. I have been purposeful in saturating my area with drones from the two lines, and I don't keep all my colonies in one basket. I have small outyards scattered in a 10mile radius. I also have "alleged" feral populations within that radius that have been monitored for the last 3 seasons and are a bit of a control.
> 
> You can't get to your destination if you dont start somewhere. Problem with folks who have all the experience and knowledge, you forget where you came from and become pompous and elitist. That's a tragedy.


James Lee, why don't you create your own dedicated thread in the TF subforum.
Lay out your cards without being cryptic.
Tell what is you are trying to do and what have done already.
Frankly, it is becoming kinda tiresome to read about "not reading you".
Just keep it in one place and share it all there for others to see.
If you have goods to offer, the buyers will come.
Have a good Friday.


----------



## msl

James Lee said:


> You are also not reading what I write, nor have you bothered to ask what I have accomplished.
> 
> They did not all die.


this is what you said 5 days ago....



James Lee said:


> My name is James. I keep bees in SE Michigan. I have 26 colonies right now and have never treated. This will be the first winter I expect to get bees through.


I take that to mean..... you haven't gotten bees threw a winter yet, perhaps you mis spoke, or I miss interpreted

any way... swinging back around


msl said:


> while showing complete lack of understanding on what it takes to breed bees....maters not, Its a hurtle to clear commutation


your not breeding anything with 26 hives, when your ready to talk about what it takes to breed... I will be here, but I can see your not ready
(edit, and I should have added "and that's ok, I wasn't either at your (beekeeping) age")


too much cloak and dagger


----------



## James Lee

msl said:


> too much cloak and dagger


No cloak and dagger. I had significant loss my first season. I built from the remaining queen and her ilk - the one remaining queen I know that has a history and know of it's origin.

The other queen, an early graft from another known origin-not really a graft, but a cell-punch. With proven history as well.

From those queens I made more nucs, separated them, and put them in their own yards, but still within 10 miles radius of each other.

In another yard, I kept all the swarms caught from the second season, but still within the radius by mid summer.

I have no commercial operations within the city limits to my knowledge, that is yet to be revealed.

My neighboring beekeepers are not treaters either - and that's long before I was ever beekeeping in the area.

If I am not being clear, I won't shy from being clear responding to direct - unbaited questions. I have nothing to hide, I am truly here to dialog and to learn, but I'm not going to discount what I've studied and researched. Malign it with what you will, I didn't read the SP/MB handbook of bees and decide I know everything. I've been cutting my teeth, suffering loss, and busting my hump to build my apiaries for the purpose of having good queens and good bees in our area.

So - there's that. But, all aside, inexperience is not a precursor to nullify civility and respect.

FWIW I'll restate it, I've been studying and reading about bees since at least 2010-12, can't remember now...but it was around the time I moved back into my childhood home... so if I said something in between those years and someone quotes the post calling me a liar - there's my defense. Seems to be the status quo here.


----------



## Oldtimer

James Lee said:


> My neighboring beekeepers are not treaters either


OK well what is their survival rate? You could expect to end up similar.


----------



## JWChesnut

James Lee said:


> Malign it with what you will, I didn't read the SP/MB handbook of bees and decide I know everything.


On the other hand, A "James" that frequently plugs a facebook group of Michigan TF beeks wrote recently. So to strictly split hairs, "James" didn't "read", he "listened".


----------



## James Lee

JWChesnut said:


> On the other hand, A "James" that frequently plugs a facebook group of Michigan TF beeks wrote recently. So to strictly split hairs, "James" didn't "read", he "listened".
> 
> View attachment 66977


Did you read the rest of the thread? Do I have to list the books I've read to this point? Solomon is not the only person I've listened to?

If you were "reading" I was being critical of the National TF groups propensity to do what it seems aggravates you guys the most - and that's plop a colony in your yard and hope for the best and magic TF bees will appear.


----------



## James Lee

just another "gotcha" post... thats rich.


----------



## Oldtimer

James Lee said:


> someone quotes the post calling me a liar - there's my defense. Seems to be the status quo here.


That is a little tough.

I have not seen the word liar in the thread other than when you said it so saying that is the status quo here just is not the case.

Although not intentionally misleading I am sure, your statements have been confusing. To say "this will be the first winter I expect to get bees through" logically implies that up to now you haven't. But you then say you have, with 2 queens.

Course people going to be confused, me included. But nobody said you are a liar and to say they did, plus say that is the status quo here is overly defensive.


----------



## James Lee

Oldtimer said:


> That is a little tough.
> 
> I have not seen the word liar in the thread other than when you said it so saying that is the status quo here just is not the case.
> 
> Although not intentionally misleading I am sure, your statements have been confusing. To say "this will be the first winter I expect to get bees through" logically implies that up to now you haven't. But you then say you have, with 2 queens.
> 
> Course people going to be confused, me included. But nobody said you are a liar and to say they did, plus say that is the status quo here is overly defensive.


Maybe you're right. 

But i'm not purposefully being misleading - it's been a bit of a gatling gun discussion the past few days. Things happen. 

And yes, i'm being defensive. 

But I'm still trying to engage tactfully - and I don't want to be called a liar, because I'm not lying... at least intentionally?


----------



## Oldtimer

James Lee said:


> But i'm not purposefully being misleading - it's been a bit of a gatling gun discussion the past few days. Things happen.


I will grant you that. 😉

What I think is happening here is you are amongst people cynical of TF beekeeping. They say the most beligerent anti smokers, are the ex smokers.

So it is here. Some of the participants in this thread used to be you. TF, anti treatment, and zealous with it. They had hard lessons and sometimes expensive lessons and have moved on. Some of the comments made when they didn't realise this is the TF forum.

The previous suggestion to start your own thread may be a good one, and is what the TF forum is here for. This thread really started out talking about the exit from beekeeping of Sol, and has become derailed. You seem confident you will soon get better results, so if you do you could then run a "gotcha" post of your own. There would probably be some satisfaction in that 😄.

If you do start a thread might I suggest you direct some of the people from your other social media to it, to give you some moral support. You do not have to be a "lone voice crying in the wilderness".


----------



## James Lee

Oldtimer said:


> I will grant you that. 😉
> 
> What I think is happening here is you are amongst people cynical of TF beekeeping. They say the most beligerent anti smokers, are the ex smokers.
> 
> So it is here. Some of the participants in this thread used to be you. TF, anti treatment, and zealous with it. They had hard lessons and sometimes expensive lessons and have moved on. Some of the comments made when they didn't realise this is the TF forum.
> 
> The previous suggestion to start your own thread may be a good one, and is what the TF forum is here for. This thread really started out talking about the exit from beekeeping of Sol, and has become derailed. You seem confident you will soon get better results, so if you do you could then run a "gotcha" post of your own. There would probably be some satisfaction in that 😄.
> 
> If you do start a thread might I suggest you direct some of the people from your other social media to it, to give you some moral support. You do not have to be a "lone voice crying in the wilderness".


Haha - thanks. I think you are alright.

IM NOT ANTI TREATMENT.

There's a difference, so let's clear that up. I'm anti let's not talk about treatment free because treating is the only option and you will never succeed because you're killing my bees and your bees and we're all going to die so stop it now.

If I don't treat, doesn't make me anti-treatment. If you've decided that's what's going to work for your operation - be my guest. I've said that.

From the research I've studied, and the science - yes science supporting treatment free beekeeping practices, there is viable reason to state that it is a valid discussion. Has it reached a point for viability in large operations and commercial operations - no, not yet.

One thing is clear, and you can disagree if you want, ABJ, BEE CULTURE, long-time old-time beekeepers are realizing, treatment is not sustainable for the long-term when it comes to _Varroa Destructor. _We cannot keep doing what we're doing or we'll keep getting what we're getting.

I happen to see TF or the _road to TF _ as an mode that will maybe one day assist us in cresting that hill.

If someone doesn't dream - trails don't get blazed. Being complacent is not a normative disposition for beekeepers, chems or not. So this whole hostile debate really perplexes me.


I don't want a gotcha post - I want a wow that's plausible, it seems to be working. Let's give it a shot - no pun intended.


----------



## James Lee

Oldtimer said:


> This thread really started out talking about the exit from beekeeping of Sol, and has become derailed.


I am glad he is gone. 

But I doubt it will be for long - his personality demands the attention unfortunately, and it seems further damage is only going to be further due.


----------



## Lee Bussy

Oldtimer said:


> I would question the wisdom of promoting something and organising others into it, when one has not succeeded oneself. However, that is how TF beekeeping has mostly been promoted so perhaps it is the norm in the field.


Yes and No. Maybe? I mean, I can see how it makes sense. Change starts somewhere, and it takes support. Some of that is going to be "emotional support" from others doing the same thing. It makes sense to share information because it multiplies the impact of learned information.



James Lee said:


> I would like to change the tone, modify the dialog, and create a medium where civility permits us to find that magic bee. If I'm willing to fail for you to benefit if that bee does show up in my apiary - what have you lost?


Well, msl summed it up. You can choose to allow your kid to not receive the Measles vaccine, but if your kid gets it and infects others, that becomes an issue. I'm going to assert:

You have no idea where your bees are flying (other than a vague circle on the map)
You have no idea what they are coming in contact with
You have no idea if your "breeder queen" is really something that should be shared with others despite making attempts at drone saturation with those genetics
Your drones do not carry the genetics of your successful queen, they carry the genetics of their "grandfather"
These are things that I feel are irresponsible. If you are going to do this, be responsible about it. Don't assume you are right and impose your situation on others without their knowledge and approval. You seem to feel you know all of the beekeepers in that area, but do you know that for a fact? You are still learning in a field where there is no answer, so there's no reasonable platform from which to defend any negative impact on surrounding bees.

And even if these statements do not apply to you directly, I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that they would apply to a majority (not just using words, I am saying > 50%) of the TF crowd. That's what some of us see as an issue.



AR1 said:


> Some people here are more 'snippy' than others. I see a particular name and I just think 'oh, that's just X. He always talks that way.' As long as the info is useful and honestly given, critique is good, even if it comes across as a bit harsh.


True - and this is where my trademarked Grumpy Old Fart™ term comes in. Some are even borderline Curmudgeonly. I think we know who those people are and we can concede that they are tough to figure out for a new person coming here.



AR1 said:


> I don't advise any one-two-year new beekeeper to go TF. Too much else to learn and too many other things that can go wrong, too many sources of human error, so you can't figure out what it was that killed your bees.


That's excellent advice. One should learn science before calling oneself a scientist and going and doing research.

ALL THAT SAID, James has been cordial to everyone, despite continuously setting himself up as a voluntary punching bag. Not sure what that says about him.  He's not been nasty though and that can't be said of the rest of us.


----------



## James Lee

Lee Bussy said:


> ALL THAT SAID, James has been cordial to everyone, despite continuously setting himself up as a voluntary punching bag. Not sure what that says about him.  He's not been nasty though and that can't be said of the rest of us.


FWIW - I am a psychiatric social worker and I primarily treat the "criminally insane."


----------



## Lee Bussy

James Lee said:


> FWIW - I am a psychiatric social worker and I primarily treat the "criminally insane."


Mystery solved!


----------



## Litsinger

Lee Bussy said:


> You are still learning in a field where there is no answer, so there's no reasonable platform from which to defend any negative impact on surrounding bees.


To be fair, there are many respected scientists in our field who assert that there is an answer- however the answer may ultimately not suit our apicultural purposes.

I think it is important to at least consider whether in the big picture of developing resistance we all collectively bear some responsibility. 

While I wholeheartedly concur that those who choose to practice treatment-free beekeeping have an obligation to take whatever steps they can to minimize the negative impact upon their neighbors, I would humbly submit that we all bear some responsibility to each other and to future generations to allow selection to bring about some modicum of resistance.

Thus, while it is beyond the scope of this discussion and maybe deserves a separate thread, I'd suggest that as regards selection for resistance, many of us (present company included) all along the spectrum of external treatment paradigms are equally guilty of allowing unsuitable genetics to continue to persist.


----------



## A Novice

James Lee said:


> This is an honest question. You are saying a mite-bomb devastated your whole apiary?


Presuming to speak for someone else, and willing to be corrected (though having read his post, I think I am close to correct)

He appears to be saying 20 MITE BOMBS ALL GOING OFF AT ONCE cost him $10K.

To which I add

Beekeepers whose colonies collapse in large numbers are very bad neighbors for other beekeepers to have.

The principle _ So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you_, (Matthew 7:12) if applied to beekeeping means unless your hives are isolated from those of other beekeepers, allowing your hives to collapse is wrong. It harms your neighbors.

Since you wouldn't want their mite bombs blowing up your apiary, you need to be sure your mite bombs don't blow up theirs.

This isn't a criticism of TF. We have a prominent local beekeeper who is a bad beekeeper. He treats, but is slipshod, having more hives than he can manage. He is a bad neighbor. Fortunately for me, he has no hives near mine.


----------



## A Novice

James Lee said:


> FWIW - I am a psychiatric social worker and I primarily treat the "criminally insane."


Just an FYI, people in the applied sciences tend to view people in the social sciences as less competent with regard to practical matters than people in the skilled trades, for example.

This may be unjustified, but it is a general observation about peoples' attitudes in general. You could take a poll to see if I am right of course.

The reason for this (in my opinion) is that in the social sciences, most of the theory is armchair science, or so it appears to me. 

My opinion of armchair science is pretty well known. I engage in it a lot myself. It is helpful to think through what sort of actual science might be useful. It is fun, especially for people who are clever or persuasive. It requires very little work, and it can never be proven wrong.

I tend to keep my personal achievements unrelated to beekeeping to myself, as making them known would influence people to give more or less credibility to my statements based on what is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to beekeeping.

My achievements related to beekeeping are quite modest. I have a few hives, and have kept them for a few years, and mostly they survive unless I do something stupid.
Without regard to the confidence of my assertions, they should be given less credibility than those of people who make a significant part of their living from beekeeping. I point that out from time to time, and i mean it. I am aware that I can be more forceful in my opinions than is appropriate, and I do not want to become Solomon Parker. (to get back to what this thread is about - the collective relief related to his departure from apiculture.)


----------



## AR1

James Lee said:


> FWIW - I am a psychiatric social worker and I primarily treat the "criminally insane."


I am a critical care nurse, and it often FEELS as if I primarily treat the criminally insane!
In actual fact though, we often treat patients from prison. They tend to be very polite and compliant, which may be related to the 3-point shackles and the guard next to the bed...
It's the non-incarcerated that cause the trouble!

Regardless James. Happy to have you here and hope you stick around. I am a wannabe TF guy myself, trying to work out what works and what doesn't. My advice? Read through some of the long-standing TF 'blog'-type threads. There are a half-dozen or so that have been going for years with regular updates. We have tried everything we can think of.

Personally, I was 100% wiped out once, and a few years later went from 10 colonies to one. Different issues and problems both times, with a lot of newbie mistakes. Assuming anything survives this winter, I hope to get back up to around ten colonies this year.


----------



## A Novice

Litsinger said:


> I think it is important to at least consider whether in the big picture of developing resistance we all collectively bear some responsibility.
> 
> While I wholeheartedly concur that those who choose to practice treatment-free beekeeping have an obligation to take whatever steps they can to minimize the negative impact upon their neighbors, I would humbly submit that we all bear some responsibility to each other and to future generations to allow selection to bring about some modicum of resistance.
> 
> Thus, while it is beyond the scope of this discussion and maybe deserves a separate thread, I'd suggest that as regards selection for resistance, many of us (present company included) all along the spectrum of external treatment paradigms are equally guilty of allowing unsuitable genetics to continue to persist.


Maybe.

(sorry, that was abrupt)

My opinion is that people who treat and use their own local open mated queens to requeen or propagate new colonies are doing the most to get us to the good place regarding Varroa. Because they still experience selection pressure, but it is modest. They also preserve genetic diversity, which is crucial to the future.

My opinion is that people who buy narrowly bred resistant queens that are artificially inseminated, and requeen exclusively with such stock - are doing significant harm to genetic diversity.

The same is true of people who aggressively select for apparent resistance over the short term, whether by treatment free or not.

Modest selection pressure, as experienced in treated hives, allows behavioral traits that provide resistance to emerge which are compatible with managed beekeeping, while preserving genetic diversity as much as possible. This process cannot be hurried.

While treating is work, it should be recognized that Varroa is an unnatural change forced upon the bees by human action. For humans to act responsibly and provide another unnatural change (such as occasional exposure of bees to Oxalic Acid, for example) is entirely appropriate. The romantic idea about nature taking its course may be appealing, but there is nothing natural about keeping bees.

I would rather live with treatment forever, as it is manageable, than trade away genetic diversity to gain treatment free survival of monoculture bees.

But what do I know?


----------



## A Novice

Mama always said, "It is easier to stir the pot than to make soup..."


----------



## Arnie

This is a great thread. Lots of good input and knowledge. 

I'm a little bit like GG, I started with bees in the late 80s, had a couple dozen hives on a friend's farm, sold the honey in our restaurant and life was good. 

Then in the spring of '98 I checked the bees and all were dead. Folks in the local bee club I was a member of experienced the same. 
The meetings at the club the previous couple years had been focused on tracheal mites....ooops. Varroa snuck up on us.

So I gave up the bees for a while, and then a friend wanted to start some hives going and asked me to help him. He decided to be TF. 100% losses two years in a row , then I discovered Beesource. 

Got me a OAV wand and learned to keep the bees alive!

Treating is work I'd rather not do, but it beats losing the bees every year. 
I don't know any TF beekeepers here who are successful. Quite a few have tried. 
I'm too old to be involved in a grandiose plan to develop the mite resistant bee. I leave that to the youngsters. 
I'm happy and grateful someone figured out the OAV regimen so I can enjoy the hobby.

Thanks everyone for a really entertaining thread!


----------



## Lee Bussy

Litsinger said:


> To be fair, there are many respected scientists in our field who assert that there is an answer- however the answer may ultimately not suit our apicultural purposes.


I'll give you that. When I say "no answer" I mean no answer which seems to include the reason we're keeping _honey_bees specifically. If all we want to do is keep some random insect alive, there are other options.



Litsinger said:


> I think it is important to at least consider whether in the big picture of developing resistance we all collectively bear some responsibility.


I agree.



Litsinger said:


> While I wholeheartedly concur that those who choose to practice treatment-free beekeeping have an obligation to take whatever steps they can to minimize the negative impact upon their neighbors, I would humbly submit that we all bear some responsibility to each other and to future generations to allow selection to bring about some modicum of resistance.


You had me till you said that. "to allow selection" from the lips of a TF beekeeper generally means "Allow the bad ones to die." If that's not what you mean then I earnestly suggest you choose a different word, but I know enough so far to understand the lexicon (and euphemisms) used in TF. I do not agree I have a responsibility to throw it up to the fates. While not Gospel, I do think Randy Oliver has earned a spot in this discussion:



Randy Oliver said:


> Dairymen prefer to keep Holstein cattle. Holsteins are thin-skinned, thoroughly domesticated cattle selected solely for milk production. Their normal care requires shelter, supplemental feeding, routine vaccinations, and treatment with antibiotics. If a dairyman turned his Holsteins out on the range to fend for themselves without care, and half of them died each year, he would be accused of having committed animal neglect—“the failure to provide the basic care required for an animal to thrive.”
> 
> Yet this is exactly what thousands of recreational beekeepers do every year. Under the misconception that they are practicing “treatment free” beekeeping, they are in actuality simply neglecting their domesticated animals. The reason for this is that they are starting with commercial package bees—bees akin to Holstein cattle, in that they are bred for high brood and honey production under standard management practices (notably mite management, but also supplemental feeding or antibiotic treatment if indicated). Most commercial bee stocks should be considered as _domesticated animals_. *There is absolutely no reason to expect that your wishful thinking will miraculously transform your newly-purchased “domesticated” bees into hardy survivor stock able to survive as wild animals without standard care and treatment.*


So I agree that we all have a responsibility to assist in the transformation of the current domesticated insect into something which can survive mite pressure and the vectored pathogens they bring, I do not agree that "selection" is part of that responsibility when there are other tools available which have a proven record of deterministic information gathering. I believe that's your choice if that's how you want to do it, so long as you take a reasonable precaution to not impact other beekeepers around you (and likewise they to you.)

I very rarely see "I requeened" in TF discussions. I still see no reason why 30k bees have to die if the genetics of the queen is not desirable. Why not just pinch the queen and replace it with a more favorable one?

I still also very rarely see "I did a mite wash" in TF discussions as proof of the efficacy of mite impression. I could be wrong there, but it seems like there's a lot of head in the sand going on. For instance, @James Lee was asked a couple of times if he does mite counts in this thread. He may have missed it, which is a miss, but when I see it over and over again it's ignoring a scientific tool.


----------



## A Novice

James Lee said:


> Maybe you're right.
> 
> But i'm not purposefully being misleading - it's been a bit of a gatling gun discussion the past few days. Things happen.
> 
> And yes, i'm being defensive.
> 
> But I'm still trying to engage tactfully - and I don't want to be called a liar, because I'm not lying... at least intentionally?


Well, which is it?
Did you keep 2 queens, or have you never successfully wintered a colonyt?
If you did keep 2 queens, what was the meaning of those other posts? I realize other people ferreted them out, but they do appear to be your posts. I am willing to believe there is a misunderstanding, but I would appreciate it if you cleared it up. Otherwise, every time you post, people will (either in their minds, or in actuality), drag up those two seemingly mutually inconsistent statements. That will pretty much eliminate any credibility you might otherwise have.

This won't go away, so I think you need to address it.

Everyone lies or shades the truth or leaves out relevant facts which would weaken their position. I admit I do. So do you. So does everyone else on this forum. It is a matter of degree. Diogenes is still looking.

So don't be offended if someone implies that your apparently incompatible statements give evidence to a lack of honesty. That is my observation. It isn't personal. It just means I will disregard as of unknown veracity any statements regarding your experience as a beekeeper. Statements based on logic will still receive due attention.

But you can fix that. All it takes is a plausible explanation. I am a trusting sort, after all, and won't be difficult to persuade.


----------



## msl

A Novice said:


> Mama always said, "It is easier to stir the pot than to make soup..."


if you don't stir the burnt stuff on the bottom doesn't come up to the light



Lee Bussy said:


> Your drones do not carry the genetics of your successful queen, they carry the genetics of their "grandfather"


no, they do carry the queens genetics as they are effectually 1/2 the queen (a random 1/2 of the genetics not a full clone) a haploid . What they don't cary is the genetics of the drones the queen mated with, the outher 1/2 there diploid sisters have.. as they are haploid every one of there sperm is a clone
both of these things can be very usefull ....on the extrema end single drone insemstion allows you to isolate traits

more practically if you have a "pure" breeder queen her daughters, reguraless of who/what they mated with will produce "pure" drones alowing you to trun every production hive in to a drone mother and flood an area, even to the point of drone flooding a landscape by distrubution of 48 hour cells

the flip side is....that the queen is only 1/2 of what going on... and if the colony trait your selecting for came from the drone side the queens drones won't have it,



A Novice said:


> My opinion is that people who treat and use their own local open mated queens to requeen or propagate new colonies are doing the most to get us to the good place regarding Varroa. Because they still experience selection pressure


not really as most have a sample size too small... selecting one out of 10 or 1 isn't very much pressure.

much is made about diversity, but feral bees are less diveice then commercial stocks and the comerical bees in the US and ouhther places are more deverce than the base stocks they were founded from...
its one of those TF talking points (like "Natural selection/split what lives") that sounds good, but doesn't pan out under the light of scientific scrutiny

its a giant mixing pot with Russian running in to AHB then crossing with some Buckfast that had a date NWC... and thats just almonds, next stop bule beires ... or its a small town with GA, TX, and CA produced packages swarming and mateing with some sasktraiz drones
the long and short is commercial beekeeping practices increase genetic devireisty. 









Genetic Characterization of Exotic Commercial Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Populations in Thailand Reveals High Genetic Diversity and Low Population Substructure


Abstract. Domestication of animal species is often associated with a reduction in genetic diversity. The honey bee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758, has been mana




academic.oup.com












Domestication of honey bees was associated with expansion of genetic diversity


Humans have been keeping honey bees, Apis mellifera, in artificial hives for over 7000 years. Long enough, one might imagine, for some genetic changes to have occurred in domestic bees that would dis...




onlinelibrary.wiley.com









Error - Cookies Turned Off







onlinelibrary.wiley.com


----------



## Lee Bussy

msl said:


> no, they do carry the queens genetics as they are effectually 1/2 the queen


Darn it ... intellectually I know that and what I meant to say was that the queen is not a representation of the _hive_, and that the drone would not have all of the hive's genetics. Apparently, some cough medicine was imbibed there in the middle, colors were seen, brain disengaged, and hilarity ensued.

Kids, don't let your friends do drugs and then Internet.

I gotta tell you - learning about the diploid/haploid and what that meant about the drone and where the germlines come from .... all that about blew my mind the first time I studied it. Apparently I need a refresher.


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> Modest selection pressure, as experienced in treated hives, allows behavioral traits that provide resistance to emerge which are compatible with managed beekeeping, while preserving genetic diversity as much as possible. This process cannot be hurried.





Lee Bussy said:


> You had me till you said that. "to allow selection" from the lips of a TF beekeeper generally means "Allow the bad ones to die." If that's not what you mean then I earnestly suggest you choose a different word, but I know enough so far to understand the lexicon (and euphemisms) used in TF. I do not agree I have a responsibility to throw it up to the fates.


Sometimes to the benefit of brevity we can lose precision- so I'll double-down.  

My very humble opinion is that it likely does not have to be 'all-or-nothing' - we can all contribute in our own way to the result that I believe is common to most who are seriously engaged in apiculture. Specifically, colonies that are economically-viable and are progressing on a path of balance with varroa mites.

To that end, it appears there are plenty of anecdotes from geographically-disparate locations and with all the major subspecies to suggest that there are some latent mechanisms that can help confer resistance such that we can both preserve genetic diversity and ultimately reach parity with the mite.

So again this may not be the appropriate forum and there are folks a lot smarter and more experienced than I who can argue the point more articulately. With that caveat duly-noted, here is a potential 'CliffsNotes' outline:

If committed to TF- be committed to proactively defending against unleashing carnage upon one's neighbors. Have a quantitative framework for assessing the efficacy of one's efforts beyond strictly survival, and be willing to adjust this framework if it is not producing demonstrable results. Be committed to only introducing or propagating from stock that is moving the needle in the direction of the quantitative framework. On a personal note, I took @msl's admonition to me early in my efforts to only propagate from stock that could survive two years and demonstrate lower than apiary average mite population growth (whether I am succeeding or not in this goal is another matter). That said, it is my personal opinion that tolerance factors into the mix too, so we want to afford folks the freedom to explore this avenue as well provided it is proving reliably viable.

If engaged in Treatment- be committed to having resistance factor(s) included in one's evaluation framework. Be committed to only introducing or propagating stock which is moving the needle in the direction of the quantitative framework, including resistance factor(s). Be committed to only treating when it is necessary to allow resistance mechanisms to become visible. 

I agree that Randy Oliver has done yeoman's work in this area and it is hard to argue with the logic that he spells out in his Selective Breeding article (among others).

Regardless of our specific situation and approach I sum it up by suggesting:

1. We all need to be engaged in supporting resistance breeding (however that looks in our specific context).

2. We all need to remain focused and committed to letting data drive our efforts in this regard.


----------



## Lee Bussy

I can get behind that, here's to you sir:


----------



## A Novice

msl said:


> if you don't stir the burnt stuff on the bottom doesn't come up to the light


True, but that makes bad soup.



msl said:


> not really as most have a sample size too small... selecting one out of 10 or 1 isn't very much pressure.


That is true, if you think you will find the magic bee, or even the better bee by simple selection. However, that hasn't worked very well so far, and probably won't.

For reassortment to work to bring combinations of traits forward takes time. It also takes genetic diversity. While the different races of bees are distinctive, this is to some extent due to reassortment and selection, not to intrinsic genetic diversity. Just as the differences between dachshunds and wolfhounds are largely due to selection, and both the dachsies and the hounds are significantly less diverse than their common dog ancestors.

The modest selection pressure on treated hives, provided the beekeepers avoid monoculture AI VSH queens, strikes a balance between maintaining genetic diversity and providing enough selection pressure to move the species as a whole toward treatment free. Flooding your local area with monocultural drones appears to me to be counterproductive. You lose genetic diversity, and gain very little in terms of varroa resistance.

It may take another 50 years. But treating is acceptable. Losing genetic diversity is not.

But I may be wrong. How would anyone know?


----------



## Litsinger

Lee Bussy said:


> I can get behind that...


If only I were half as suave and handsome as Leo, I wouldn't have to muck around on Beesource! 

But I'd still keep bees:









Beekeeping Helped Leonardo DiCaprio Take His Mind off Oscar Stress — Los Angeles County Beekeepers Association


hindustan times March 4, 2016 Leonardo DiCaprio with his Oscar for Best Actor for the movie The Revenant at the 88th Academy Awards in Hollywood, California. (Reuters) Actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who finally walked away with the prestigious gold statuette at th




www.losangelescountybeekeepers.com


----------



## grozzie2

Litsinger said:


> Sometimes to the benefit of brevity we can lose precision- so I'll double-down.
> ...
> To that end, it appears there are plenty of anecdotes from geographically-disparate locations and with all the major subspecies to suggest that there are some latent mechanisms that can help confer resistance


Clipped to the necessary parts for 'brevity' 

So this is one of the issues I have with all the talk around 'resistance'. I have NEVER heard anybody actually define what they mean by 'resistance'.

to me, it appears that this word is tossed around by the TF community as some holy grail on some alter of bee sacrifice, but, nobody has ever defined what it is, or where it comes from. It is just some mythyical quality that will magically appear out of thin air some day. Some claim the magic lies in bees that kill their brood, others claim it lies in bees that bite mites, and many more have no idea where it comes from, just that it's something that will magically appear in a group of 10 hives in some back yard somewhere.

But there is one area where the TF folks have definitely found mite resistance Dead bees do not support a population of varroa mites, and if you let all the bees die, you will almost certainly no longer have a problem with varroa.


----------



## Litsinger

grozzie2 said:


> I have NEVER heard anybody actually define what they mean by 'resistance'.


Good question. The best definition I have been made aware of follows. More context is provided in the accompanying posts that relate to the question of resistance versus tolerance:



Litsinger said:


> Resistance defines the,_ Ability of a host to limit parasite burden. _(In other words, it is a representation of a colony’s ability to check mite population growth).
> 
> Tolerance on the other hand defines the,_ Ability of a host to limit the damage caused by a given parasite burden. _(This it is represented by the relative lack of disease prevalence in the colony irrespective of mite population).


----------



## msl

grozzie2 said:


> I have NEVER heard anybody actually define what they mean by 'resistance'.





> *Disease resistance* is the ability to prevent or reduce the presence of diseases in otherwise susceptible hosts. It can arise from genetic or environmental factors, such as incomplete penetrance.[1] Disease tolerance is different as it is the ability of a host to limit the impact of disease on host health.








Disease resistance - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org








grozzie2 said:


> many more have no idea where it comes from,


Given the definition, restiance can be measured by mite counts.. the most rstacant stocks will have the least growth over the season so there is no need to know as it can be mesured.... ie I don't need to know "were" the color of my bees comes form select for the color I want


----------



## johno

Now that we have got this far we need to first of all define which parasite we are talking about, the mite or the viruses. We all know if we do not have the mite we do not have damaging viruses, at this stage anyhow. We all also know that viruses can mutate and become more virrulent perhaps even get to the stage that they can damage bees without the help of the mite. In my view this dilemma will not be solved by putting hives out there and leaving it for bees to solve it themseves, remember the Dodo and lots of other species that have become extinct due to their inability to change. However I do not believe bees would become extinct if left alone but just become not economically viable.


----------



## Litsinger

johno said:


> We all know if we do not have the mite we do not have damaging viruses, at this stage anyhow.


Johno:

Good point. For the purposes of recent scholarship on the subject, 'resistance' is defined from the premise of the mite being the parasite that we wish to minimize the burden from. Or as Dr. Stephen Martin remarked in another recent thread in the TF forum, ... _preliminary data suggest that in resistant colonies virus levels of both A and B fall- this is directly due to lack of mites. Increase the mite populations and the colonies will die from either strain A or B.'_

In my view, possibly the best contemporary example of collaborative selection in this regard is the UoG _Low Varroa Growth_ program:



https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhUDH9LkxRdODmcRa2qiAmNtGKv9N80Df


----------



## jim lyon

The unique aspect of varroa is they typically reproduce by inbreeding. I’ve long theorized that as mite levels increase, cross breeding is bound to happen which, I would assume, would result in healthier, probably more virile offspring. So again, theoretically, if you can consistently keep mite levels low It should result in a weaker less vigorous mite. The whole point being that allowing nature to take its course to attempt to raise a more resistant bee would also produce a more genetically diverse mite with more reproductive vigor.


----------



## beemandan

I just came across this thread today, Sunday, January 9, 2022.
During Solomon’s days on Beesource he was narrow minded and angry. Every failure was someone else’s fault. Threads where anyone challenged him devolved into name calling snits. He argued to have the TF forum moderated to eliminate any who might question his opinions. He finally created such a forum on YouTube for himself.
Today will be the first class in a beekeeping series that I teach. One admonition that I always give aspiring beekeepers is to be extremely cautious with taking information from the internet. Solomon Parker is precisely the sort of person that I am warning about.
Good riddance Solomon Parker.


----------



## Litsinger

jim lyon said:


> So again, theoretically, if you can consistently keep mite levels low It should result in a weaker less vigorous mite.


Good point, Jim. As I understand it, that was the finding of the Conlon research referenced in a previous post above. They surmised that as mites had to travel farther afield within the colony to look for more favorable pairings, the reproductive success of such pairings fell.

One of the more counterintuitive findings from the research:

_'Our results show that, when Varroa resistance is allowed to develop by natural selection, it is possible for a host–parasite relationship to evolve. The increased reproductive success we identify when Varroa co-infests the drone pupae of resistant honey bee colonies means that, in contrast to acaricide-treated colonies, there may be selection for outbred offspring. This, combined with a small proportion of Varroa reproducing in each generation, could reduce the selective pressure for the evolution of more virulent counter resistance traits and result in a more stable host–parasite relationship.'_


----------



## jim lyon

beemandan said:


> I just came across this thread today, Sunday, January 9, 2022.
> During Solomon’s days on Beesource he was narrow minded and angry. Every failure was someone else’s fault. Threads where anyone challenged him devolved into name calling snits. He argued to have the TF forum moderated to eliminate any who might question his opinions. He finally created such a forum on YouTube for himself.
> Today will be the first class in a beekeeping series that I teach. One admonition that I always give aspiring beekeepers is to be extremely cautious with taking information from the internet. Solomon Parker is precisely the sort of person that I am warning about.
> Good riddance Solomon Parker.


Tell us what you really think Dan. 😄. Nice to hear you're still out there teaching and (I assume) keeping your bees. You’re knowledge is invaluable.


----------



## A Novice

Litsinger said:


> Good point, Jim. As I understand it, that was the finding of the Conlon research referenced in a previous post above. They surmised that as mites had to travel farther afield within the colony to look for more favorable pairings, the reproductive success of such pairings fell.
> 
> One of the more counterintuitive findings from the research:
> 
> _'Our results show that, when Varroa resistance is allowed to develop by natural selection, it is possible for a host–parasite relationship to evolve. The increased reproductive success we identify when Varroa co-infests the drone pupae of resistant honey bee colonies means that, in contrast to acaricide-treated colonies, there may be selection for outbred offspring. This, combined with a small proportion of Varroa reproducing in each generation, could reduce the selective pressure for the evolution of more virulent counter resistance traits and result in a more stable host–parasite relationship.'_


I have to admit that reading that made my head hurt a bit, as it is such marvelously slippery researchese. But if I understand it, it amounts to a surmise based on a hypothesis.
Maybe I missed it though.


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> But if I understand it, it amounts to a surmise based on a hypothesis.


It appears in my very humble view that most of the framework is based on previous studies on the issue:

_'When mite density in a colony is low, the search time for an already-infested cell increases (Fuchs, 1992). Eventually, it could be expected that the fitness cost of entering an uninfested cell, and undergoing an inbred or failed reproductive cycle, will become less than that of continuing the search and risking reduced fertility or mortality (Charnov, 1976; Nazzi & Le Conte, 2016; Parker & Maynard Smith, 1990; Rosenkranz et al., 2010). This could explain why we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and multiply infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells; any mechanism to detect and preferentially enter already-infested cells may not be used often enough to warrant its maintenance by selection. Therefore, the only criterion Varroa uses when deciding to enter a cell is whether it is of the right age, although this leaves open the question of why Varroa is still more likely to successfully reproduce when infesting a cell with other foundresses, that could be the result of local mate competition (Hamilton, 1967).'_


----------



## Gray Goose

@Lee Bussy
I'll try cuz you have not yet done this yourself yet.

"*I very rarely see "I requeened" in TF discussions. I still see no reason why 30k bees have to die if the genetics of the queen is not desirable. Why not just pinch the queen and replace it with a more favorable one?* "

If you are at a point where "I need a different Queen" comes into your head, you are TOO late IMO.

the new queen Is placed into a hive with a fair number to a lot of Varroa.
that Queen is doomed even if she on her own with mite less bees would be awesome.

Almost always once you notice the hive going down hill, and say did a count and the count was high, that is dead hive walking, unless you do a bang up job removing the "existing" mites.
One reason, any short break the requeen causes has the mites "waiting" with baited breath for the 7 day old brood then they all hop in, so her first batch of "miracle" bees are very mite ridden.
next there will be mite coming out of brood for 12 ish more days after you requeen, IE mite increase from brood for 2 more weeks. To get the mite biters or the brood openers from this queen would take 21 days minimum, so 2 more mite cycles.
By then it is just too late for "genetics" to save the day.
this is the basis of what @GregB did this year, put a queen into a good starting place.
if it is your wish to "save" the 30K bees then a treatment or IPM to completely knock down the mites is needed , then add in the new Queen, realizing you still have the virus from the mites,, untill those old bees die and you "hope" the virus is not passed to the new offspring of the new Queen.

So any queen put into a hive "needing requeening " due to mite is wasted. Hence after you do this a few times you will find it does not work.

you can try if you wish , but your question sounded like you thought it would work. I am offering why it normally does not.

GG


----------



## A Novice

Litsinger said:


> It appears in my very humble view that most of the framework is based on previous studies on the issue:
> 
> _'When mite density in a colony is low, the search time for an already-infested cell increases (Fuchs, 1992). Eventually, it could be expected that the fitness cost of entering an uninfested cell, and undergoing an inbred or failed reproductive cycle, will become less than that of continuing the search and risking reduced fertility or mortality (Charnov, 1976; Nazzi & Le Conte, 2016; Parker & Maynard Smith, 1990; Rosenkranz et al., 2010). This could explain why we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and multiply infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells; any mechanism to detect and preferentially enter already-infested cells may not be used often enough to warrant its maintenance by selection. Therefore, the only criterion Varroa uses when deciding to enter a cell is whether it is of the right age, although this leaves open the question of why Varroa is still more likely to successfully reproduce when infesting a cell with other foundresses, that could be the result of local mate competition (Hamilton, 1967).'_


Still weaving hypothesis and conjecture around an observation. Worth doing, but armchair science. Most researchers build their reputation on theories, not discoveries.

The real science is - mites are stupid, and just go into the first available cell.

You don't get published if you write it that way, though.

It is important to remember that Varroa is adapted to Apis Cerana, a different sort of bee with a different sort of life cycle.
In Apis Cerana, the mites can only reproduce in drone cells, and Apis Cerana only produces drones occasionally.
So that is a completely different situation than with Apis Mellifera.
The mites are like a fox in a henhouse. No sneaking around trying to catch pheasants.



While eventually the mite will adapt to its new host, behavioral adaptations take time. With its short reproduction cycle, the mite has probably found its best strategy for survival based on current genetics. To develop new complex behaviors, requires mutation, which for arthropods happens pretty slowly, I think.


----------



## A Novice

Gray Goose said:


> @Lee Bussy
> I'll try cuz you have not yet done this yourself yet.
> 
> "*I very rarely see "I requeened" in TF discussions. I still see no reason why 30k bees have to die if the genetics of the queen is not desirable. Why not just pinch the queen and replace it with a more favorable one?* "
> 
> If you are at a point where "I need a different Queen" comes into your head, you are TOO late IMO.
> 
> the new queen Is placed into a hive with a fair number to a lot of Varroa.
> that Queen is doomed even if she on her own with mite less bees would be awesome.
> 
> Almost always once you notice the hive going down hill, and say did a count and the count was high, that is dead hive walking, unless you do a bang up job removing the "existing" mites.
> One reason, any short break the requeen causes has the mites "waiting" with baited breath for the 7 day old brood then they all hop in, so her first batch of "miracle" bees are very mite ridden.
> next there will be mite coming out of brood for 12 ish more days after you requeen, IE mite increase from brood for 2 more weeks. To get the mite biters or the brood openers from this queen would take 21 days minimum, so 2 more mite cycles.
> By then it is just too late for "genetics" to save the day.
> this is the basis of what @GregB did this year, put a queen into a good starting place.
> if it is your wish to "save" the 30K bees then a treatment or IPM to completely knock down the mites is needed , then add in the new Queen, realizing you still have the virus from the mites,, untill those old bees die and you "hope" the virus is not passed to the new offspring of the new Queen.
> 
> So any queen put into a hive "needing requeening " due to mite is wasted. Hence after you do this a few times you will find it does not work.
> 
> you can try if you wish , but your question sounded like you thought it would work. I am offering why it normally does not.
> 
> GG


I have never tried that, so this is a question....

If by in need of requeening you meant "I checked my mites, and they are at the point where a beek who treated would treat. I wanted a Resistant queen/colony like my other hive"

Then I suppose you could treat aggressively, and requeen after treating.

My supposition is that would work.

If your population is crashing and there is Parasitic Mite Syndrome everywhere, probably not so much.

I suppose my hypothetical is not very realistic, but it would be a good way to try and get treatment free stock. Since you would be requeening sooner, it would let you have multiple queen candidates per year. None of this "Try again next year". It would be work is all.

I think putting even the MAGIC QUEEN into a hive with high mite counts would just be a way to kill the MAGIC QUEEN.

I would think you could tell that your TF hive was headed south before it made it to the bus stop.

Does anybody think that would work?

Jon


----------



## Oldtimer

Agree with much in those last few posts, but there is another way to avoid losses, and it's what I did during my TF "phase". PS I had to make a living so only did this at a few apiaries dedicated to attempting to produce a TF bee.

Once most hives in the apiary were starting to crash, the ones still looking fairly good were mite tested. The best one or two were bred from, just a smallish number say 20 or 30 queens from each.

The rest of the hives were then rescued with treatment and added clean brood, and once recovered were requeened from selected stock based on performance against mites. Treatment was then withheld to again show up the best hives.

Using this method I was able to in a few generations arrive at a bee that stood up very well against mites. But back then I did not have AI technology so some very promising genetics were eventually lost due to the constant outcrossing with any old drone. I never produced a bee that could survive indefinately without treatment.

I also ran some hives based on pure bond and based exactly on what Sol was teaching (small cell, untreated wax, blah blah), didn't work, lost all 27 of those hives by 24 months. No survivors left me nothing to breed from using that method so I gave it away as pointless.


----------



## Oldtimer

And how did Sol react to my 100% losses? Told me it's cos I'm one of them evil commercial beekeepers. Something inherant in me meant TF would just never work for me. Cos of me, and who I am.

Swell guy


----------



## Gray Goose

A Novice said:


> I have never tried that, so this is a question....
> 
> If by in need of requeening you meant "I checked my mites, and they are at the point where a beek who treated would treat. * I meant you did a mite count and it was > 3%*
> 
> I wanted a Resistant queen/colony like my other hive" *??*
> 
> Then I suppose you could treat aggressively, and requeen after treating. *you could it may not work*
> 
> My supposition is that would work.
> 
> If your population is crashing and there is Parasitic Mite Syndrome everywhere, probably not so much. * my observation here is yes*
> 
> I suppose my hypothetical is not very realistic, but it would be a good way to try and get treatment free stock. Since you would be requeening sooner, it would let you have multiple queen candidates per year. None of this "Try again next year". It would be work is all. *can't follow your here*
> 
> I think putting even the MAGIC QUEEN into a hive with high mite counts would just be a way to kill the MAGIC QUEEN. *my whole point*
> 
> I would think you could tell that your TF hive was headed south before it made it to the bus stop. *if you checked, if you seen something, if you mite counted, then correct*
> 
> Does anybody think that would work?
> 
> Jon



*GG*


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> To develop new complex behaviors, requires mutation, which for arthropods happens pretty slowly, I think.


You might be right- there is much we do not yet know. 

That is why I espouse an 'all of the above' approach to resistance- with many great minds attacking the problem from different angles, we have multiple possible pathways to a solution.

As @Oldtimer wisely lays out above, and approach akin to 'Soft Bond' similar to what Randy Oliver is experimenting with might be something to consider for those who wish to minimize losses and also tease out resistance characteristics, taking whatever time is necessary to get there. If the UoG LVG program is any indication, it might not take as long as we think...


----------



## A Novice

Litsinger said:


> It appears in my very humble view that most of the framework is based on previous studies on the issue:
> 
> _'When mite density in a colony is low, the search time for an already-infested cell increases (Fuchs, 1992). Eventually, it could be expected that the fitness cost of entering an uninfested cell, and undergoing an inbred or failed reproductive cycle, will become less than that of continuing the search and risking reduced fertility or mortality (Charnov, 1976; Nazzi & Le Conte, 2016; Parker & Maynard Smith, 1990; Rosenkranz et al., 2010). This could explain why we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and multiply infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells; any mechanism to detect and preferentially enter already-infested cells may not be used often enough to warrant its maintenance by selection. Therefore, the only criterion Varroa uses when deciding to enter a cell is whether it is of the right age, although this leaves open the question of why Varroa is still more likely to successfully reproduce when infesting a cell with other foundresses, that could be the result of local mate competition (Hamilton, 1967)'_


Ok, maybe I didn't quite explain my point adequately.

The sentence

 "_Eventually, it *could be expected* that the fitness cost of entering an uninfested cell, and undergoing an inbred or failed reproductive cycle, will become less than that of continuing the search and risking reduced fertility or mortality (Charnov, 1976; Nazzi & Le Conte, 2016; Parker & Maynard Smith, 1990; Rosenkranz et al., 2010).

i_s a hypothesis. It is a plausible sounding hypothesis which has been stated by others (all the citations) which (to my way of thinking) means it is likely wrong, but what do I know. It rates as a hypothesis because it is an idea which has been tossed around a bit. It could, I suppose be measured. But the phrase "*could be expected"* clues us in. Just a hypothesis at this time.

The sentence

 "_This *could explain *why we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and multiply infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells; any mechanism to detect and preferentially enter already-infested cells *may* not be used often enough to warrant its maintenance by selection. Therefore,_

Is a conjecture. It is a possible explanation, nothing more. However, hidden in the conjecture is a statement of fact, something they measured. I included the _Therefore _of the next sentence as part of this, because the therefore seeks to tie the next statement, which appears to be a fact, to a conjecture. This makes it seem as if the fact is the result of the conjecture, making the conjecture appear more plausible. Naughty Naughty!

The fact hidden in the conjecture is:

_we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and multiply infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells_

It was so wrapped in weasel words I missed it the first time through.

and finally, we end with a question, which introduces another conjecture.

_.although this leaves open the question of why Varroa is still more likely to successfully reproduce when infesting a cell with other foundresses, that could be the result of local mate competition (Hamilton, 1967)'_

The same fact, restated in part is hidden in this conjecture.

It could be possible Hamilton's work shows this, but a straight reading is that this is Hamilton's conclusion, not an actual measurement. Perhaps Hamilton showed this for some other creature. Considering the date, it seems unlikely it was Varroa. Our author is using that conclusion on some matter to conjecture the same applies here. Perhaps I am overly critical at this point, but if Hamilton showed this to be true for Varroa, I would expect a competent purveyor of this type of material to make the point more strongly.
Once all of the things which are hypotheses and conjectures are removed, what we have left is:

_'When mite density in a colony is low, the search time for an already-infested cell increases (Fuchs, 1992) _A statement, which I suppose was based on an actual measurement; and

_we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and multiply infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells_

Which is clearly a statement of fact based on measurements, and

_ the only criterion Varroa uses when deciding to enter a cell is whether it is of the right age. _Which I infer, and certainly hope was also based on a measurement. It is noteworthy that this final statement speaks to the decision-making process of a mite, which no one really understands. It would be better to word it in a way that is more accurate, such as: _The only factor observed to be determinative for Varroa entering a cell is the age of the larva in the cell._

The first statement is patently obvious. I suppose it has been verified, but it is difficult to think of a situation where this would not be true.
The second and third statements are the only actual factual information we can consider to be reliably true. More quantitative information would be helpful, but I suppose this is a summary and that information is provided elsewhere.

So all we learn from this is:

_*The only factor observed to be determinative for Varroa entering a cell is the age of the larva in the cell.
we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and multiply infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells.*_

Most scholarly writing is like that. They write like their funding depends on it.

So that explains why I wrote what I wrote. You will likely note that I rewrote the first fact so that it is clearly what they observed, eliminating the conjecture about the decision-making process of the mite, and limiting the statement to what can actually be said. There may be other factors, but they didn't find any. I do that in my head, which is why reading this sort of blather makes my head hurt...
I avoid technical papers as much as I can, now that I am retired. They are mostly nothing but blather. This one is pretty good, actually. 

*The most important thing in science is to not fool yourself - because you are the easiest person to fool.
After that, all that is needed is basic honesty to not fool anyone else.
Richard Feynmann*

Enjoy your bees!

Jon


----------



## Lee Bussy

Gray Goose said:


> So any queen put into a hive "needing requeening " due to mite is wasted. Hence after you do this a few times you will find it does not work.
> 
> you can try if you wish , but your question sounded like you thought it would work. I am offering why it normally does not.


Well, you bit the hook that was baited for someone else. 

If whatever manipulations are available to TF beekeepers were effective, they could be applied as the bees were re-queened. Since I don't hear of that happening .....



A Novice said:


> If by in need of requeening you meant "I checked my mites, and they are at the point where a beek who treated would treat. I wanted a Resistant queen/colony like my other hive"
> 
> Then I suppose you could treat aggressively, and requeen after treating.
> 
> My supposition is that would work.


Yep, except you (theoretical you, following this method) believe that if you treat you have violated the laws of the universe and the only solution is to hear the wails and cries of 30k little voices as they wither away and die.



Litsinger said:


> If the UoG LVG program is any indication, it might not take as long as we think...


I've "seen" more than a few people who were able to breed resistant queens. What we have not seen yet (tell me if I'm wrong) is any way to fix those characteristics so they survive open mating. So (and this makes perfect sense in my head - hopefully, I don't butcher it) the methods available to us to selectively breed for resistance are so far only effective in isolation. Effectively, in a test tube (although you seem to have such a "test-tube" area.) I assert (to @A Novice's point, this is a hypothesis) that such a line is inbred, and potentially (another weasel word) susceptible to all of the downsides of inbreeding both short term and long term.

That was a lot of parentheses. Reading that is like a little view into my ADD mind.

My point here is twofold:

Efforts so far have proven that inbred hybrids are the only bees that have shown resistance. Outbreeding quickly reverts these traits.
If everyone in the world simultaneously selectively bred for resistance (and ignored feral stock,) we would significantly restrict the available gene pool
Therefore I would assert (yep) that selective breeding is not going to be the thing that gets us out of this long-term. My hypothesis is that breeding for resistance will leave us with a limited genetic pool from which to select, and history has shown us that uber-specialized genetics often express other issues and undesirable traits. Potentially, such a line is just waiting for "the next bad thing" to completely wipe them all out.


----------



## crofter

We could do, and I think what most are doing that are experiencing some level of mite resistance, is like the model the Msl has shown where the top of the Bell Curve is bred from to produce the production stock and the other portions of the curve come to a _lower_ level of representation in the bees. Their genetics would still be present as a source for future development but would not be dominant. Of course this model requires the ongoing selection process be continued.
This is the model I have hitched my wagon to. I bring in queens *occasionally *from breeders who have the capabilities to do the selection process.
This past summer it was Buckfast queens from Fergusons Apiary Henshal Ont.


----------



## A Novice

crofter said:


> We could do, and I think what most are doing that are experiencing some level of mite resistance, is like the model the Msl has shown where the top of the Bell Curve is bred from to produce the production stock and the other portions of the curve come to a _lower_ level of representation in the bees. Their genetics would still be present as a source for future development but would not be dominant. Of course this model requires the ongoing selection process be continued.
> This is the model I have hitched my wagon to. I bring in queens *occasionally *from breeders who have the capabilities to do the selection process.
> This past summer it was Buckfast queens from Fergusons Apiary Henshal Ont.


I agree.

However, we are all participating in that. We all select the bees that survive and select queens from (hopefully) or better hives, at least to some extent.
The frustrating thing is that this process cannot be hurried. However fast or slowly it proceeds.
So we do whatever is necessary to keep our bees alive.
While I consider evolutionism to be religious nonsense, I find myself advocating for evolutionary gradualism. Ironic, isn't it?
(to be more specific, only with regards natural selection - which is observable. Not with the leap of faith required to postulate increased complexity due to selection, which is not observable)

Jon


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> Just a hypothesis at this time.


Jon:

Thank you for your post. I read through your feedback three times in hopes I had a good understanding of where you were coming from.

If I might, I think it might be helpful to take a big step back. The main conclusion of the paper is as follows:

_While there was a trend for increased reproductive success when Varroa of differing haplotypes co-infested a cell, this was not significant. This suggests local mate competition, through the presence of another Varroa foundress in a pupal cell, may be enough to help Varroa overcome host resistance traits; with a critical mass of infesting Varroa overwhelming host resistance. However, the fitness trade-offs associated with preferentially co-infesting cells may be too high for Varroa to evolve a mechanism to identify already-infested cells. The increased reproductive success of Varroa when co-infesting resistant pupal cells may act as a release valve on the selective pressure for the evolution of counter resistance traits: helping to maintain a stable host–parasite relationship._

Beyond this, there are several hypotheses that are put forth within the paper that are based on a combination of past scholarship and observations from the study that are just that- hypotheses.

I like this outline from ThoughtCo:

_'In science, a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is a prediction or explanation that is tested by an experiment. Observations and experiments may disprove a scientific hypothesis, but can never entirely prove one. 

In the study of logic, a hypothesis is an if-then proposition, typically written in the form, "If X, then Y."

In common usage, a hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation or prediction, which may or may not be tested.'_

Thus, if we take the researchers at face-value, they are offering their level-headed best suggestions of what might be happening based on past scholarship and their own observations- and inviting all comers to poke holes in their arguments.


----------



## Lee Bussy

Litsinger said:


> Thus, if we take the researchers at face-value, they are offering their level-headed best suggestions of what might be happening based on past scholarship and their own observations- and inviting all comers to poke holes in their arguments.


I believe, and @A Novice please correct me if I am wrong, that some of us are pointing out that just because some "scientist" publishes a paper that says something, it does not mean it is a truth. I think you have a fair grasp of what a hypothesis is, but I think you will agree that some people read the parts they want to hear, and then that becomes their "proof" that their chosen solution is right.

I believe what's being suggested is that we don't skip the salt with our daily fare.


----------



## James Lee

Oldtimer said:


> And how did Sol react to my 100% losses? Told me it's cos I'm one of them evil commercial beekeepers. Something inherant in me meant TF would just never work for me. Cos of me, and who I am.
> 
> Swell guy


I would not endorse that comment, nor blame your practices considering that losses are common to ALL beekeepers regardless the paradigm re: Treatment. That's the part of the TF conversation I would like to see us get away from - that whole blame thing.


----------



## Litsinger

Lee Bussy said:


> ... but I think you will agree that some people read the parts they want to hear, and then that becomes their "proof" that their chosen solution is right.


True enough. Or as the esteemed James Fischer often points out on Bee-L:

_'Science is exactly like beekeeping - it is the practice of being wrong, over and over, while keeping detailed notes about how/why you were wrong.'_


----------



## Litsinger

Lee Bussy said:


> What we have not seen yet (tell me if I'm wrong) is any way to fix those characteristics so they survive open mating.


I don't disagree on balance. That said, three of the more well-known nascent resistance breeding efforts employ open mating:

1. Dr. Kefuss
2. Randy Oliver
3. UoG LVG Program (albeit in an isolated yard)

In my very humble opinion, the third program is the most promising and attainable to those of us on a hobbyist/sideliner scale.

In video 3 they discuss the approach and limitations to an LVG breeding program on a small scale (particularly at about the 2:15 mark on).

In video 4 they discuss the ORHBS program (starting at about the 7:50 mark) and how they are using association-level selection to successfully further the goals of the LVG program.


----------



## crofter

Litsinger said:


> True enough. Or as the esteemed James Fischer often points out on Bee-L:
> 
> _'Science is exactly like beekeeping - it is the practice of being wrong, over and over, while keeping detailed notes about how/why you were wrong.'_


It pretty much needs oversite though since many of us are not inclined to identify or admit our mistakes. Science progresses faster with a critical audience that is not as emotionally invested. We have to be careful not to be caught in the trap that Tolstoy identified below.

_"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." - Tolstoy."_


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> ... many of us are not inclined to identify or admit our mistakes.


Well said, Frank. And along those lines, I think Blaise Pascal's advice is sound:

_When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true._


----------



## GregB

Oldtimer said:


> And how did Sol react to my 100% losses? Told me it's cos I'm one of them evil commercial beekeepers. Something inherant in me meant TF would just never work for me. Cos of me, and who I am.
> 
> Swell guy


Classic. LOL
Watch this response to a simple question (1:25:30.....)










Forgot to paste the link - here:


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> Tell us what you really think Dan. 😄. Nice to hear you're still out there teaching and (I assume) keeping your bees. You’re knowledge is invaluable.


I’m still wasting perfectly good oxygen Jim. Thanks for the kind words.
I check Beesource on occasion but not regularly. It is good to see you posting as well.


----------



## grozzie2

A Novice said:


> I have never tried that, so this is a question....
> 
> If by in need of requeening you meant "I checked my mites, and they are at the point where a beek who treated would treat. I wanted a Resistant queen/colony like my other hive"
> 
> Then I suppose you could treat aggressively, and requeen after treating.
> 
> My supposition is that would work.


This describes the program Randy Oliver has going. He monitors for mites, selects from the few that do well against mites. Treats the other hives that are struggling with mites, then re-queens with a daughter of one of the ones doing well.

His results have been less than promising.


----------



## crofter

Litsinger said:


> Well said, Frank. And along those lines, I think Blaise Pascal's advice is sound:
> 
> _When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true._


Touche'

Russ; You hew closer to Pascal's outline than I do!


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> Touche'


Thanks, Frank. I sincerely appreciate it. 

In jest and good humor for all parties, I'm reminded of a little Shakespeare (where I can be Rugby and you can be Doctor Caius):

DOCTOR CAIUS
By gar, he (insert your favorite TF villain here) has save his soul, dat he is no come; he
has pray his Pible well, dat he is no come: by gar,
Jack Rugby, he is dead already, if he be come.

RUGBY
He is wise, sir; he knew your worship would kill
him, if he came.

DOCTOR CAIUS
By gar, de herring is no dead so as I vill kill him.
Take your rapier, Jack; I vill tell you how I vill kill him.

RUGBY
Alas, sir, I cannot fence.

DOCTOR CAIUS
Villany, take your rapier.


----------



## crofter

grozzie2 said:


> This describes the program Randy Oliver has going. He monitors for mites, selects from the few that do well against mites. Treats the other hives that are struggling with mites, then re-queens with a daughter of one of the ones doing well.
> 
> His results have been less than promising.


Did he not sound a bit disappointed in the abilities of the queens to pass the traits on to their daughters? Measurable gains but if I am remembering the same article it seemed like the need to keep pedalling or fall over, makes it hard to get traction.


----------



## msl

A Novice said:


> To develop new complex behaviors, requires mutation, which for arthropods happens pretty slowly, I think.


they adapted very quickly to some cemical treatments... either the mutations came quickly, or they were all ready there and selected for




A Novice said:


> In Apis Cerana, the mites can only reproduce in drone cells, and Apis Cerana only produces drones occasionally.


much has been made of that, but it seems that a very high swam and abscond rate (40-50%) has a lot to do with there restance... one most note that even in AC areas people chose to treat and run AM instead... the AC retiance down side isn't worth it , and indeed many treat AC to improve yeilds and keep them form absconding.
While it may be fine for nature, for the beekeeper an abscond is the same as a dead hive










> the disadvantage with this species is frequent swarming, absconding, the tendency to rob, production of laying workers and lower honey yield and susceptibility to Thai sac brood virus.











Survey on absconding of Apis cerana indica F. colonies at different traditional beekeeping areas of Karnataka. | Semantic Scholar


A study has been taken up to understand the factors responsible for absconding of A. cerana in Karnataka, South India. Indian honey bee, Apis cerana F., is the base of Indian bee keeping and is distributed throughout India. This species is present in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indo-China...




www.semanticscholar.org






> One-third of the colonies absconded in summer and about one-sixth in rainy season,













> Those colonies having higher brood mite (Varroa jacobsoni Oud.) in winter absconded earlier.





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268204925_Absconding_Behavior_and_Management_of_Apis_cerana_F_Honeybee_in_Chitwan_Nepal






Lee Bussy said:


> Efforts so far have proven that inbred hybrids are the only bees that have shown resistance. Outbreeding quickly reverts these traits.


I am unaware of any Inbred/hybrid restance programs... there are many functioning large scale programs that produce restiicant stock .. MBB, VSH, Poline, Russian etc.. as for loss in out cross.. yep that's bees!!
Importing genetics to matain the traits you want has been the standard for beekepers going back for 3,000+ years.. then you have to repeat the imports as the traits are lost in out cross .. At the Tel Rehov site we see the ancient Islritets importing bees rather then use the local stock


> One hind leg and two wings were of suffi cient quality to allow the scholars to identify the subspecies as Apis mellifera anatoliaca, i.e. the Anatolian bee, therefore excluding both the local (A. m. syriaca) and other Middle Eastern and Eastern European (among others Egyptian (A. m. lamarckii), Persian (A. m. meda), Caucasian (A. m. caucasica)) subspecies. Thus, surprisingly, Anatolian bees lived in the Israelite hives. In order to explain this phenomenon, Bloch et al. 2010: 11242–11243 (with refs.) fi rst point out that hypothesizing a diff erent distribution of the subspecies 3000 years ago is problematic, since the Anatolian bee resides mainly in areas characterized by high precipitation and cool climate, whereas Tel Reov is located in the Jordan valley, one of the warmest and driest regions in Israel and though the details are debated, it is generally accepted that the local climate at that time was not signifi cantly colder or wetter than today (note that the divergence of these subspecies is estimated at 0,7 – 1,3 million years, and thus it cannot be an explanation either). Thus, only one possibility remains: conscious importation, which is, incidentally, supported by the impracticality of the local Syrian bee (especially in an urban setting), more precisely by its aggressiveness, high tendency to swarm and low honey yield (that led to the failure of modern Middle Eastern attempts of developing bee industry with the Syrian bee)The Anatolian bee is certainly superior to the Syrian bee in terms of its calm temper and three-to-eight times higher honey yields among others, therefore their import is fully justifi ed.





> Before turning to the problem concerning exactly how the Anatolian bee was transported to Israel, one must emphasize that this transportation was not a momentanous act, but a long-standing, continous trade: as Bloch et al. 2010: 11244 point out, keeping the Anatolian line intact required reliable and easy supply lines (or to requeen their colonies repeatedly), otherwise the honeybee queen would have mated while flying into congregation sites with drones from the surrounding area, i.e. with local Syrian drones.





https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/55286717/anems2.pdf?1513235496=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DStudies_in_Economic_and_Social_History_o.pdf&Expires=1641835752&Signature=YNImRBxMyxGQYb45zgqJSM5rNnuE-ped1rBbCH2b6mwHsOoPs6wdxuqUESbqlFNekRIsY6GFJEeGyH8GSJam3EyaYNH1g0BUTteXtbUaR3KIqMNadbKknDfr9fNs6gfZRWZ7-8BfDxWuz43dTiPDZ2rHU4xovLiAvrQ~xXzX58xfLTxTo8uiUSXQ2K7zKl2QY4I2PHabkPoaYb2IKUOT9Hm6pLedA6jtAsgRKMZ8ojkSsXabkGbqRBMTMV6BPRc0SIoL2cMhl0a~c3TJHtaIFE8AVeAONTp06uUsTNBn~T9~28lBSqNXvjLqDzHhBf712pYnYgrs0kaXH-t3lnq1rg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA#page=715







Litsinger said:


> UoG LVG Program (albeit in an isolated yard)


I found it interesting they all were allowed to mate in the same yard with the same drones



Litsinger said:


> In my very humble opinion, the third program is the most promising and attainable to those of us on a hobbyist/sideliner scale.


disagree, the LVG/HVG program is a scientific study population with no bearing on "beekeeping stock" Ie the only metric is high or low growth.. temperament, honey production, resistance to other dezies, and all other traits are ignored..


> The six colonies with the greatest proportional increase in mite numbers between the two evaluations were designated as high Varroa population growth (HVG) colonies, and the six colonies with the smallest proportional increase between the evaluations were designated as low Varroa population growth (LVG) colonies.





https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/11/12/864/htm


the whole point is to highlight the difrences so they can find them and know what they are to find why/how...
they had great results in 2 gens... but nothing new here, this has been done many times, we had bees like this 20-30 years ago,

This almost shurly leads to a bee that no keeper wants, but is useful for study (as they note the LVG had increased aggression) .. the university of arionzoa had a high/low pollen line that had to be supplemented to survive... the low line didn't gather enough pollen to live, the high line didn't gather enuff nectar

The ORHBS is a separate program, with a fouce on commercial stock


> The breeders make initial selections for breeder colony potential, based on economic traits such as honey production, gentleness, overwintering ability and spring build-up. Selected colonies are tested in the OBA breeding program


 Ontario Resistant Honey Bee Selection Program | Ontario Beekeepers’ Association
this is much more in line with what prude is doing with the Indiana Queen Breeders Association and Heartland Honey Bee Breeders



grozzie2 said:


> His results have been less than promising.


I dissagree... 10% of his stock is TF under commercial pollination conditions and well documented.. That's a step in the right direction... what would be interesting to see is the impact on the amount of treatments used on the operation as a whole


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> ... disagree, the LVG/HVG program is a scientific study population with no bearing on "beekeeping stock" ...


Thanks for keeping me on my toes, MSL.

My intention in the post was to refer to the practical application of the LVG program as currently underway in the OHRBS Technology Transfer program- thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## AHudd

A Novice said:


> _*The only factor observed to be determinative for Varroa entering a cell is the age of the larva in the cell.
> we detected significant differences in Varroa's reproductive success between singly and "multiply" infested cells but not in the distribution of Varroa among cells.*_
> 
> 
> Jon


I enjoyed reading your analysis of the statement pointing out how much wiggle room is contained within. I keep coming back to the word "multiply" to which I added quotes above. I wonder if the author meant to say multiple.(More than one) It seems like a small thing, but it forces the reader to interpret what the author wrote, thereby introducing confusion and allowing for a bit more wiggle room. Perhaps the author left out something between singly and multiply that would change the meaning. I don't know.
It is also possible that it is only confusing to me.
My favorite wiggle words in the statement are "Could be expected", which leaves open the door for the possibility of a future event of some unknown factors being discovered leading to the "expected". In my life the unknown factors more often lead to the unexpected.

Alex


----------



## Litsinger

AHudd said:


> I keep coming back to the word "multiply" to which I added quotes above. I wonder if the author meant to say multiple.(More than one)


Alex:

Good question- I had not even picked-up on that.

So I looked up "singly multiply" on The Oracle and it appears this is a fairly common turn-of-phrase in research literature when trying to discern between one and more than one. Here are the first three studies that come up that have it in the title:









Extended Coverage of Singly and Multiply Phosphorylated Peptides from a Single Titanium Dioxide Microcolumn - PubMed


We developed a novel approach to enlarge phosphoproteome coverage by selective elution depending on the number of phosphoryl group of peptides from a single titanium dioxide (TiO2) microcolumn using hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC). In this approach, acidic methylphosphonate buffer...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













193 nm Photodissociation of Singly and Multiply Charged Peptide Anions for Acidic Proteome Characterization


193 nm ultraviolet photodissociation (UVPD) was implemented to sequence singly and multiply charged peptide anions. Upon dissociation by this method, a-/x-type, followed by d and w side-chain loss ions, were the most prolific and abundant sequence ions, ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Gas-Phase Synthesis of Singly and Multiply Charged Polyoxovanadate Anions Employing Electrospray Ionization and Collision Induced Dissociation, Journal of The American Society for Mass Spectrometry | DeepDyve


Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) combined with in-source fragmentation and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) experiments were used to generate a wide range of singly and multiply charged vanadium oxide cluster anions including VxOy n– and VxOyCln– ions (x = 1–14, y = 2–36, n =...




www.deepdyve.com


----------



## msl

Litsinger said:


> My intention in the post was to refer to the practical application of the LVG program as currently underway in the OHRBS Technology Transfer program


they aren't really linked except for the video play list, OHRBS has been around for decades (the early 90s), they are not applying anything from the new UG program..
OHRBS shows us just how slow real-world progress is when enconic traits are factored in.
as I said


msl said:


> nothing new here, this has been done many times, we had bees like this 20-30 years ago,


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> they aren't really linked except for the video play list, OHRBS has been around for decades (the early 90s), they are not applying anything from the new UG program..


Thanks, MSL. So what do you make of the recommendations in Video 3, particularly starting at about 5:40?

Also discussed at about the 9:00 mark of Video 4.


----------



## grozzie2

msl said:


> disagree, the LVG/HVG program is a scientific study population with no bearing on "beekeeping stock" Ie the only metric is high or low growth.. temperament, honey production, resistance to other dezies, and all other traits are ignored..


UofG stock is all selected for those traits, so they are starting with a stock that's pre-selected for commercial traits, and now propogating the LVG and HVG lines from those.


----------



## msl

yes, but if you stop selecting for a traite, it shifts.. the traites of the UOG stock has been held up by strong selection and controlled mateing . Remove those pressures and the bell curve shifts. as they note, they saw the LVGs have heightened aggression...




Litsinger said:


> Thanks, MSL. So what do you make of the recommendations in Video 3, particularly starting at about 5:40?


I woud say


> "Everyone wants to save the world, but no one wants to help mom do the dishes." —P.J. O'Rourke


I reached out to over 3k beekeepers in the CSBA, invited them to take part in a simple state wide selection program, they just needed to take monthly mite washes. Guess how many followed threw....
Not a ONE of them!!


----------



## A Novice

Lee Bussy said:


> I believe, and @A Novice please correct me if I am wrong, that some of us are pointing out that just because some "scientist" publishes a paper that says something, it does not mean it is a truth. I think you have a fair grasp of what a hypothesis is, but I think you will agree that some people read the parts they want to hear, and then that becomes their "proof" that their chosen solution is right.
> 
> I believe what's being suggested is that we don't skip the salt with our daily fare.


You are right.

Most people lack a good bull**** detector, and so don't understand that most of what is written is exactly that. Especially if it agrees with their own ideas. 

Effective authors understand that, and the various factions that develop around any unsolved area, and regularly throw red meat (or at least a ham sandwich) to the various factions. They know people will gloss over stuff they don't agree with and find encouragement in the things written that they do agree with. That way they get published, cited, and become prominent.

I respect people who do serious research. But most of what many of those same people write is just speculation.

Those speculations are no better than anyone else's, because nobody offers a PhD program in accurate speculation.

(I did take a class in reading technical papers, it was interesting. Thank you, Robert D Lorenz.)

To the extent they use their speculations to do more experimenting, they are necessary and valuable.

What immediately leaps at me from this is the entire unstated assumption that mites have a way of locating other mites in brood cells (or that since it would be to their advantage, they should somehow develop it). Maybe they do, but it would be proper to state the basis upon which we know that. I would like to see the research on that. A "strategy" is only a "strategy" if it is a choice among options.

What is also stepped over is that A Mellifera is a lot different from A Cerana both in its brood cycle and in its defenses against the mite, and the mite is designed to be a parasite of A Cerana and cannot easily change. Any discussion of mite "strategies" that steps over this is pretty much gobbledygook in my opinion.

Ideas are orphans. They are born that way. They need to survive on their own strength, not on the reputation or credentials of those who gave them birth.

Enjoy your bees,

Jon


----------



## A Novice

crofter said:


> It pretty much needs oversite though since many of us are not inclined to identify or admit our mistakes. Science progresses faster with a critical audience that is not as emotionally invested. We have to be careful not to be caught in the trap that Tolstoy identified below.
> 
> _"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." - Tolstoy."_


Yes.


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> What immediately leaps at me from this is the entire unstated assumption that mites have a way of locating other mites in brood cells (or that since it would be to their advantage, they should somehow develop it). Maybe they do, but it would be proper to state the basis upon which we know that. I would like to see the research on that. A "strategy" is only a "strategy" if it is a choice among options.


While I am not sure that it changes your central premise, I believe the 'null hypothesis' is that mites do not have a way of preferentially choosing cells:
_
Varroa were significantly more likely to successfully reproduce when multiply infesting drone pupal cells in a resistant honey bee colony, with a nonsignificant trend for this to increase further when foundresses were polymorphic. This could suggest that Varroa can overcome the host resistance trait by multiply infecting a resistant drone cell. However, Varroa's distribution between multiply and singly infested drone cells was not significantly different from random. This suggests the mites either cannot identify or do not preferentially enter already-infested cells and cannot discriminate between co-foundresses based on relatedness._


----------



## AHudd

Litsinger said:


> Alex:
> 
> Good question- I had not even picked-up on that.
> 
> So I looked up "singly multiply" on The Oracle and it appears this is a fairly common turn-of-phrase in research literature when trying to discern between one and more than one. Here are the first three studies that come up that have it in the title:


I thought that was from a study someone had cited and was quoted so many times here I did not go back to verify. If you were the author I apologize for not asking you directly.
My interpretation of new and improved differs greatly from that of Madison Ave. as well, but I have learned to adapt. I don't have the scientific experience to put into context some of what I read, so I rely on Webster's for definitions.

I still don't know what the author meant, but I can live with that. 

Alex


----------



## grozzie2

msl said:


> yes, but if you stop selecting for a traite, it shifts.. the traites of the UOG stock has been held up by strong selection and controlled mateing . Remove those pressures and the bell curve shifts. as they note, they saw the LVGs have heightened aggression...


You are reading into it, stuff that isn't there. I've seen more recent data and presentations than the youtube videos on that study. Yes, the LVG have higher agression with respect to the HVG colonies in the study. They are still absolutely tame by most standards. As is pointed out in one of the youtube videos, they _used_ to test for agression by counting stings on a waved 'flag', but, that test no longer works for them, as there are none, even from the more 'aggressive' of their stocks. They now use a more detailed test, spray alarm pheremones on the front of the colony and count the bees that come out.

Bottom line, 'more aggressive' means just that, but it doesn't mean they have suddenly become nasty bees. The UofG folks still work them without a suit.

Some more fascinating and detailed info coming out of the UofG study. Some of the 'measured results' are rather counter intuitive with respect to grooming. A presentation by Dr Morfin to the British Columbia Honey Producers last October. Interestingly, she also started as the lead of our Tech Transfer Program on Nov 1, guess we stole her from the UofG studies  At the end she alludes to the fact she gave the presentation the day before jumping in the car to drive across the country and start the new position with our provincial association.



https://bchoneyproducers.ca/portfolio/breeding-for-varroa-resistance-bees-dr-nuria-morfin/


----------



## Litsinger

AHudd said:


> My interpretation of new and improved differs greatly from that of Madison Ave. as well, but I have learned to adapt.


Thanks, Alex. No apology necessary. I'm the one who led us down the proverbial primrose path, so I felt it my duty to do what I could to clear up the confusion.

What does @crofter often wisely remind us of?_ "caveat emptor!"_


----------



## msl

grozzie2 said:


> You are reading into it, stuff that isn't there.


no, just looking at the selection protocols, the point is to produce 2 lines with the maxum differences in a trait expression so the trait can be studied, a breeding program to produce subjects for expements, not one to produce a robust commercial stock
This is an experimental population created by _bidirectional selection_ , a common tool. If the selection is unchanged the LVG isn't liky to be much more useful to beekeepers then the HVG (much like the UAZ pollen lines) or Seelys AF bees... to many economic traits will be lost
the information gathered may be quite useful, in this case the hope is to find genetic markers for LVG to aid future breeding efforts.


> Future work will focus on determining what mechanisms are responsible for the genotypic differences, estimating genetic parameters, and molecular analyses of the genotypes to identify candidate genes associated with resistance to V. destructor and DWV that could potentially be used for marker-assisted selection.


Keep in mind the video covers several overlapping projects, and I am only focused on the low/high VG program..
not the breeding for grooming they have been doing sece (iirr) 2017 or the Buckfast program, or the other great things they are up to 

As I said, far form the 1st time we have seen this
Lodesani (2002). Effect of some characters on the population growth of mite Varroa jacobsoni in Apis mellifera L colonies and results of a bi-directional selection.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2002.00615.x

and it is quite different from programs aimed at production stock 


> Since then, we have simply multiplied every year by naturally mating virgin
> queens from the survivors that were the best honey producers with the least amount
> of Varroa, i.e., “cave man genetics”. These queens furnish Varroa-tolerant drones for
> future mating


 John Kefuss (2011) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290100525_World_varroa_challenge_Toulouse_France


----------



## Litsinger

grozzie2 said:


> Some of the 'measured results' are rather counter intuitive with respect to grooming.


@grozzie2:

Thank you for posting the great video- good information in there. While I supposed I should have surmised that the LVG lines were developed out of their grooming program, this video is the first instance where I've heard that explicitly stated. It may be mentioned in other published data and I just don't remember it.

It was also interesting to hear that it wasn't intensity of grooming behavior that was the most reliable predictor of LVG, but rather time of first grooming. Interesting stuff.

Does welcoming Dr. Morfin in your association mean there might be plans afoot to start up an LVG program in your province?


----------



## A Novice

Litsinger said:


> While I am not sure that it changes your central premise, I believe the 'null hypothesis' is that mites do not have a way of preferentially choosing cells:
> 
> _Varroa were significantly more likely to successfully reproduce when multiply infesting drone pupal cells in a resistant honey bee colony, with a nonsignificant trend for this to increase further when foundresses were polymorphic. This could suggest that Varroa can overcome the host resistance trait by multiply infecting a resistant drone cell. However, Varroa's distribution between multiply and singly infested drone cells was not significantly different from random. This suggests the mites either cannot identify or do not preferentially enter already-infested cells and cannot discriminate between co-foundresses based on relatedness._


I agree about the null hypothesis.

The rest is complicated to sort out.

Looks like they counted mites going into cells, and then looked at their reproductive success.

Result is mites take the first available cell, and mites do better in cells with more than one. Can't tell if they do better if the other mite is polymorphic. This is probably due to a small sample size, but not significant is not significant, and it would have been better to say undetermined due to small sample size rather than spin it into a conjecture about what the mite can or cannot do.


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> Result is mites take the first available cell, and mites do better in cells with more than one. Can't tell if they do better if the other mite is polymorphic. This is probably due to a small sample size, but not significant is not significant, and it would have been better to say undetermined due to small sample size rather than spin it into a conjecture about what the mite can or cannot do.


Jon:

I can go along with your assertion. In my humble opinion it is always better to err to the side of caution, particularly when making predictive claims.

I'm offering a bit of speculation here, so with that fully-disclosed, this is my dumb country boy opinion of the language used in the study- feel free to disagree.

Conlon and colleagues had already studied Dr. Kefuss' stock and determined that there is at least one gene that was upregulated in the resistant stock:

A gene for resistance to the Varroa mite (Acari) in honey bee (Apis mellifera) pupae

Knowing this, and knowing that it is generally accepted there is a 'genetic arms race' going on between honey bees and varroa mites, they decided to study the mite side of the equation, expecting to find genetic and/or behavioral responses by the mites to counter the bee's attempts to suppress varroa reproductive success. 

As a function of this, they assumed that mites would preferentially seek to coinhabit cells and were surprised to find that this hypothesis was incorrect, at least as regards the stock under consideration. Thus they were left to report and hypothesize:

_We screened a Varroa-resistant honey bee population near Toulouse, France, for a Varroa resistance trait: the inhibition of Varroa's reproduction in drone pupae. We then genotyped Varroa which had co-infested a cell using microsatellites. Across all resistant honey bee colonies, Varroa's reproductive success was significantly higher in co-infested cells but the distribution of Varroa between singly and multiply infested cells was not different from random. While there was a trend for increased reproductive success when Varroa of differing haplotypes co-infested a cell, this was not significant. This suggests local mate competition, through the presence of another Varroa foundress in a pupal cell, may be enough to help Varroa overcome host resistance traits; with a critical mass of infesting Varroa overwhelming host resistance. However, the fitness trade-offs associated with preferentially co-infesting cells may be too high for Varroa to evolve a mechanism to identify already-infested cells. The increased reproductive success of Varroa when co-infesting resistant pupal cells may act as a release valve on the selective pressure for the evolution of counter resistance traits: helping to maintain a stable host–parasite relationship._

To be sure- they could have said _'here is our best educated guess as to what our results mean, but we could very well be wrong' _but as you point out I am not sure this helps with securing grant funding...


----------



## A Novice

Litsinger said:


> Jon:
> 
> I can go along with your assertion. In my humble opinion it is always better to err to the side of caution, particularly when making predictive claims.
> 
> I'm offering a bit of speculation here, so with that fully-disclosed, this is my dumb country boy opinion of the language used in the study- feel free to disagree.
> 
> Conlon and colleagues had already studied Dr. Kefuss' stock and determined that there is at least one gene that was upregulated in the resistant stock:
> 
> A gene for resistance to the Varroa mite (Acari) in honey bee (Apis mellifera) pupae
> 
> Knowing this, and knowing that it is generally accepted there is a 'genetic arms race' going on between honey bees and varroa mites, they decided to study the mite side of the equation, expecting to find genetic and/or behavioral responses by the mites to counter the bee's attempts to suppress varroa reproductive success.
> 
> As a function of this, they assumed that mites would preferentially seek to coinhabit cells and were surprised to find that this hypothesis was incorrect, at least as regards the stock under consideration. Thus they were left to report and hypothesize:
> 
> _We screened a Varroa-resistant honey bee population near Toulouse, France, for a Varroa resistance trait: the inhibition of Varroa's reproduction in drone pupae. We then genotyped Varroa which had co-infested a cell using microsatellites. Across all resistant honey bee colonies, Varroa's reproductive success was significantly higher in co-infested cells but the distribution of Varroa between singly and multiply infested cells was not different from random. While there was a trend for increased reproductive success when Varroa of differing haplotypes co-infested a cell, this was not significant. This suggests local mate competition, through the presence of another Varroa foundress in a pupal cell, may be enough to help Varroa overcome host resistance traits; with a critical mass of infesting Varroa overwhelming host resistance. However, the fitness trade-offs associated with preferentially co-infesting cells may be too high for Varroa to evolve a mechanism to identify already-infested cells. The increased reproductive success of Varroa when co-infesting resistant pupal cells may act as a release valve on the selective pressure for the evolution of counter resistance traits: helping to maintain a stable host–parasite relationship._
> 
> To be sure- they could have said _'here is our best educated guess as to what our results mean, but we could very well be wrong' _but as you point out I am not sure this helps with securing grant funding...


True enough.

These guys throw out a lot of confusing and high sounding words intentionally. It is the way you write this stuff, but I find it annoying, because it tends to obscure what they have actually done.

Their central premise seems to me unsound.

The fact that mites have not "evolved" the ability to meet up in cells could be attributed to some esoteric fitness trade off, or it could be (and more likely is) due to dumb luck. 
Random chance, the engine of the supposed evolution is a very weak creative force, and a crushingly powerful destructive force. It is utterly blind. 
That a researcher by intelligence can clearly see that a complex behavioral trait may be beneficial is one thing.
That random chance would produce such a behavioral trait which may result from combining perhaps a dozen or more unrelated favorable mutations with essentially no unfavorable mutations is quite a different thing.
What they postulate is a very subtle behavior.
Unless they can identify the number and sort of mutations necessary to produce the resultant change in behavior, they are talking total nonsense.

If their postulate is correct, this change in behavior will never appear.
If it is nonsense, it may or may not appear sometime in the next 10000 years.
If they understood how the processes they talk about work, they could estimate by probability theory approximately when this behavioral change will manifest itself.
They don't. They have no idea. So they should just shut up.

Sorry for being so blunt, but this sort of pseudoscience really annoys me.


----------



## Litsinger

A Novice said:


> If their postulate is correct, this change in behavior will never appear.
> If it is nonsense, it may or may not appear sometime in the next 10000 years.


I think this is the very nature of scientific inquiry- as M. C. Cooke once observed:

_'The treasures still left unopened are far richer than even those we have revealed. The gates of another world have been thrown open, but we have scarcely passed the threshold. A minutely and elaborately illuminated page of the book of Nature has been turned, and we have only perused a single line.'_

For example, if the (re) emerging topic of epigenetics proves to have any scientific meddle, it holds big implications relative to your thoughts concerning mutations, etc.:



Litsinger said:


> How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution?


----------



## AR1

Oldtimer said:


> Agree with much in those last few posts, but there is another way to avoid losses, and it's what I did during my TF "phase". PS I had to make a living so only did this at a few apiaries dedicated to attempting to produce a TF bee.
> 
> Once most hives in the apiary were starting to crash, the ones still looking fairly good were mite tested. The best one or two were bred from, just a smallish number say 20 or 30 queens from each.
> 
> The rest of the hives were then rescued with treatment and added clean brood, and once recovered were requeened from selected stock based on performance against mites. Treatment was then withheld to again show up the best hives.
> 
> Using this method I was able to in a few generations arrive at a bee that stood up very well against mites. But back then I did not have AI technology so some very promising genetics were eventually lost due to the constant outcrossing with any old drone. I never produced a bee that could survive indefinately without treatment.
> 
> I also ran some hives based on pure bond and based exactly on what Sol was teaching (small cell, untreated wax, blah blah), didn't work, lost all 27 of those hives by 24 months. No survivors left me nothing to breed from using that method so I gave it away as pointless.


Sounds similar to Randy Oliver's approach, which so far has not resulted in a stable, mite-resistant bee. Interesting though that you did achieve a pretty good bee. Gives me some hope for the (distant) future. If only we were all 30 years younger...


----------



## AR1

A Novice said:


> I agree about the null hypothesis.
> ...This is probably due to a small sample size, but not significant is not significant, and it would have been better to say undetermined due to small sample size rather than spin it into a conjecture about what the mite can or cannot do.


Thank you. This is a key to understanding scientific papers, that even many research scientists slip around. Not significant is not significant: that means they did not find a relationship, regardless of whatever else they babble about. 

I read a whole lot of medical research, almost daily, multiple papers one after another. It simply drives me crazy how often I see the phrase '...not significant but the trend is...' NO! Not significant is not significant. You DID NOT see a trend. You saw a few data points that looked like whatever it was that you wanted to see. If the signal is so very weak that all you get is a non-significant trend, then most likely there IS NOTHING useful there to find.


----------



## msl

AR1 said:


> Sounds similar to Randy Oliver's approach, which so far has not resulted in a stable, mite-resistant bee.


It would be instering to ask him the shift in his operation wide mite loads....but may be hard to separate form the management changes 

mite resistant doesn't mean TF... and may never.. I look at other live stock and even in "antibiotic free" operations the sick are treated and now allowed to spread it to the rest of the herd/flock and then sold to a different market


----------



## A Novice

AR1 said:


> Thank you. This is a key to understanding scientific papers, that even many research scientists slip around. Not significant is not significant: that means they did not find a relationship, regardless of whatever else they babble about.
> 
> I read a whole lot of medical research, almost daily, multiple papers one after another. It simply drives me crazy how often I see the phrase '...not significant but the trend is...' NO! Not significant is not significant. You DID NOT see a trend. You saw a few data points that looked like whatever it was that you wanted to see. If the signal is so very weak that all you get is a non-significant trend, then most likely there IS NOTHING useful there to find.


A couple of times I went with a solution because the main effect agreed with what I thought, even though it wasn't statistically significant. Learned my lesson....


----------



## AR1

msl said:


> It would be instering to ask him the shift in his operation wide mite loads....but may be hard to separate form the management changes
> 
> mite resistant doesn't mean TF... and may never.. I look at other live stock and even in "antibiotic free" operations the sick are treated and now allowed to spread it to the rest of the herd/flock and then sold to a different market


On the flip side, RO's bees are in what is probably the toughest environment for bees in the world, the Cali almond market. In that sense his progress is rather amazing. If he can get the results he has there, there is hope for us in easier places. As you say, maybe not pure TF (leave and forget), but perhaps something approaching TF.

I have seen, even in my limited and short-term experience, huge differences in hive's ability to handle mites: side-by-side hives where one hive collapsed in a few short months, next to a hive that never showed mite damage and survived the following winter, 10 feet away from the mite bomb. So I have hopes. Now, I'd treat that bad hive and requeen her. Then I was too inexperienced to recognize the problem in time and know what to do to try to fix the problem. TF has that problem, too many new keepers like me who gave it a try without knowing the signs of failure.


----------



## Litsinger

Litsinger said:


> While I supposed I should have surmised that the LVG lines were developed out of their grooming program, this video is the first instance where I've heard that explicitly stated.


And then there is this nugget:

I e-mailed Dr. Guzman regarding the program and he sent three published documents (attached). The first reports that,_ 'In an attempt to select for high and low resistance to both varroa mites and DWV, data and samples of bees and mites were collected at apiaries of Ontario queen breeders. More than 300 colonies were evaluated for mite fall counts.'_

So it appears that the original stock which comprised the LVG and HVG lines initially actually came from Ontario queen breeders.

As regards collaboration, Dr. Guzman noted that this program is comprised of participation by the Ontario Tech Transfer Program, the Ontario Queen Breeders Association and Purdue University.


----------



## JFR8881653

grozzie2 said:


> Ahh, ok, no successful winters yet, but hoping this will be the first. My wife often reminds folks, 'Hope is not a plan'.
> 
> Hi, my name is Gerry. I've been keeping bees for 11 years now, that's 11 summer seasons and 10 complete winters, winter number 11 is in progress. We've never had a total wipeout, but, ya never know, this year could be the one. right now the hives are out back on stands, but even that hasn't helped, they are all completely buried in snow. Will find out in the spring how they did. We usually start putting on first pollen patties around Valentines day, and that's when we will find out how many are still alive in February. Based on that, if it's really bad, I'll order some packages to replenish a few dead outs. I've done that before, read on. FWIW, we dont count a colony as 'survived' until April 1. Lots of losses occur after folks think the have 'made it', but the first round of brood after the winter is critical. If for some reason that round fails, maybe a cold snap chilled it, or maybe they ran out of food, then the colony is doomed, you just dont realize it yet.
> 
> I typically run 20 to 30 colonies over the summer, produce around a ton of honey. I've started into raising queens on a larger scale over the last few years. For summer 2022 the plan is to be running 30 mating nucs on a 3 week schedule to produce 10 queens a week over the season.
> 
> Our wintering average over the last 10 years is right around 70% for full size colonies. We started wintering 'spare queens' in mating nucs 5 years ago, and they have a much higher survival rate up to now. I'm almost certain this year is going to destroy our averages on the wintering in mating nucs, we've had 100% 4 out of 5 years that way, and one died last year (out of a dozen). I have reason to believe the mating nuc survival this year is going to be dismal, under 50%, just based on entrance activity on a warm day in early December. but they have fooled me before, sometimes the colonies that dont fly at all in the winter turn out to b the boomer come spring. But under no circumstances will we open them to check at this time of the year.
> 
> One thing I can say with 100% certainty, on the years where we have the time to 'do it right' for mite control, we get stellar survival of our bees. but there have been a few years where 'real work' and 'life' got in the way, so the bees didn't get the type of mite control they deserve. those years our survival has been pretty poor. Not a wipeout, but a huge setback for sure.
> 
> As one example, winter 2018. One saturday morning in early August my wife said to me over breakfast, 'You need to get out and start treating the bees today'. My response was, 'yep, the bees need some mite control, but, today I am going to go spend the day with Dad, the bees can wait'. Had a fantastic day with my father. He passed away 5 days later, something we all knew was imminent. After that, I was buried in administrative work dealing with the details for a month, so the bees got ignored. I did get to some treatments later in September, but, it was to little, to late. 32 into winter, 8 alive in the spring, we bought some packages. I have no regrets. Can always buy more bees in a pinch, will never get another wonderful day of visiting with my Dad.
> 
> For reasons I wont get into other than 'life got in the way', I'm expecting spring 2022 to be somewhat similar. Our mite management in fall of 2021 may have turned out to be 'to little, to late', but I wont know for sure till February.
> 
> For us here, the bees are an interesting sideline. It's become a small business, I've posted before many times about our journey here on the farm, I call it a hobby that generates $20K in revenue annually, but the Canada Revenue agency and BC Assement authority both say we are a farm operating as a business. We have reached the point where we have a facility for dealing with extracting honey, and all the equipment we need to manage upwards of 50 colonies in the process. All of this has been paid for by revenue from honey sales. A lot of the 'how and why' of our beekeeping comes from things I learned here on beesource, back in the days when serious commercial beekeepers still participated regularly. Part of why I still participate is the concept of 'pay it forward' to help other folks that want to head down the same path. We have reached the point where our financial investment in bees and equipment has all been recovered, plus a bit. The assets are now at a point where they were paid for by 'sweat equity', and we are now at the point where all the big expenses are covered, and there is a decent little slush fund in the 'bee kitty'.
> 
> Over my decade of participation on Beesource, I've learned a lot. I learned from Micheal Palmer the details of what is needed to produce quality queens, and another very important tidbit, READ THE OLD BEE BOOKS. I learned from Roland the correct way to use a queen excluder to help maximize honey production. I learned from Ian that the most important thing about keeping bees is to learn the life cycle, and how to manage it such that one has the population needed, at the time it is needed, and in time I added to that of my own accord, learn the life cycle of the varroa mite, and how it interacts with the life cycle of the colony. There are many more, but I cant remember them all off the top of my head. You will note, most of these folks no longer participate here. That's a shame, they were a wealth of knowledge, but essentially chased away by the zealots.
> 
> So if somebody new shows up, and wants to show us a better way of keeping bees, I'm all ears. show me a decade of statistics and how it worked for you thru good years, and poor years, why it's better, and how it'll either reduce my workload, or increase my revenue stream, I'm game to try.
> 
> But to be blunt about it, I have no interest in taking beekeeping advice from somebody that has never successfully wintered any colonies. A person in that position should possibly stop talking, and start listening.


Great article, I am a new beekeeper into my third year in rural NY state I am still learning, and it seems like I will never stop learning, climate change is really making things difficult here warmer winters and cooler rainy summers we have had freezing weather in early May. Well thanks for your words of wisdom


----------



## William Bagwell

username00101 said:


> that last statement on Bush was totally inappropriate - and a baseless accusation .
> 
> I just came here to say that - I was indifferent but that statement was really inappropriate, and I think mods should honestly remove it because it's libel. Even if its just a transcript.


Has been edited on Facebook as well.


----------



## P.Dosen

Good riddance is what I say, 


Solomon and I met a few years ago over email and there was a point where we actually had a phone conversation as I had several inquiries in regard to how he was able to keep bees without treatments for nearly 2 decades with minimal to no intervention especially pertaining to varroa management, which is every beekeeper's struggle and has been for the last 30 years. I've tried reasoning with him, toning down the science in hopes that he would grab on with both hands in an attempt to learn something and as a result better himself as a beekeeper and as a bee manager/educator which he claimed to be and he failed the test every single time. At least if he would have tried to put his whole life into an extremely comprehensive breeding program, breeding of course for varroa resistance and or tolerance, even if he was not able to produce a treatment free mite resistant bee, who gives a flying drone anyway? He tried, he put his all into something and I guarantee you he would have had a better bee than what he started with, would he be treatment free? No, would he have been on the road to treatment free? Yes, and in my mind that's all that would have mattered. Instead his stubbornness and unwillingness to learn and his us vs them mentality coupled with his anti-science approach to everything including beekeeping wedged a barrier between him and those who he was trying to reach, which were the bee scientists and researchers, as these are the individuals pulling all the strings. He blamed me and everyone else who supported conventional beekeeping methods as being part of the problem but he failed to recognize his own failings and shortcomings and continued pushing his 2 bit scientifically unfounded beekeeping philosophy which was in existence for no other reason than the internet and several thousand followers who were just as brainwashed and delusional as he was. I have always said, and will continue to say the only reason he managed to survive this long as a beekeeper or should I say bee haver was due to the fact that he was catching swarms from commercially kept apiaries which were situated all around him, healthy bees which he then later killed willingly due to his ignorance. He claimed in his facebook post he's quitting beekeeping because he has nothing to prove anymore, if this is the case then he was finished before he even got started back in 2003. He did prove, and quite successfully I might add that he was extremely foolish, manipulating people, lying to himself as well as others and just making himself look downright stupid while doing presentations which were largely based on false assumptions and misunderstandings which he failed to correct. Everyone makes mistakes and as a consequence says things they shouldn't but then take it back, people would have forgave him, I know I would have. Treatment free beekeeping is a lie, that's all it is, a lie, based in pseudoscience because some delusional woman by the name of Dee Lusby and her crazy late husband thought without question that small cell was the answer to all our beekeeping issues, if this was the case I assure you that every beekeeper in the world, would have switched over to small cell in a heart beat if it meant that all our problems would go away! Why? Because to a beekeeper, problems cost money! Mites are a problem, they cost money to manage, Nosema is a problem in some locations, it costs money to manage, starvation is an issue and as a result it too costs money to manage. Problems cost money, in other words the bees' needs cost money, and if you know that going in than it's really not a problem. But if you choose not to manage them because you're cheap, then why even bother keeping livestock you're not prepared to manage? I really don't understand, and then turn around and point the finger at those who are doing everything under the sun to keep their bees healthy, to suggest that we're part of the problem, seriously? Get off your high horse, take off your treatment free shirt and start taking care of your bees, or get out of town. It's just that simple, as if you don't you're only making it worse for those who are trying to do their best to manage their colonies in the best way possible. Why are beekeepers forced to treat 4 times a year, because they're constently being re-infested by Solomon and his mite infested colonies which he failed to manage.

My rant is over, I'm glad he quit.

Paul


----------



## johno

In that podcast where one of them claims to have never lost a hive as he always remembers where he put them then goes on to say that his bees were self-culling, so there you are they did breed some self culling bees which is a useful trait if you wish to give up beekeeping.


----------



## P.Dosen

Hi All,

Totally agree with most of your comments here, treatment free beekeeping is pretty much done, and those who are still doing it will be done shortly in the sense that nobody will buy their non-sense for too much longer. The time for political correctness is over and the majority of bee scientists and researchers are clamping down on the bull**** others choose to perpetuate. No, we don't have a treatment free bee yet, but who cares; it's not like we don't have the tools to manage and control parasites and pathogens in our colonies. Would I be much happier if treatments were no longer needed, yes, if the disadvantages outweighed the advantages and if the risks outweighed the benefits, that is not the case currently. I would like it if farmers didn't have to spray their crops, didn't have to treat their livestock for pathogens, and if we as humans didn't have to treat each other for pathogens, including the pathogen which is currently effecting us all, covid-19, but we do have to treat ourselves for covid, measles, polio as well as other extremely dangerous diseases. Natural selection is not the answer, especially if it's you being selected against, your family, your friends and those nearest and dearest to you. Likewise natural selection is not the answer when it's your one hive, or one thousand hives of yours that you've taken care of and built your business on. Would varroa have been a problem if we were to have never treated for it? Would measles still be a problem if we had never treated for it? I have no idea, what I do know is 30 years in the case of bees and varroa, is not a long time at all in evolutionary terms, the amount of genetic mutations necessary to accomplish this goal would be unreal, and would take an extremely long time. The mites, came on the scene 30 years ago with the upper hand and they've had the upper hand ever since, due to the simple fact that they were masters at co-existing and living with honeybees, they are a creature to be admired in the sense that they are so good at adapting and evolving to environmental conditions. So here we have European honeybees, never exposed to this parasite throughout their evolutionary history, why would we expect them to "get with the program" and start surviving with mites right away? It's nothing more than a magical, over-simplification of evolution and natural selection in my humble opinion and has proven dangerous as new, misinformed beekeepers buy this crap hook, line and sinker and when their bees bite the dust due to heavy mite infestations and go back to their treatment free brainwashing enthusiasts the answer is something other than varroa! Aliens, UFOs and cell phones killed your bees, it wasn't mites as the bees you purchased from me are mite resistant. And then the whole sheep-dung concept of small cell foundation, according to the delusional beekeeper we're all talking about, it's not a method of controlling varroa. According to Michael Bush, another delusional bee haver, disagrees, so now whose right and whose wrong? They're both treatment free beekeepers, but disagree on what I think is a very fundamental topic in the treatment free beekeeping world. But wait, Solomon back-peddles on this concept as he feels the reason why he believes small cell works is because the mites are finally able to tell the difference between workers and drones and as a result infest the drone brood leaving the worker brood virtually untouched. Great idea, if it actually worked, how is this not control though? This whole thing is due to the pseudodrone theory, which according to mainstream scientists, scientists on the outside who have done objective research on, have disproven. If small cell cured our varroa problem, then it's a control regardless of what Solomon says, he doesn't want it to be a control for whatever reason, but if it did what it claimed to do, then in my opinion it would be a control. If the problem goes away with the use of small cell, how is small cell not a control? Plus in his presentation on this topic, small cell was listed under "cultural controls for varroa mites," but it's still not a control. I'll tell you it's a control but it's not a control really..lol! Full of **** he is! 

I had mentioned in previous posts of how I tried having a civil phone conversation with him in regards to specific aspects of his treatment free beekeeping philosophy and instead he wanted to focus on the fact that I felt he was lying, me thinking he was lying was more important to him then talking about treatment free beekeeping. Since he seemed unwilling to talk over the phone I had e-mailed him 12 questions that he really shouldn't have answered as he made himself look like a complete idiot in the video titled "don't debate with online beekeepers" which can easily be found on youtube. The questions cut to the core of his philosophy and challenged it in every way possible, since I had put a great deal of effort into making up these questions I expected him to put the same amount of effort into carefully and logically answering them, and he failed. He's a lost cause, and not worth anyones time or attention.


----------



## GregB

P.Dosen said:


> Totally agree with most of your comments here, *treatment free beekeeping is pretty much done,*


I would not do such *carpet conclusions.*

Instead, we came to the point where it became clear that the global, indiscriminate slogans of "TF beekeeping for ALL" type are also wrong.

All it is to it.
Which kinda makes common sense all along - to not be making carpet conclusions.
That is the real conclusion.


----------



## P.Dosen

Hey All,

Could somebody point me to the area in Solomon's post where he supposedly sticks the knife in MB's back?

Thank you

Paul


----------



## JWChesnut

P.Dosen said:


> Could somebody point me to the area in Solomon's post where he supposedly sticks the knife in MB's back?


It was deleted here and on the original posting page, though Solomon went on to put up a second post that went into "too much Information" details, which I believe is still up on his ex-group's FB feed. 
There is no need to "broadcast" it here or anywhere. 

Solomon can best be understood as a classic "Drama Queen" -- and I have every expectation he will "return" if he hasn't already using a sock puppet.


----------



## GregB

JWChesnut said:


> Solomon can best be understood as a classic "Drama Queen" -- and I have every expectation *he will "return" *if he hasn't already using a sock puppet.


LOL
Return of the Jedi.
Oh no!

PS: wait, JWC probly meant the new series will be called "Treatment-free Truckers" or something of the sort ;
need to look that up on some truckers' forum someplace - like the TruckingTruth.com what not....


----------



## JWChesnut

P.Dosen said:


> treatment free beekeeping is pretty much done,


 Very much doubt that is true. In my own parochial experience, far more than 75% of newbees entering my local group profess to "alternative practices". I also sense that this number is increasing.
Most "newbees" exit the backyard hobby in 4 years or so, and are replaced by fresh cohort of eager fresh prospects.

The apparent reduction in TF preaching on this forum is due to the fact the forum is pretty much *dead*. It most resembles the TV day-room lounge of an insane asylum, with the few remaining long-term inmates holding forth in word salad on stained overstuffed couches.

In the social zones where Newbee prospects are recruited and groomed for street corner preaching, TF is very much a bright and shiny object.

We are seeing a generational replacement, which like the "Jacobin" phase of French Revolution is generating an internal inertia for the most extreme and radical positions. TF has a current obsession with "natural tree hives" with no attempt to provide any human management. As only the "purest" form of belief attracts adherents, this style is ascendant.


----------



## P.Dosen

Oldtimer said:


> Once divisive people run out of other folks to exchange abuse with it is interesting how they then fall out with each other. See how in his last hurrah he sticks the knife into MB.


Where does he stick the knife into MB, I didn't get this impression from his last post on facebook or maybe I'm missing something?

Paul


----------

