# Is treatment free possible for a newbie



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

Got this stuck in my head, from another thread i was reading the other day. Keep seeing people say that newbies try to go treatment free and fail because they don't know what they're doing. (not exactly in those words)

I assumed that using/monitoring the drone comb for mites, and freezing the mites when necessary, along with a screened bottom board would be enough to combat varroa. I was also under the impression that other diseases are best kept away by keeping a strong hive, so i decided to increase my starting hive numbers from 2 to now 4. That way if needed i can give a weak hive a boost from a frame of brood if needed.

Of course, i am completely new to beekeeping, and will soon find out all of this on my own. But with some of the recent discussion I've seen here, figured i would ask, cuz right now im just waiting for the bees anyway.

*ready for 1200 different opinions


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

I started with a mentor who taught me everything. Let me help him work his bees. Helped me work my first bees. Let me extract my honey when he did his. Really took me under his wing and showed me the ropes. I don't see how folks keep trying to start beekeeping on their own. I think they're setting themselves up for failure in many cases. If you join a beekeeping association and find a mentor who is passionate about natural or treatment free beekeeping and is also successful, there's no reason you cannot succeed under his/her wing. If you try it on your own you risk failure and giving up.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well Dynasty you know how to make an entrance, a title like the one you gave this thread could create mayhem! 

Seriously though, your question cannot be answered yes or no. So many variables, some not even understood. What I can say though, is that a screened bottom board plus drone brood harvesting, by themselves, is unlikely to be enough to save your hives.


----------



## FThoney (Apr 22, 2011)

"I self smarted myself." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlBvxjApf4 I wasn't lucky enough to have a mentor to help me my first few years in beekeeping. Everything I know about bees has come from books and my own successes and failures. I have found that my bees for the most part will take care of themselves. I don't worry too much about them. I have been fortunate enough not to have lost too many hives as to not be able to bounce back in the spring. The smartest and wisest of all the beekeepers out there will tell you that they are still learning how to keep bees. No one has all of the answers. Keep your bees the way you want to keep them. Whether it be with chemical treatments, or treatment free, keep them in a way that keeps you interested.


----------



## summerbeegirl (Sep 10, 2011)

I, like some others here, have been lucky enough to have a mentor. Even being a year in, it's nice to know I can still ask questions and be surprised at the answer. I hate most hobbies because I get bored so easily. Beekeeping will keep you on your toes! I personally think treatment free is the way to go, but it would've been much harder to do without someone to show me it could be done because they had done it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>people say that newbies try to go treatment free and fail because they don't know what they're doing. 

I would say they try to keep bees and fail because they don't know what they are doing... I don't see what "treatment free" has to do with that. Maybe some are overly optimistic that mites are not going to be a problem and don't monitor at all. Or they are overly pessimistic that mites are a problem and treat them to death...


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

I heard an organic gardener tell his audience, "if you want an organic garden and lawn, just quit using commercial chemicals." It's that easy. If you want to be chemical free, don't ever use a chemical treatment. It should be easier to do this from the start. Also, Michael Bush says "there are over 30 beneficial mites in your hives and thousands of other beneficial organisms." When one treats these beneficial organisms are also harmed.

I started with three packages last April, and two of them will make it through the winter. The third hive is up for grabs. I am going to stay the course with "treatment free." Good luck on whatever you decide to do.


----------



## hipbee (Sep 11, 2009)

I tried treatment free my first year, both hives died. I tried powdered sugar dusting and feeding sugar syrup my second year, 4 hives dead. I tried feeding sugar syrup with HBH and sugar dusting my 3rd year, lost 7 hives out of 10. didnt harvest any honey my first 3 years either. last year I fed sugar syrup with HBH and megabee, counted mites on SBB and treated with OA vapor(when the count was high), Harvested 200 lbs of sourwood honey and so far only lost 3 hives out of 15 and when I looked last week I figured I had over 500 lbs of goldenrod honey left in all their supers that I am going to use to feed all of the splits I am going to make this year


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Without getting into the technicality of what "treatment free" is, I went to a class put on by Ross Conrad where he had 6 things to do to combat against varroa but they are not all considered treatment free by most people. Treatment free is easy. Just don't do anything. I have done it. Except for Beesource I am on my own so through mistakes I have managed to kill bees before they had a chance to sucome to varroa.

I will go out on a limb and say that if you don't do anything you can expect to have that hive two years. I don't know if you can stretch it to three. My take on it is for sustainability you have to replace queens either by direct replacement or with nucs. The second choice you will have to make is will you buy or raise your replacements.

As a newbie I would not start with 4 hives. If you know nothing and do not have a hands on mentor I would start with one hive to get your feet wet. Others will disagree but they are not paying for your losses. If you have the cash to blow then starting with 4 hives will not hurt you. But bear in mind your are gambling.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Treating means different things to different people. Is powdered sugar a treatment? To me it is, but it's not traditionally what's refered to as "hard" chemicals. This question is mostly asked of course around treating for mites. Can you not treat for mites? My opinion is that it's all math. If you don't treat for mites in any way, meaning you ignore them, your hives will most certainly have a higher chance of death. You therefore will need to keep *many* more hives in order to not become beeless, and even more than that if you want to use your own bees to replace those that die. Treating in any way lowers your chance of loss, which means you don't need to keep as many hives in order to have live hives coming through every year. The higher the efficacy of your treatment along with its timing determines how much lower you drop your chance of loss and raise your chance of having live bees. Can powdered sugar match the efficacy of formic? Probably not. Does it knock down the mites if done properly, yep.

The reason all of this matters to a newbee is because you're probably going to start out with 1-2 hives (although I don't know that). So having 1-2 hives and not treating in any way means you have an incredibly high chance of being beeless come spring of 2013. If you had 20 hives, you'd have a much lower chance of being beeless.

Ok, I don't normally plug anything I write online because I write it more for myself (and my future great great grandkids because I like genealogy too ), but I just wrote about the whole percentage of loss thing and I think it's germane.

http://bees.libhart.com/?p=423


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I recommend starting with five hives if you are going to start treatment-free. I started with 20. After nine years, and major losses at some points, this winter I've come out with 10/11 surviving which is as good as anyone can expect treated or not. I also started without a mentor except for Beesource. It can be done. Ask questions, sift answers.

My recommendation is to not get tied up in the emotions. They're not 'girls', 'ladies', etc. They are bees. Also, hives die. It's a fact. Prepare for it and accept it as part of natural selection. Learn splitting and increase. You're going to need it.

And most of all, be wary of advice from people who have been keeping bees treatment-free for less than four years. They haven't achieved anything greater than 'my bees haven't died *yet*'.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

lazy shooter said:


> I heard an organic gardener tell his audience, "if you want an organic garden and lawn, just quit using commercial chemicals." It's that easy. If you want to be chemical free, don't ever use a chemical treatment...


Going chemical free, or treatment free is that easy, but keeping healthy bees without treatment is not.

Whether or not bees will live healthy in your care depends on a lot of variables. 

• The initial health of the bees when you get them
• The genetics of the particular bee
• The suitability of the bee to your climatic region
• The particular season you're in and how good or bad that year is for weather and forage
• The particular pest and the particular strength and health of that pest when it contacts your bees.
• Your management practices
• The availability of food and water and the quality of both in your region, in that year

Then you have to consider your success or failure rate over several seasons, and keep track of what changed each year. Otherwise, you don't know if it was your "treatments" or lack thereof that was the reason for that success or failure.

"Is treatment free possible for a newbie?" Of course it is. It's also possible that your approach to treatments over the first few years really isn't the reason for your success or failure.

It's way more complicated than simply treating or not. If it weren't no one would treat, and we'd all have healthy bees. And because most of the beekeepers out there have only a few seasons (or less) on which they're basing their observations - with little-to-no scientific rigor, it's very difficult to make clear conclusions.

Given the variables that we have to consider, the varroa mite has been with most of us a very short time, relative to finding ways to combat it.

There's also a big difference between "chemical free" and "treatment free", yet the two get intermingled all the time.


Adam


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

>> _Also, Michael Bush says "there are over 30 beneficial mites in your hives and thousands of other beneficial organisms.

_Is that statement exactly true?? My interpretation is that there are beneficial mites but *not *in a bee hive. Some "beneficial" mites are used in greenhouses but I have never read that there are other mites [with a scientific name] besides Varroa and tracheal that are in a hive.

I can accept that there are beneficial organisms like fungi and bacteria that are a part of a healthy hive, but not another species of mite. Maybe Michael can clarify if I'm wrong. :scratch:


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

I was a new beekeeper last year with no lessons and no mentor. Just reading books and the Internet for about a year before starting the bee thing. The first time I handled bees or wore my suit was by myself installing my first nuc.
Click the link below to see what I have accomplished my first few months of beekeeping:

http://www.itsmysite.com/cgi-bin/itsmy/go.exe?page=3&domain=1&webdir=laurimilleragricultural

I also wanted to go as organic as possible, but feel I made one small original error. (Actually several, but that is another thread)
I should have treated my purchased nucs for mites to give my hives a fighting chance. I did not realize They were infested with mites and I lost a few hives because of it. (Unless you can buy your bees from a reputable treatment free apiary)

Let me give you another example:
My horses get wormed only twice a year-not every 6 weeks as they suggest. They are not exposed to worm eggs as they have no pasture and are fed 100% with purchased feed. Now if I bought a horse from the auction that was wormy to the core, I certainly would not try to put that horse on my reduced parasite treatment program. I would bring him up to good health, then reduce the treatment to fit his needs.
The same with bees. I had purchased 7, 4 frame nucs from California with unknown genetics, basically just the run of the mill Italians. I grew them into two deeps then split them and requeened with hygienic queens. But the original hives had more mites than I realized (until it was too late). I really feel if I have treated the nucs right at the start, I could have continued with organic methods with more success. Screened bottoms, foundationless and drone comb removal worked like a charm with many of my hives. Probably in part because some went through a brood less period during the summer.
Your ability to manage your hives without a mentor depends on your intelligence, your feel for agriculture and being observant and attentive. You can certainly kill them with kindness too, so get a few extra packages or nucs to play with. You'll have the comfort of leaving a few hives virtually undisturbed and a few you can dig in without worry because that is what they were purchased for-to learn. It is the only way you will learn is to do it. The more you do your first year the faster you will be successful in the future.

6 of my nucs I installed in ten frame deeps,. But one of them I installed in a 2 story nuc, knowing I would be forced to handle it when they got too crowded.

Hope this helps


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Oldbee said:


> >> _Also, Michael Bush says "there are over 30 beneficial mites in your hives _


 I'm with Oldbee except that I'm fairly certain he didn't say that. Several mites, yes, beneficial organisms, yes, but not 30 beneficial mites.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

2/22/2012
The % chance that your bee source will have a mite load can vary with your supplier.
Chances are that your bees will come with some "free mites". So, you will need to be checking on their mite load.
IPM can work!
It appears that you are looking into various methods of mite control which is a good factor.
There are many replies to threads within the pests and diseases forum that will help you make proper management decisions.
The _Varroa_ mite has developed resistance to two old chemicals and probably more that were very effective as miticides. And, I am talking about globally!
You might start off with bees that have a low mite load and then it becomes innoculated with drones that drift into your hive or from a robbing frenzy. Now we add time to this formula and down the road you will have a dead out.
Recently I talked to a person who does not treat and that person loses every hive that is started in the spring. (Four consecutive years of dead outs!) By October - December the hives are dead outs.
Keep an open mind and try to use scientific data for your decisions.
good luck.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I forgot to ad that Ross C. said out of the 6 things you can do organically to combat varroa is you at least need to do 3 out of the 6 to aproach sustainability. Oh and he clarified the term "sustainability". Sustainability means you don't bring anything in and most would agree that that is impossible. If in the beekeepers terminology you are allowed to bring things in than sustainability is easy even with two hives because one of the six items on the list is resistant stock which you could do every year at minimal cost.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Lauri said:


> I should have treated my purchased nucs for mites to give my hives a fighting chance. I did not realize They were infested with mites and I lost a few hives because of it. (Unless you can buy your bees from a reputable treatment free apiary)


Lauri, this is an erroneous line of thought. There are always mites. There will always be mites. Mites are literally everywhere in this country. It's not like worm eggs where if you don't ingest eggs you don't get worms. Bees cannot be kept in with an electrified fence. They cannot be kept away from sources of mites. Even treating them makes no guarantee that the hive will be totally free of mites. After nine years treatment-free, I guarantee you my hives have mites, you can come visit and I'll show you. The key lies in having or breeding bees that can handle mites.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Oldbee said:


> >> _Also, Michael Bush says "there are over 30 beneficial mites in your hives and thousands of other beneficial organisms.
> 
> _Is that statement exactly true?? My interpretation is that there are beneficial mites but *not *in a bee hive. Some "beneficial" mites are used in greenhouses but I have never read that there are other mites [with a scientific name] besides Varroa and tracheal that are in a hive.


Here is a link to one of the pages where Michael Bush discusses this issue:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesmorethan.htm


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

> For instance, there are over 32 kinds of mites that live in harmony with bees.


It's as I suspected, 'in harmony' is not the same as 'beneficial'. Mites are parasitic, not symbiotic.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Solomon, Yes I know the mites will continue to be present, I just wished the mite LOAD would have been lower so the hygenic queens I bought would have has a better start. I wonder how much of their own brood they destroyed in the process of removing the mites?


----------



## theriverhawk (Jun 5, 2009)

It is possible to go treatment free in regards to varroa mites. The key is requeening in some form each year. When folks buy bees from breeders that say "I haven't treated my bees in (insert number here) years", it's, often, because they have "out bred" the mites by making splits and allowing new queens to be made by the hives. This queenless period disrupts the mite breeding cycle for that 20+ days that there are no eggs layed by the queen. Some mites may remain in the hive, but the numbers are low enough that no treatment is needed. 
I have tended to do this process in the post summer honey flow and then split again in the spring. It's kept the mites at bay pretty well. Haven't really treated in a few years. 
Disclaimer: I have treated some hives that were not split but kept the original queen. The hives/nucs with the original queen sometimes needed a treatment. But, for the most part, if I allow a split or a hive to make a new queen, I'm not needing to treat. 
Disclaimer #2: Mid summer splits...while mites aren't an issue, I do tend to have to battle SHBs with them, occassionally, winning a nuc or two.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

You have bees that remove mites? From brood occupied cells?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

libhart said:


> but I just wrote about the whole percentage of loss thing and I think it's germane.


Good work! I think your numbers will be skewed somewhat even by your own definition of "sustainability". If you do not interject genetics into your apiary then the surviving splits may have an increasing loss rate not a fixed loss rate. If you do interject genetics on an increased schedule then I believe the two hive scenario will show more promising numbers for "sustainability."


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Lauri said:


> I wonder how much of their own brood they destroyed in the process of removing the mites?


Too much of a good thing then? Wild survivor bees have wildly varying rates of hygienic behavior. It's not a golden bullet.



theriverhawk said:


> When folks buy bees from breeders that say "I haven't treated my bees in (insert number here) years", it's, often, because they have "out bred" the mites by making splits and allowing new queens to be made by the hives.


Can you offer some examples? Some names would be nice.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Solomon Parker said:


> It's as I suspected, 'in harmony' is not the same as 'beneficial'. Mites are parasitic, not symbiotic.


Lets settle it. Michael if you would please, are there any mites found in a bee hive that would be beneficial to the bees?


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

Dynasty, 

it is certainly possible to keep bees treatment free as a beginner. 

Conventional wisdom in beekeeping is valuable. I think it is important to recognize that while most beekeepers on the forum are likely hobbyists, there are a whole lot of commercial guys on the forum as well.

Conventional wisdom is that all colonies have mites. A very large proportion of package bees sold in the US are packaged from colonies that have returned to the California almond fields.
2/3 to ¾ of the hives in the country (and almost all of the commercial production hives) go to the almonds every year and mix with mite infested bees stressed from travel, miticide, drugs, and a steady diet of HFCS.
Mixing with billions of other bees that are mite infested, it would be amazing if the package bees from those colonies arrived without bees. 
Conventional wisdom is reliable, when you keep bees in the conventional way, and get them from conventional sources.

You are asking about being unconventional and keep bees without treating them.
Conventional wisdom loses a lot of its value when you do something unconventional.
The guy might keep bees for decades conventionally, and be an excellent source of information about bee biology and queen rearing… but if he has NO EXPERIENCE keeping untreated bees, it might be wiser to ask guys who do keep them.

Most of those guys will encourage you to start with locally adapted bees. For a lot of people, that means collecting or trapping swarms, or doing cutouts. (Advertisers don’t make any money when you don’t buy their bees.)
Most treatment free beekeepers will advise you to use no treatment if you want bees that can survive without treatment. 
Most treatment free beekeepers whom I have read lost 50-90% of their colonies at some point before their colonies stabilized. More than once. (So don’t start with just one or two hives).

I started last summer with a cutout. The colony had a very low mite load. I did do one powdered sugar shake treatment in August when I saw one mite in the colony.

I have not wrapped my hives, but my Italians survived temps below -15 this winter.
We’ll see how they build up this spring.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Acebird said:


> If you do interject genetics on an increased schedule then I believe the two hive scenario will show more promising numbers for "sustainability."


Thanks Acebird. Would agree with you there, I made the math simple for my own benefit. At the same time, I'd list interjecting genetics as a method to reduce the loss percentage, so it's just another tool in the bag, albeit a bit more complex than most.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

I have five inseminated VSH queens form Glenn Apiaries. That's the theory I have heard, they will uncap and remove mite infested larva.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Sustainability exists as long as one keeps something going. Everything is sustainable until it isn't sustained. I think it is an over used concept w/ little meaning. unless we are talking "self sustainability".


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> I have five inseminated VSH queens form Glenn Apiaries. That's the threoy I have heard, they will uncap and remove mite infested larva.


They only hygenic behavior I am aware of regarding uncapping and removing is in relation to diseased larvae and pupae, not mite infested. Maybe somerone can tell me differently? Please?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I have seen it written and spoken of that they will remove larva with mites. Is that because they are diseased or they contracted some other disease I don't know. Mites don't kill bees they chew through their skeleton and expose them to other sicknesses weakening their immune system to where they finally die.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Dynasty, I am a bit of a pariah on the forum, because I don't play by the "rules" - I don't count mites, I don't treat for mites, I don't bother myself about the mites. I know there are mites in my colonies, so what? :lookout: It's a given of life, like death and taxes. So take what I am about to say with a grain of salt (or a 25# block, your choice.)

You can read the details in my report elsewhere on this forum ("No Treatment of Honey Bees Report")

Beginners can be treatment free from the beginning, IF they buy bees that have not been treated. The mistake many make is they buy bees, read about treatment free, and stop treating. Their bees die. How do you think certain breeders got treatment-free bees? They had massive die-offs when the mites arrived, and they bred the survivors. They kept having die-offs and kept breeding the survivors without treating. Finally they got a bee that could survive the mite. I buy bees and queens ONLY from breeders who do not treat for mites. Thus I have never treated, and never will.

Good beekeeping management is good beekeeping management, period. If you use treatment free bees, you will experience losses, because that's the nature of the beast today. If you make mistakes, and we all do, you will lose hives. I lost hives in the '70's and '80's, though not as many then as now. The pressures today are different. Have I lost any hives to the mites? Possibly, but I don't know. To this point, I do a post-mortem on each die-out, and all can be explained by means other than mites. Perhaps the mites weakened the colony so that it succumbed to other pressures. Ok, so what? I didn't want that colony anyway, because it couldn't handle the mites. 

I have two colonies that are now 6 years old, which I have maintained by the management practices I learned in the '70's from older books by beekeepers who had been keeping bees for decades. I too did not have a mentor, just learned what I could, as well as from my mistakes. From those two colonies and packages I have bought, I got up to 44 last summer. I'll not say any more about this, as you can read it in my report, and the summation I posted last night.

The short answer is, you can keep bees treatment free. Start with treatment free bees and practice good management. Or, you can treat your bees, but if you don't have good management, you're going to lose hives. Heck, you're going to lose hives anyway, so get used to it. But without good management practices, you'll lose more hives no matter which route you take.

And then, Mother Nature can conspire against you, and in spite of the best management, you'll lose hives. The best advice is start with at least two colonies, learn, apply your learnings, learn more, and realize you'll never stop learning, as long as you have a colony of honeybees - God's gift to the masochistic. :lpf:

Best wishes to you!
Steven


----------



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

wow, i fall asleep and the thread pics up lol. so much to catch up on now yay!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> They only hygenic behavior I am aware of regarding uncapping and removing is in relation to diseased larvae and pupae, not mite infested. Maybe somerone can tell me differently? Please?


I found the page below linked at Glenn Apiaries on their VSH page:

http://www.extension.org/pages/30361/varroa-sensitive-hygiene-and-mite-reproduction
Quoted from the link above:


> The USDA-ARS Baton Rouge Bee Lab has bred bees that hygienically remove mite-infested pupae from capped worker brood. This ability is called varroa sensitive hygiene, and bees expressing high levels of this behavior are called VSH bees.​


If you want to ses the Glenn Apiaries VSH page, its here:
http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/vsh.html


----------



## sweetacres (Nov 12, 2008)

Don't let anyone ever tell you that keeping bees treatment free is hard or impossible. Yes, hives will die. Hives will die no matter what you do to them.

I am on my 4th year and haven't put a single chemical on my hives. I did powder sugar dusting and drone removal my first year and even stopped doing that.

First year with 2 packages, both survived. Second year I did a lot of splits and went into winter with 4 hives and 3 double nucs. 1 hive and two nucs made it through the winter. I attribute the loss more to weather than mites as we had a really extended severe cold snap and it looks like the clusters couldn't move to food. I went into this winter with 7 hives and 1 single nuc. My only loss so far is the single nuc.

I think the biggest thing is having the guts to commit to it and stick with it. People have told me I can't keeps bees without treatment, and their bees aren't doing any better than mine.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

To the Original Question - probably, but.... Be aware that everyone uses a system - their own system. Different successful (define successful however you want) bee keepers have different systems that work for them. But it's a system. It is tempting to observe that (insert prominent honey bee guru) does (insert particular cultural practice) and they lose very few hives - so if I do that then all of my dreams will come true too. But the thing is, that person does a whole series of things, and using just one of them in the context a different cultural system may not work.

You have to have *some plan* to keep some bees alive long enough to learn what your system is - and just to learn to be a bee keeper. Produce more of them every year would be one. You could probably say the same thing about chickens, or goats, or puppies, or....

Just had to add this thought. Michael Bush - highly respected, extremely helpful, extremely knowledgeable bee keeper gives lots of helpful informative information, here, on his web site, and in person on occasion. 

Most of us probably know that he does treatment free, small cell, foundationless, all mediums (mostly 8 frame) right? I'll bet you that every year new bee keepers follow his lead and do treatment free, small cell, foundationless, all mediums - and some of them lose their bees in a year or two. Not because MBs system doesn't work - but because treatment free, small cell, foundationless, all mediums is not the sum total of his system - and they don't understand that.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

My statement about wondering how many larva had been uncapped by the VSH bees hygenic behavior and the original mite load was made from this observation. 
I had five Glenn Inseminated VSH queens. Two VSH Carnies, a VSH Cordovan, pol-line Italian and a pure VSH queen-mainly for my drone production.
All of the queens went to town and built up normally except the pure VSH queen. She was laying, but her cluster never got more than 5 or 6 frames total of bees and brood. They were all installed in early June. All fed well with both syrup and pollen patties.
I was told by a beekeeper to keep these inseminated queens in small clusters as they are frequently quickly superceded in a large hive setting. This pure VSH queen naturally was staying small and I wondered if it was because they were uncapping their own mite infested brood. They went into the winter on five frames and as of my last inspection were still alive in Feb. We will see if they live how fast they build up this spring. They just never really amounted to much last summer. If they had been installed in a nuc with a lighter mite load would they have built up faster?


----------



## Sully1882 (Jul 18, 2011)

Solomon Parker said:


> It's as I suspected, 'in harmony' is not the same as 'beneficial'. Mites are parasitic, not symbiotic.


PERFECTLY SAID....there will always be mites just like in most areas now there will always be small hive beetles but if you keep bees that can "handle" the mites and keep the beetles in check you will have success.

that coming from a total newbie that is finishing up my first winter with my bees.

Sully


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Lauri said:


> This pure VSH queen naturally was staying small and I wondered if it was because they were uncapping their own mite infested brood.


It would be a fair assumption, but what did you observe? Did you see brood chewed out?


----------



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

Ok, finally caught up. 

I should clarify i suppose, "chemical free". But it seems most of you understood that.

I am currently looking for a good mentor, but of the 5 people that i have spent time with/in their hives, 4 of them were completely incompatant, one of them couldn't tell that they were queenless lol. I know im new, but i know a bad beekeeper when i see one , but never the less, still learned valuable whatnot to dos. The only successful beekeeper that i've visited their hive lives to far away for them to be considered a viable mentor. 

Now I'm not completely against chemical treatments but would prefer not to have to. Have been reading about OA treating if necessary, but thats about all that i've really looked into.

Thank you to everyone that gave their opinions, i look forward to more advice.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Dynasty said:


> I should clarify i suppose, "chemical free".


In that case, never mind. I haven't done that and have no experience to offer.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Dynasty,
I wouldn't get too hung up on a specific Mentor (Guru). You seem to have a number of real people to ask questions of and get advice from and then there is beesource.com. Take everything you read and hear from real tangible people and do what makes the most sense to you. You are the only one who needs to be pleased.

Mentors will come and go and in hind sight you will see who they were.


----------



## theriverhawk (Jun 5, 2009)

Just google around, check their websites and make some calls. I haven't purchased bees in some years. But I know they are out there. If I remember correctly, I think Norman Bee Farm in Alabama was one that hadn't treated in a while based on a phone conversation I had with them a few years ago. You can also "prove" this theory by reading MDA Splitters stuff about splits. His website is www.mdasplitter.com


----------



## CaBees (Nov 9, 2011)

Dynasty; how do you freeze the mites?

I'm a newbie too but am going to try it chem free although will probably do the powdered sugar testing. I am also going to practice catching swarms and not be devastated if my bees fail. (someone remind me of this when I cry...)


----------



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

Great, just read some from mdasplitter... bad idea, im a new to this, cant get that big of ideas on yr 1. I would most certainly fail.


----------



## CaBees (Nov 9, 2011)

??? ???


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

You freeze mites by putting a frame of drone foundation in your hive (these are sold by the supply companies and usually green for easy ID). The bees draw it out and because the cells are just slightly larger, the queen lays drones in every cell. The mites are highly attracted to drone brood, so they go there first. Once the cells are all capped you remove it (don't forget!) and put it in the freezer for ~48hrs, killing all the drone larvae and the mites in the cells. Remove from the freezer, thaw, scratch the caps open, and put it back into the hive for the bees to clean up and use again. You get rid of a lot of mites with no chemicals.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

sqkcrk said:


> They only hygenic behavior I am aware of regarding uncapping and removing is in relation to diseased larvae and pupae, not mite infested.


Mark -

When I regressed all my hives to SC, I observed this hygienic behavior for the first time ever. Pupae was not diseased. Mites were the only thing the bees were after and they would uncap and chew down to get the mites.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Libhart I understand you can feed the larvae and mites to your chickens if you have them. Chickens are like heat seaking missles when it come to insects. They are fascinating to watch pick off insects. OK so I have some time on my hands.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Hey Barry and Mark, Yes I did notice uncapped larva. I was not sure if it had been done by the bees or the yellow jackets late summer. But it looked just like your photos Barry.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

StevenG said:


> I have two colonies that are now 6 years old


What part of the colony is 6 years old?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

sweetacres said:


> I am on my 4th year and haven't put a single chemical on my hives.


Give it time  I truly wish you the best of luck, but 4 years a success story does not make. I had my heaviest (and total) loss five years after going treatment free.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

David LaFerney said:


> Michael Bush - highly respected, extremely helpful, extremely knowledgeable bee keeper gives lots of helpful informative information, here, on his web site, and in person on occasion.
> 
> Most of us probably know that he does treatment free, small cell, foundationless, all mediums (mostly 8 frame) right? I'll bet you that every year new bee keepers follow his lead and do treatment free, small cell, foundationless, all mediums - and some of them lose their bees in a year or two. Not because MBs system doesn't work - but because treatment free, small cell, foundationless, all mediums is not the sum total of his system - and they don't understand that.


So . . . what is the sum total of his system?

When it boils down to it, I have not met a treatment free beekeeper that is successful that has a system that transfers over to another's apiary. Mike and Sol don't use the same method. Both are successful. Several have tried Mike's method without success. I'm assuming others have tried Sol's method without success. When approached, the response is typical "Well, it works for me." Even though we arn't sure what exactly it is that worked.

My view of treatment free ATM is more like a shot in the dark. Based on your genetics, geographic location, surrounding hives, food sources, and management practices it might work. It might not. But if it doesn't, you can't figure out what to do to fix it. If it does work, you don't know what it was that worked.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> What part of the colony is 6 years old?


A six year old colony has existed without interruption from inception. Yes, they have requeened themselves. But bees have occupied that colony uninterrupted for six years. I number all my hives. When I have a dead out, I do a post-mortem, and store the equipment until I can use it again. That number is used again, but the records for the number are kept from the time it is first used. However, I make a distinction between those that have existed from inception, and those that have died out and been reused. 

Thus: colonies 1 and 2 are 6 years old; 3 is 4 years old; 5,6,7, and 8 are 3 years old. #4 doesn't count, because it was a die-out/abscond and replacement, and so forth. Hope that helps. 

So to those who say treatment free folks will lose their colonies in the second or third year, well, believe what you will, but I and others demonstrate that is not necessarily the case. Once again, get your bees from a bonafide treatment free breeder. That's my experience, ymmv.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Specialkayme said:


> I'm assuming others have tried Sol's method without success.


I only wrote it a couple months ago, so, probably not.


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

sure you can be treatment free but after 2-3 years your bees will crash and you have to start over.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> I only wrote it a couple months ago, so, probably not.


I don't know much about your method, but can you tell me what makes it distinct? What makes you certain no one has tried it before you? What makes you certain no one has done the same thing, using the same technique or method but been unsuccessful?

My comment was less to do with people following in your footsteps unsuccessfully than it was doing the same thing you did unsuccessfully (before, during, or after you).


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

StevenG said:


> But bees have occupied that colony uninterrupted for six years.


Exactly what part of the colony has occupied that hive for six years uninterrupted?

It wasn't the workers. It wasn't the queen. It wasn't the drones, or the microbes, or the bacteria. Have you kept the wax for six continuous and uninterrupted years? I hope not.

I could even ask you what part of the _hive_ has been occupied for six years uninterrupted, and my guess is you'd be hard pressed to find a part of it. I don't know how you manage your hives, but my guess is frames get removed (or added), bottom boards get cleaned, ect.

I'm not saying bees have not existed in the same location for six years without having a dead out. I'm saying the hive you had six years ago and the hive you have today are not the same thing. Different queen, different genetics, different parts, different workers . . . I can't think of one part of the *colony* (not the hive) that can occupy a hive uninterrupted for six years.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> Give it time  I truly wish you the best of luck, but 4 years a success story does not make. I had my heaviest (and total) loss five years after going treatment free.


If memory surves me right the only part of the treatment free program you got right was the not treating.

You didn't regress your bees like they suggest
You didn't use local survivor stock like they suggest
You didn't monitor for mites to know if you had a problem
You feed sugar to get the bees built back up for fall after not leaving them enough honey 
and your not even sure why they died.

Can't really blame the treatment free program when you don't follow the plan they have laid out.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>How do you think certain breeders got treatment-free bees? They had massive die-offs when the mites arrived, and they bred the survivors. They kept having die-offs and kept breeding the survivors without treating. Finally they got a bee that could survive the mite. 

I had 100% die from Varroa several times, at first not treating, and then treating. There were no survivors. I went to small cell and lost none to Varroa since and that was on commercial queens at first. I went to feral survivors for wintering not Varroa. That is also the experience of many other small cell beekeepers. Yes, I recommend local survivors, not for Varroa mites, but for acclimatization.

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

I lost a lot higher percent of bees treating on large cell than I ever have not treating on small cell.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> Exactly what part of the colony has occupied that hive for six years uninterrupted?
> 
> It wasn't the workers. It wasn't the queen. It wasn't the drones, or the microbes, or the bacteria. Have you kept the wax for six continuous and uninterrupted years? I hope not.
> 
> ...


Ok Specialkayme, I give up. You're right. I've failed. I've not kept bees in that hive for six years treatment free. And to those of you ignoring what some of us post, and continue to tell us, even in the face of evidence we present, that our bees will always crash after 2-3 years, you're correct. We're lying through our teeth. You're right, we can't do it. opcorn:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Michael, perhaps I should have qualified my comments about breeders and treatment free. What I reported was what was on the B. Weaver company's web site, how they got their bees to treatment free. I also wonder how some of the others got there? some treatments? No treatments? All I know is that for most of us, we don't have to pay that price. All we have to do is buy the bees that are the result of their sacrificial work. My hat is off to them, and I am grateful for all they've done, and continue to do. I also deeply respect and appreciate all you bring to this craft, and have learned much from reading your work. Keep it up!
Kindest regards,
Steven


----------



## jajtiii (Jul 11, 2008)

I am treatment free (I do use honey bee healthy, so it may depend on how you define it) and things are working well. I help folks start but always recommend that newbies simply focus on keeping their hives alive (always start with 2) for the first year. I personally believe that you can only implement a sustainable program if you have the resources to start a back-up Nuc or two in the Spring. You can't do that with a Nuc or package that you get that year (or, I say you 'shouldn't' to it).

So, I would advise you to simply focus on keeping your hives alive. For the most part, you probably won't have any major problems, but if you do, I recommend to treat. My goal is to keep you in the hobby and losing all of your hives won't do it (usually.)

If you need to treat for varroa or want to do some nosema treatments in the Fall in your first year, I encourage you to do so if there is good reason.

In year 2, you can start your sustainable program. It should involve a back-up Nuc or two in the Spring and maybe one in the Fall. I also recommend pulling the queen (if she is two years old) in about mid-flow of the third year and creating a Nuc with her (I believe all hives should go through a 'swarm condition' at least once every 3 years.

At any rate, I would not recommend to any of my mentee's to stick to a treatment free plan in their first year. Have that as a goal, but be ready to do what you have to in order to keep them alive.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

D Semple said:


> You didn't regress your bees like they suggest


Yes. I did. 

I went foundationless at the same time that I went treatment free. Per Mr. Bush's suggestion. I gave them six years (give or take) to regress. They actually drew out cells LARGER than foundation.

If you were suggesting that I didn't regress onto small cell, no one suggested that to me six years ago.



D Semple said:


> You didn't use local survivor stock like they suggest


Yes. I did.

I purchased stock from East TN from a guy that just didn't get into his hives for the past four or so years. Didn't have the time, and wanted out. The closest thing I could find to "local survivor" stock.



D Semple said:


> You didn't monitor for mites to know if you had a problem


Who suggested that six years ago?

Mr. Bush never did . . .



D Semple said:


> You feed sugar to get the bees built back up for fall after not leaving them enough honey


Not true. In 2011 I didn't harvest a drop of honey. Not one drop. 

In 2010 I harvested one super of honey. I left the rest to the bees.

In 2009 I harvested two frames of honey.

After that, when the bees didn't have enough stores to make it through the winter, yes I did feed sugar. I had no choice. I didn't take the honey, and they didn't have it.



D Semple said:


> and your not even sure why they died.


That one is true.



D Semple said:


> Can't really blame the treatment free program when you don't follow the plan they have laid out.


Who laid out a plan six years ago? Other than Mr. Bush and FatBeeMan?

I did what I did based on Mr. Bush's advice and website. Most of the treatment free beeks that are preaching a method now were not around six years ago, or if they were they were not suggesting a method. Sol is a good example. He started treatment free shortly before me (if memory serves), but didn't start communication what works for him until a year or two ago (if memory serves me). Either way, it wasn't six years ago.

I did treatment free based on the information that was available at the time. It didn't work. So you blame the person who tried the experiment. That's typical treatment free mentality. If you don't like the results, there is something wrong with the method or the person.



D Semple said:


> If memory surves me right


With all do respect (and I do mean that, I have alot of respect for you), your memory does not serve you.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jajtiii said:


> My goal is to keep you in the hobby and losing all of your hives won't do it (usually.)


It will if you only start with one hive because if you lose that hive all you lost is the bees. And then when you get new bees you have resources (wax and honey) and those new bees will take off like a rocket. You guys like experience well I am speaking from experience.

Now if you want to take the scenario of going to work for a commercial operation and then start your own apiary well then sure start with ten or more hives. You have already learned how to do it and maybe even made mistakes on someone else's nickle.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> Who laid out a plan six years ago? Other than Mr. Bush and FatBeeMan?


The plan was laid out in 2000. The Lusby's have had their information available since then. A discussion group was formed as well (Biobee). I have all the archives if you would like to read them. Dennis Murrell has openly shared his work as well over the years. It may not be in a "spoon fed" fashion, but for anyone that has interest in this, it's all there.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>You didn't monitor for mites to know if you had a problem
>Who suggested that six years ago?
>Mr. Bush never did . . .

Here are few times I did and I can come up with hundreds more if you like...

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...i-need-to-give-to-my-hive&p=256736#post256736

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?200717-Treatment-List-Timeline&p=143496#post143496

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?197632-mysterious-hive-failure&p=112115#post112115

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?201091-mite-resistance&p=147501#post147501

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?186304-lost-my-hives-again!-HELP!!&p=10002#post10002

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?200368-monitoring-mite-fall&p=139464#post139464

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?200481-Dying-queens&p=140495#post140495

But I also have said you need to get to 4.9mm in the core of the broodnest, which apparently never happened.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> But I also have said you need to get to 4.9mm in the core of the broodnest, which apparently never happened.


Ross Conrad is trying to regress some of his hives to small cell as a trial. The question he wanted me to ask was about regressing on natural cell. He said you use foundation because you have to force the bees to regress. If you let them build their own they will just build comb the same size that they were raised on. Do you agree with that statement?

BTW Ross did not include small cell as a means to go treatment free. He says the jury is still out on that for him.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> I did treatment free based on the information that was available at the time. It didn't work. So you blame the person who tried the experiment. That's typical treatment free mentality. If you don't like the results, there is something wrong with the method or the person.


I'm not blaming you I like you, you’re a nice guy who cares and feels for his bees and family. And, I can sympathize with your loses, we all hate losing hives, it hurts. I've lost 3 this winter so far and I can blame them all on stupid management mistakes on my part (one died from a late season queen supercedure that didn't take, one from varroa, and one from starvation). I just think your still hurting and putting the blame where it doesn't belong.

In my day job I'm a production and project manager. Basically I'm paid to execute other people's plans, or figure out why their plans are not working and make whatever changes are necessary. Critical components of every successful plan include: Goals, education, planning, implementation, execution, monitoring, and evaluation. Your treatment free experiment broke down in several areas and it's hard to say which is the factor most at fault. Hey life is about learning, we all make mistakes it happens. 

Just for the record while I aspire to be a treatment free guy someday, I'm an IPM beekeeper right now. 

Don


----------



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

so i was reading the mdasplitter website, and am curious about the new queen in july in order to outbread the mites. anyone here do this?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> The plan was laid out in 2000. The Lusby's have had their information available since then.


Sorry Barry. I was unaware that Lusby was "the plan." I'll concede that her information was available before I started.

I guess I just don't really understand what "the plan" is though. You have several different treatment free people operating in very different ways (successfully) and each of them has a different "plan." Lusby (and Sol, who's plans are very similar, if I understand correctly), Weaver (the treatment free one, I can't remember if it was B or R), FatBeeMan (although you could claim he isn't "treatment free"), and Mr. Bush all operate different "plans." While some have similar components, none are identical. Some are radically different. So if no two treatment free plans are identical, how can you follow "the plan"?

This is how I see it. You have Beekeeper A (or "A"). A starts treatment free, and is successful. A develops a plan. Follow the plan and you'll be set, A says. Although, A doesn't know why the plan works. But screw it, A says, it works. So along comes Beekeeper B (or "B"). B tries A's plan, and it doesn't work. B makes his own treatment free plan. B is successful. Follow B's plan and you'll be set, B says. B doesn't know why the plan works, nor do they know why A's plan works for A (even though the two are different) or why A didn't work for B. Screw it, B says, it works, and we don't care why. Along comes Beekeeper C (or "C"). C tries A's plan. It doesn't work. You didn't follow my plan well enough, says A. So C tries B's plan. It doesn't work. You didn't follow my plan well enough, B says. Neither A nor B understands why their plan doesn't work for C, so the blame must be on the only variable . . . C himself (or herself). A and B blame C, even though A's plan didn't work for B either. C starts their own plan, and is successful. And so on . . . 

Neither A, B, nor C understands why what they are doing works. And they don't care. They can't explain why A works for A, but won't work for C. But they don't care, because it worked for A, so there must be something wrong with C. 

That just doesn't make logical sense to me. Maybe I'm over rationalizing though . . .


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Here are few times I did and I can come up with hundreds more if you like...


I stand corrected.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

D Semple said:


> I just think your still hurting and putting the blame where it doesn't belong.


That might be so. I don't know.

The entire treatment free community is frustrating to me. If you do what someone tells you to do, and it works, great. You are looked at as if you did what you were supposed to do, and if you didn't you would have been stoned. Congratulations Dummy. If you follow the plan, and it doesn't work, the plan is proven so it must be you that are too stupid to follow it. Congratulations Dummy, you're too slow to follow the simple plan. 

Nevermind that the plan has failed for numerous others. Nevermind that A's plan doesn't work for B, and B's plan doesn't work for A. If it doesn't work for you, there must be something wrong with you.

I'm not discounting treatment free. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying it isn't like everyone makes it out to be. It isn't like I wake up Tuesday morning, grab a treatment free nuc with a treatment free queen and stick it on my back portch and TADA! I have a treatment free apiary. If that's what you think treatment free is, that's asinine. 

Now, going from there to the end is the challenge. Sorting through the crud inbetween is the difficult part. There is so much advice out there, that all conflicts with other advice.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I think the answer is that success is defined as each beekeeper is happy with the results that they are getting. Anyone that does EXACTLY as each individuals plan is laid out may not be happy with the results. Typically people try to mix and match and that is not EXACT to anything. To me requeening is no different than buying a new hive every year. The costs may be different. Others may not see it that way. Doing splits is a form of requeening. The solution for you is to come up with your own plan that will make you happy whether it is treatment free or not. I am working on mine.


----------



## CaBees (Nov 9, 2011)

As a newbie I appreciate all of the sharing of information; results from everyone. To me, part of the fun is the journey...the ups and the downs and it is only thru the willinginess of others to try and share both that "I" have a hint of what to do (or not do) if that makes sense. Nature doesn't know 'wrong' or 'right'..she only knows the ebb and tides of populations...ups and downs and no matter how much we may try to manipulate them, she will always have her way. Her method for survival and prosperity appears to be swarming...leave the old brood (and disease) behind and up to now it has worked. I think we should strive to respect each other's methods and ideas; share our knowledge and just take with us what makes sense to us to do.

BTW, I am a horseperson, and I though horse training was full of hard opinions! Ha, ha...bee keepers have them beat!


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Specialkayme, I understand your frustration. Before reentering beekeeping I subscribed to both journals and researched for a year. That was when I found out about mites and the small hive beetle. I researched treatment free, and discovered this web site, which has been a blessing. Learning about the evolving resistance to chemicals in the mites, I decided to go treatment free.

I discovered two sources of treatment free bees, and read their websites - B. Weaver and Purvis. I bought bees and queens from both. I did not treat, and the bees survived. I read about MnHyg bees, bought some... forgot to ask the breeder how he protected from the mites. When I picked them up, I found out he used "soft" treatments. The MnHyg didn't make it. They struggled, and I replaced them with Weaver queens. They survived. I suspect that not all breeders who sell "treatment free" bees are really treatment free...and some who sell "surivivor bees" treat to some degree, to assure survival. Personally I have found it wise to ask, before I buy, "What do you give your bees to keep them alive?" It reveals quite a bit.

I have a steak dinner wager with Ted K that within ten years we'll have mite resistant (survivor?) bees. He says no, I think so. Seems like each year we see more and more beekeepers having success with treatment free. I don't know if it's my imagination or not, but breeders seem to be responding. Mainly because it is in their own economic self-interest to have a bee that can survive the mites. 

Rightly or wrongly, I think in 5 years beekeeping will look different than it does today, vis-a-vis the mites, and it will be better. No consolation to those struggling now, and losing large percentages of their colonies.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

There are too many variables to try and stick to just ONE plan. You have to be flexible. What would I rather have live bees and a small sin here or there on treatment free or dead bees and perfect treatment free religion. I do my best to be treatment free, in almost 10 years there have been no antibiotics in my hives, no apistan, no checkmite, or any of the HARDER treatments. As I mentioned in another thread if I start to see DWV then I hit them 3 weeks in a row with oxalic vapors. That is maybe every couple 2 or 3 years. I am also foundationless if that matters. If my bees are about to starve I give them some sugar, is that a treatment, some would say yes. I'll tell you this though, I lost no bees last winter and knock on a hivebody so far this year none have been lost. BTW my bees are mutts, some NWC probably left in them, the rest are from swarms or cut outs.

Rod


----------



## Supertad (Oct 27, 2011)

I'm a rookie so can't comment, this will be my second spring treatment free. The original queens were also treatment free. So far so good. Very little mite counts. All hives currently with heavy activity. Let you know if they make it. Someone stated that it will be next spring that they may succumb. Me hopes I'm breading those mite resistant queens. 

Sounds like these treatment-free queens could soon become a commodity.


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

I went treatment free last year and lost both hives. Mites were a contributing factor in one loss, along with a poor queen; the other went queenless with a moderate mite load. Both were early packages that came with poorly mated queens.

I am a slightly less new newbee this year, up to four hives for insurance and diversity. I plan to keep my bees alive. To me that means that if mite loads are moderate to high, I treat. If nosema is in evidence or detected by the local lab, I treat. If my bees are doing well, I don't treat.

I suspect the reason that new folks don't succeed going treatment free is that perhaps 90% of package bees will ultimately die without treatment. Experienced beekeepers know how to treat hives that need treating and split hives that don't, until their operation is both treatment free and has low losses. New beekeepers who have less than 10 hives and refuse to treat are setting themselves up for failure, unless the bees are descended from a local treatment-free operation.

Mark


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

rweakley said:


> As I mentioned in another thread if I start to see DWV then I hit them 3 weeks in a row with oxalic vapors.


You don't feel this is a hard chemical?



> New beekeepers who have less than 10 hives and refuse to treat are setting themselves up for failure, unless the bees are descended from a local treatment-free operation.


It is all in how you want to look at it. If you want to be treatment free and you decide to treat then you failed to be treatment free. I don't see any grey area here. If you want to be treatment free and your bees last one year, two years, three years then you need a plan on replacing them as they die. Why is that not successful?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

rweakley said:


> There are too many variables to try and stick to just ONE plan. You have to be flexible.


That's exactly my point though. If you are flexible, and modify your plan to accommodate the better part of a few other plans, and you fail, you are yelled at for not sticking to "the plan." Whatever that is.

I had a conversation about treatment free a few months back with Sol on here (I don't remember what thread it was in). Sol told me to switch to small cell. I said I was operating natural comb (foundationless) and treatment free, and it wasn't working. That's what Mr. Bush (And several others, not just on you Mike) have done. Sol then told me to either switch to small cell, or it wouldn't work. When I asked about other options, I was told (by not just him) the only way it would work was to switch to small cell. Having not switched, and losing my hives, I'm told that I didn't follow "the plan."

If you are flexible, you are taking a shot in the dark. When you fail you are labeled a horrible beekeeper. If you are not flexible and choose one plan, you are essentially picking a horse at the race track. Get ready, because in five years you find out if your horse wins. And they don't all win.

If going treatment free is akin to either taking a blindfolded shot in the dark or picking a horse at random, I think I'd rather find a different option.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Acebird said:


> If you want to be treatment free and your bees last one year, two years, three years then you need a plan on replacing them as they die. Why is that not successful?


When the plan involves replacing them as they die from splits, that makes sense. When your losses are so high and you can't split enough to make up your loss, you have to result in buying hives. Bought hives can't always be split (depending on the time of year, and what you buy). That reduces your chances of having the same number next year. Which means you have to buy in more next year. It's a vicious cycle.

If the plan is to buy hives every year, and that's what you consider to be successful, I don't want to be successful.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Being successful treatment free must, at a minimum, be sustainable. Sustainable, means you do not have to resort to buying bees or catching swarms, to maintain hive numbers. EG, if simply not treating, and buying more bees to maintain numbers, that is not sustainable, or, in my books, successful.

However, being sustainable is really a "bottom line", a minimum starting point. Achieving other goals such as production, profitability, etc is where you can really define success. A commercial beekeeper, treatment free or not, will in the end, define success by his bank balance. If he maintained hive numbers, but did not also make a profit, he would call that year a failure. It would not be sustainable to him because eventually he would go broke.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

I don't think there is any one single way to be treatment free. In addition, I wonder how many beeks lose hives "treatment free" and think they lost the hives because they were treatment free, when the hive succumbed to other causes? Nowadays, as mentioned, flexibility is the key. 

In running the risk of being labeled one who believes "My way or the highway," which I don't mean to do or be, it seems to me the best way of maximizing success in being treatment free is to acquire bees (or queens for splits and requeening) that are treatment free from the breeder. There are several out there now that sell first class bees, that truly do not need to be treated. 

When I restarted in beekeeping, I went with standard foundation. Treatment free bees from B. Weaver. Six years now, standard foundation or foundationless, no treatments. All I'm saying is what works for me, may not for you. But Weavers don't use small cell (that question was asked and answered by them on another thread) and they have become rather successful in their treatment free operation.

I think R. Russell also sells treatment free bees, and there are several others. Seek, and ye shall find.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Oldtimer, that is so true! Not only must we keep our hive numbers up, but we must also at bare minimum cover expenses, and hopefully make a little "traveling money!" At least that's my goal, as I near retirement....I tell my wife our investment in the bees will give us money to travel. So far she's bought it. Now all I gotta do is "just do it." 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ha Ha! 

Well based on what I've read Steven, plus a personal recommendation from a commercial beek who knows you, I believe you are one of the most successful TF beeks out there. however you are also something of an enigma! , because you don't use small cell, something most others appear to see as essential.

All this goes to support some of what Specialkayme has said, about the plan, and just what is it? In the last few posts Steven you've clearly outlined your plan, anyway. Hopefully others will try it and let's see how they succeed. Me, "survivor" bees don't exist here, so I'm trying the small cell route.

But it would be great if someone could say, do this, and it WILL work. We don't quite seem to have got to that point yet.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> However, being sustainable is really a "bottom line", a minimum starting point. Achieving other goals such as production, profitability, etc is where you can really define success.


So if I am a commercial operation and dump my bees every year and make a ton of money at it I am successful (because of my bank balance). But if I am a hobbyist and my bees die every year I am a failure? What if I give my bees away, oh wait I will sell them for a profit, so I can buy new bees in the spring? Now I am successful. Now I get it. I have to sell them.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> Sorry Barry. I was unaware that Lusby was "the plan." I'll concede that her information was available before I started.


Yep, it all started with them, so I'd call it "the plan."



> That just doesn't make logical sense to me. Maybe I'm over rationalizing though . . .


I think you are. Even treatment beekeeping isn't a single "plan." Beekeeping varies widely. Make it work for you.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes well fair enough argument Acebird. Problem with using a word like success, is defining it. A commercial beek who makes money but kills all his bees every year would be successful at making money. He might even be able to claim success at being a sustainable operation long as somebody else is always there to sustainably supply him. But he would not be successful at sustainably running a beehive.

Definitions and semantics might be why so many here claim they are successful LOL! 


Me, I think the word gets bandied around, defined, and redefined, a little too much.


----------



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

Well what i will consider success would be to still have bees next year. Any way i can get to that, i will do wether it be from treating or not. 

Sustainability i suppose is my actual goal, but im sure i will murder my fair share of bees before i attain it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> But he would not be successful at sustainably running a beehive.


Correct me If I am wrong but the average life of a bee is 6 weeks to 6 months (maybe stretching it). So 9 months is a pretty good goal.

You can correct me again but I think most commercial beekeepers requeen once or twice a year. If they make their own queens or use somebody else's does it matter? Now if you want to think globally are bees sustainable then I think you have to give credit to the people who buy queens both commercial and hobbyist because they create the demand and it is the demand for the queens that causes breeders either backyard or commercial to create the supply (the reason why we have more bees). Without the demand for bees the supply would dwindle.
What is your definition of successful beekeeping? How long will you keep a hive before its queen is replaced by any means. If the queen is replaced it is a new colony, right?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Acebird said:


> You can correct me again but I think most commercial beekeepers requeen once or twice a year.


I'm not a commercial beekeeper, but I was NOT under this impression. 

I've been told that some not so successful commercial beekeepers requeen once a year, I can't imagine anyone requeening twice a year, although I've been wrong before . . .


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Will someone please correct Acebirds assumptions and inaccuracies, I'm not up to it.


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

waste of time.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> Will someone please correct Acebirds assumptions and inaccuracies, I'm not up to it.


Yeah, let's not.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> Will someone please correct Acebirds assumptions and inaccuracies, I'm not up to it.


You top contributors should do your own house cleaning... "AB" like MB and MP is nearing the Beesource Summit.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Ross Conrad is trying to regress some of his hives to small cell as a trial. The question he wanted me to ask was about regressing on natural cell. He said you use foundation because you have to force the bees to regress. If you let them build their own they will just build comb the same size that they were raised on. Do you agree with that statement?

Yes and no. They tend to build comb using their body for measurements, but they also have some instincts as to the right size. With natural comb they usually will go smaller than they were, but not all at once.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatisregression

How small and how fast seem to depend on a lot of factors and varies quite a bit. I've had some package bees that would drawn foundationless 4.7mm on the first try and others who would only build 5.2mm on the first try.

>BTW Ross did not include small cell as a means to go treatment free. He says the jury is still out on that for him. 

I don't think that Ross is treatment free. Since he hasn't regressed them, and stopped treating, I'm sure the jury is still out for him.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ace, wether a beehive is the same hive 2 years later is a matter of opinion.

You can use yourself as an illustration of this. Experts say that your skin replaces itself 3 times per year. Most other parts of your body are also replaced over various periods of time. So. Do you think you are the same person you were ten years ago? Essentially, not much of you is. However, if the police caught up with you for some crime you had committed ten years ago, you would be hard pressed trying to explain to them that the Acebird who committed the crime was different to the Acebird they have now. They would say you are the same.

So it is with bees. A hive is an organism that is constantly replacing itself, both in terms of the bees, and to some extent the other components such as the comb. So two years later it is still the same hive, but it is also a different hive.


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

Acebird said:


> You don't feel this is a hard chemical?
> 
> 
> No I don't feel that is a hard chemical. You may think so, but I don't really care what people on here think as far as that goes. I don't run my beehives based on what one person on beesource thinks. I take from everyones knowledge and then use what make sense to me. You could test my frames and my honey and you won't find any more than background noise of oxalic acid (and as an added protection, based on an abundance of caution I don't treat when the supers are on). Can anyone say the same for checkmite or apistan? There is no proof that properly applied oxalic acid vapors is harmful to the bees or humans so that to me makes it a soft treatment.
> ...


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Specialkayme said:


> I'm not a commercial beekeeper, but I was NOT under this impression.
> 
> I've been told that some not so successful commercial beekeepers requeen once a year, I can't imagine anyone requeening twice a year, although I've been wrong before . . .


I have heard a few unconfirmed reports of requeening more than once a year, I can't imagine why you would though. Are you suggesting that there is some direct relationship between an annual requeening program and a lack of "success" in beekeeping or........what?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

No he wasn't.

In these types of discussions some things get lost in the circuitousness. 

He was responding to the previous claim by someone else that commercial beekeepers requeen once to twice per year. (Aint it funny how this, once said, keeps being repeated!). In answer, SK was saying he did not agree with this claim, but he also stressed that he is not a commercial beek.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?251557-Requeen-twice-a-year&highlight=queen+year

That would be Joe Traynor.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Eureka! And I was right in the middle of that conversation. I must have been lost in the errrr what was that word OT used circuitry? . Anyway I don't care who advocates it, I can't imagine why anyone would go to the work of doing it. Seems like you would lose more queens in the introductions than would ever go bad after 6 months.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> Are you suggesting that there is some direct relationship between an annual requeening program and a lack of "success" in beekeeping


No. 



Oldtimer said:


> In answer, SK was saying he did not agree with this claim, but he also stressed that he is not a commercial beek.


Correct.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

rweakley said:


> Acebird said:
> 
> 
> > There is no proof that properly applied oxalic acid vapors is harmful to the bees or humans so that to me makes it a soft treatment.
> ...


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

jim lyon said:


> Are you suggesting that there is some direct relationship between an annual requeening program and a lack of "success" in beekeeping or........what?


I would, but that's just me. Not talking about commercials.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Double standard?


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

The main goal of learning to be a bee keeper is #1 Keep the bees alive. Is it a double standard to define success differently for a beekeeper who has achieved some degree of mastery?

Way back when I had art teachers who were actual artists I was told that what looked like random smears of color actually were art when an accomplished artist created it, but not so much when a primary schooler did it. What is the difference? The artist has mastery of the medium and creates according to his intent. The child is just noodling around to see what happens.

If your bees die, and you chalk it up as a learning experience then that can be called a success I suppose. But if you just can't be bothered to learn to keep them alive, then I don't see how you or anyone else is going to consider you a successful bee keeper. If you can make money while being unable to keep them alive, then maybe you can be a successful businessman.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I wish there was more of a double standard between commercials and hobbyists. Hobbyists have plenty to look up to, but they're wasting their time if they want to do things like commercials. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with commercials, I'm saying cattle drives should be saved for guys with a bunch of beef cows and horses to drive them and not somebody who owns ol' Bessie in the back forty. Embrace the concept of what's appropriate to the conditions.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If a 100% requeening program leads to less colony mortality and good honey crops, how is that not successful businesswise. I bet Honeywhat's his name considers himself successful and he sells all of his bees each year and gets packages every spring. Now that is requeening to the max. Gonna argue w/ his bottom line?

Whereas there may be some beekeepers, like Dave Mendes, who find a need to requeen twice a year, I know no one else who does that. I would not call it a common practice. Were we to successfully Poll all of the largest commercial beekeepers I doubt that we would find a large percent who requeen twice a year.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

We already have, and you are correct.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Truth is, if I just had a few hives and could spend more time per hive I would not requeen every year. On a larger scale, though, it's more of a numbers game. The potential of maybe 10 to 20% losses on second year queens can add up, so we just treat them all the same the one time of year when we have the right conditions to raise our own queens.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

David LaFerney said:


> The main goal of learning to be a bee keeper is #1 Keep the bees alive.


OK now we know your main goal. What if your main goal was to pollinate your gardens so you sold your bees off every fall when you didn't need them and bought a new hive in the spring.
Don't pollination contracts run 100-150 per hive? Couldn't I sell a full size hive for that? I know I can buy a nuc for 70 so why should I run the risk of getting them through winter?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yes Acebird, they do and more.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

"What if", huh?
What if it always flowed and it never got cold, 
and the mites and diseases were gone.
Where there ain't no snow
Where the sleet don't fall
And the winds don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountain.



Acebird said:


> OK now we know your main goal. What if your main goal was to pollinate your gardens so you sold your bees off every fall when you didn't need them and bought a new hive in the spring.
> Don't pollination contracts run 100-150 per hive? Couldn't I sell a full size hive for that? I know I can buy a nuc for 70 so why should I run the risk of getting them through winter?


Well, if that's your goal, you shouldn't.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

You guys just crack me up,LOL


----------



## THALL (Apr 6, 2010)

Acebird said:


> Correct me If I am wrong but the average life of a bee is 6 weeks to 6 months (maybe stretching it). So 9 months is a pretty good goal.
> 
> You can correct me again but I think most commercial beekeepers requeen once or twice a year. If they make their own queens or use somebody else's does it matter? Now if you want to think globally are bees sustainable then I think you have to give credit to the people who buy queens both commercial and hobbyist because they create the demand and it is the demand for the queens that causes breeders either backyard or commercial to create the supply (the reason why we have more bees). Without the demand for bees the supply would dwindle.
> What is your definition of successful beekeeping? How long will you keep a hive before its queen is replaced by any means. If the queen is replaced it is a new colony, right?


Thinking that demand creates supply is a flawed Keynesian economic theory, the results lie in what we have for a economy today. Says Law lays it out nicely, demand is infinite, in thinking demand creates supply you negate the whole role of production in a economy. You first must produce something for there to be a demand. "products are paid for with products".


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Let's keep politics in Tailgater please.


----------



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

This is interesting, I prefer the supply side economy..........

I think we should start betting on the number of pages it takes for topics to be derailed from the initial point.. actually, any time i see a new post I'm just goint to post a +/-3 14(posts) and then start taking the bets  Then we can have prop bets to see who is the one to derail the topic.


----------



## THALL (Apr 6, 2010)

My apologies for taking the discussion off topic, couldn't help myself.


----------



## Dynasty (Sep 25, 2011)

huh? it got of topic? where???:scratch:


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Solomon Parker said:


> Hobbyists have plenty to look up to, but they're wasting their time if they want to do things like commercials.


Oh come on. When I sell nucs & hives to hobbyists, I teach them if I can, to do things exactly like commercials. The ones who follow the plan, are the ones who get a good honey crop, don't lose their hive, don't accidentally kill their queen, etc. In other words, in my opinion, they are the most successful.

Of course some of the extreme commercial practises, like say, killing your bees in winter, feeding drugs etc are not done in my country anyway, but even so if a hobby beekeeper at least understands these practises and the rationale, and the options, he / she will likely be a more successful hobbyist.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> I don't think that Ross is treatment free. Since he hasn't regressed them, and stopped treating, I'm sure the jury is still out for him.


Michael, somehow I missed your reply. I don't think Ross is treatment free but his class was about keeping bees organically. I not even sure how religious he is about that. He gave all options of treatment whether he would do it or not.

Let's suppose you got your bees regressed down to 4.9 and then your queen died or you had to replace her and she wasn't a relative of the hive, would it be like starting over? Is it pointless to try and regress if you are buying queens and nucs?


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Acebird said:


> Don't pollination contracts run 100-150 per hive? Couldn't I sell a full size hive for that? I know I can buy a nuc for 70 so why should I run the risk of getting them through winter?


That would be true.... Why don't you take a truck load of nucs out to California? I think almond pollination season is like next week. Oh, wait - *they don't want nucs for pollination*, they want nice strong full sized hives.

I stand by my statement, and I'll raise it - The #1 goal of anyone learning any branch of animal husbandry is to learn to keep the livestock alive. If that isn't your goal, then you don't want to be a bee keeper by any reasonable definition. There might be other words for people that, but it wouldn't be bee keeper. If all you want is garden pollination, then save yourself a lot of expense, and find a *BEEKEEPER* who will put a hive in your yard.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Would he do it for free? Just asking. Would he give me 15 pounds of honey and do it for free? I want to explore all my options.

Hmm, let me think about this... How many animals get slaughtered to feed humans? Are the farmers that raise them trying to keep them alive? Well yeah. For how long? Anything even close to their life expectancy. Must be a lot of Failures out there.

What's in a name? If you don't want to call me a beekeeper, I am OK with that. As a matter of fact I don't care what you call me. It is just a name.

Who said anything about selling nucs anyway? I said sell a fully developed hive in the fall. Maybe to someone who can come on Beesource and learn how to bomb it with chemicals, pump it full of syrup and get it through the winter so they can do all the things you could learn on Beesource that will make them a full fledge beekeeper. I'll even deliver it and I can assure them that there was never any chemicals put in the hive if they want to continue that plan.

Maybe my proposed plan is not a normal plan but it is treatment free and any newbie can do it. They will just have to get used to being call names or not being labeled as a "beekeeper".


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Let's suppose you got your bees regressed down to 4.9 and then your queen died or you had to replace her and she wasn't a relative of the hive, would it be like starting over?

Genetically? No, the local ferals have the genes you want.

> Is it pointless to try and regress if you are buying queens and nucs? 

I see no connection. Regression is getting them down to 4.9mm cell size. That is what resolved my Varroa issues. Not genetics. Do I think it's wise to be buying queens and nucs that aren't local? No, I don't, but that has nothing to do with treatments, it has to do with wintering ability.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Sorry Michael, I am not totally clear on your answer.

Is small cell genetically carried over once you get the hive regressed down? So if I split the hive the new one would produce small cell for instance. On the other hand if I replaced the queen from joe blow the hive would then go back to making bigger cells.

Not really knowing what is really feral stock catching swarms may not produce small cell. Is that correct?


----------



## oblib (Oct 28, 2011)

Ace, he is saying the bees build cells based on their (the bee) size. So once regressed they will build small cell when you split. The large bees want to build small cell but sometimes can't due to their(again the bees) size so they often build a middle size in the 5.1 range. It is not really genetics as much as a function of using their own front legs as a measuring stick for making the cells.

Remember, I'm just a newbie and the above is only saying what I've read from MB and others not from my own experiance.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

You could be 100% right but it is hard for me to fathom how they ever got the bee to get bigger if there wasn't any genitcs involved. Oh wait maybe they fed them junk food.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

oblib said:


> Ace, he is saying the bees build cells based on their (the bee) size. So once regressed they will build small cell when you split.


So, are you saying, or Michael Bush actually, that if I took a smallcell colony of bees and split them, putting half into another hive, allowing them to build comb w/out any foundation, they will build smallcell comb?

What if they were shaken into an empty box?

"using their front legs as a measuring stick"? Interesting. I never even wondered about how bees determined cell size.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Mark, why don't you try it, you can be a commercial AND a hobbyist!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I am, I am.

Try what? Small cell beekeeping? Treatmentfree beekeeping?

Before I spent a ton of dimes getting a Beekeeping Degree I was a Hobbyist. I don't think I can go back. Only forward.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> I am, I am.
> 
> Try what? Small cell beekeeping? Treatmentfree beekeeping?


Don, the fat beeman would be delighted to sell you a pair of small cell medium nucs. 

To start as a hobbyist, I wouldn't recommend buying a kit...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BeeCurious said:


> To start as a hobbyist, I wouldn't recommend buying a kit...


Explain what a "kit" is and its cost. Please.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> Explain what a "kit" is and its cost. Please.


Look it up!


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Before I spent a ton of dimes getting a Beekeeping Degree I was a Hobbyist.


A Bachelors Mark?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Ace, this is what I woudl think is begin referred to as a kit. Even if it's not it's a better answer to your request than what you got. As rule though I woudl agree that kits are usually a waste of money. to many components end up not being what you would choose as a personal preference and get replaced.
http://www.betterbee.com/Products/10-Frame-Hives/Assembled-10-Frame-Beginners-Kit


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Specialkayme said:


> A Bachelors Mark?


An Associate of Applied Sciences Degree from Ohio State University's Agricultural Technical Institute of Wooster, OH. Don't be too impressed please.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird knows what a kit is. He is simply being "Acebird"!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

That is what I thought a kit was but I don't see how it has a reference to Don the fat beeman or to this thread. Sorry for asking the question.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> That is what I thought a kit was but I don't see how it has a reference to Don the fat beeman or to this thread. Sorry for asking the question.


It was in continuing the joking about Mark becoming a hobbyist...


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Don't be too impressed please.


Lol, I find practical experience more impressive . . . 

Just wasn't sure if you were one of those quiet PhD types.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

If an egg is hatched and pupates in a small cell, it will be a small bee. If hatched in a large cell, it will be a large bee. This is true even if they are sisters, both laid by the same queen.
=================

Bees use their bodies to measure the size of cell they are making. Size of foundation (if any), influences cell size as well.

With no foundation, bees hatched from large cells usually make *slightly* smaller cells...but not what we call small (<4.9mm for worker) cells. 
It normally takes several cycles of bees becoming progressively smaller to be small cell. 

So if you put big bees on foundationless frames, you get slightly smaller cells (but still not yet 'small cell' 4.9mm cells), and slightly smaller bees (because the cells are smaller). 
Any bees hatched from the same cells that they are will be about the same size that they are.
If you don't want the next generation to be that same intermediate size, make sure the queen does not lay in these intermediate sized cells (remove them).

Those slightly smaller bees will make cells slightly smaller still (but not usually as small as 4.9mm). 
So you get bees closer to the "small cell" size but not quite there yet.
Without the influence of small cell foundation you have to go through thes regression steps several times to have small cell brood comb that produces small cell bees.

If you use 4.9 mm foundation on "big" bees hatched on standard 5.4mm foundation, they usually won't draw out our 4.9mm small cell, as their bodies are too big. 
That is why regression on foundation normally is two steps: 
Standard size bees on 5.1mm foundation, then (removing the 5.1mm brood comb) using 4.9mm foundation for those 5.1mm bees to draw small cell comb on.

If standard sized (5.4mm) bees have 4.9mm small brood comb for their queen to lay in, whether it is natural small brood comb or plastic COMB, all of her worker daughters will be small - the cell doesn't give them room to grow bigger.

Summary:
Big cells = big bees, small cell = small bees. Bees are the size of the cells they hatch from.

It takes more then one step to go from bees hatched on large cell comb to bees drawing small cell brood comb.

Big bees, no foundation = a lot of steps and tearing out or removing from brood nest of intermediate, progressively (slightly) smaller cells. 

Big bees, small foundation = similar to big bees w/ foundationless but not quite so many regression steps.

Big bees, 5.1mm foundation = a big step toward small cell. 
Faster route than both no foundation and small foundation (as the big bees can't draw as small as 4.9 normally and ignore the small cell imprint on the smaller foundation).
When the workers hatch out of 5.1mm cells if you remove the brood comb they hatch from and use 4.9mm foundation you will get 'small cell' 4.9mm cells and bees.

Cell dimensions cited are approximate.

I hope that this is helpful.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Specialkayme said:


> Lol, I find practical experience more impressive . . .
> 
> Just wasn't sure if you were one of those quiet PhD types.


Well, you surely can see I am not quiet. But I know what you mean.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Beregondo said:


> I hope that this is helpful.


Yes, it was. My question was inspired by someone who mentioned bees using their front legs to measure the cells they build. It caused me to be curious about this idea.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Very helpful, thanks.

One might think that someone like MB could get a premium for packaged bees that come from small cell and sold to a newbie that wants to be treatment free from the start. If the logic is that the queen makes no difference. All the newbie has to do is insure that they provide small cell foundation or comb and that is only in the brood chamber. Would it be a good idea to have at least one frame set up for drones?

The wheels are turning...


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

> If the logic is that the queen makes no difference.


The queens are of no importance in having "treatment free" colonies?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

The queen makes no difference for making regressed bees.
Regressed bees = mite control
Mite control is one big step in treetment free. Assuming regressed bees is not considered a "treatment".


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Regressed bees = mite control


I don't believe that theory is widely believed and accepted.

Many, from what I've heard, believe regressed bees are only one part of sufficient mite control. Lusby suggested efficient mite control was 1/3rd cell size, 1/3rd genetics, and 1/3rd clean wax.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Well, you surely can see I am not quiet.


Lol, I was referring more to your education. We all know you arn't quiet on anything else,


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't think that small cells = mite control.
I do note, though, that almost everyone I've heard of that is successfully running a treatment free apiary is small cell.

Other observations:
I think one improves his chances by cutting out a colony known to have survived for several years without treatment.

(I know that there is one commenter to this thread who will say a colony doesn't live for 4 or 6 years or whatever, but that's ok. Even though no part of my body is 50 years old, I am. Same principle applies with the super-organism that is a bee colony.)

You might not get small cell bees from such a cutout, but then again you might. I have in the past.
And any feral (that is untended, wild for a few generations) bees that swarm are prospering well enough without treatment to swarm.

Not all swarms of small bees are 'feral' as I use the word, but most are.
And bees that are not dependent on miticides or drugs are cheaper to keep, and more likely to produce increase colonies that don't need poisons or drugs to prosper.

I understand these statements might be controversial.
Common sense and sound judgment often are.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Very helpful, thanks.
> 
> One might think that someone like MB


I assume you are refering to Mark Berninghausen when you write "MB".


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Beregondo said:


> I do note, though, that almost everyone I've heard of that is successfully running a treatment free apiary is small cell.


Two of the largest examples of people who are not using small cell in treatment free are B Weaver and Russell Apiaries. Just pointing to two successful, large cell, treatment free operations.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Beregondo said:


> (I know that there is one commenter to this thread who will say a colony doesn't live for 4 or 6 years or whatever, but that's ok. Even though no part of my body is 50 years old, I am. Same principle applies with the super-organism that is a bee colony.)


I don't think the same principles apply to you and the superorganism. You are 50 years old, and you are the same person you were 49 years ago, true. But genetically you are identical to who you were 49 years ago. While your cells were different, your finger prints were the same, and so was your DNA.

In a bee colony, with each replacement of a queen (either by beekeeper design, superceure, or what not) the genetic make-up of the hive changes, depending on who the queen mates with. Since a queen will mate with 5-30 different drones, how can you be sure that the drones that mated with your queen five years ago are the same drones that mated with your queen this year? Or even that the drones that got mated with this year were all of the same strain, or held the same recessive genes than the drones that mated with your queen five years ago? You can't (unless you are doing II). Different genetics, different DNA, different combination, different colony.

To bring it back to what someone said earlier, if you were arrested for a crime you committed five years ago, but you said you arn't the same person you were then, the cops would call you crazy and still arrest you. But if the DNA that was left at the scene of the crime didn't match your DNA, you would have a very good argument that the you that stands for trial was not the same you that committed the crime.

Changing genes, changing DNA, changing organism.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> people who are not using small cell in treatment free are [snip] Russell Apiaries.


I missed this. Has he stated this somewhere?

Keep in mind as well, a bee breeder isn't the same as John Doe beekeeper. Breeders turn over their stock and manage their hives very differently as their goal is different than Doe's.


----------



## oblib (Oct 28, 2011)

sqkcrk, I may have misattributed the "front legs" remark to Mr. Bush. I'm sure I did read that somewhere but not sure where. 

And again as I said earlier I have no personel evidence as my bees don't even get here for another couple months, was just trying to answer Ace's question.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Like you, I'm just trying to find answers. That's why I asked.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I assume you are refering to Mark Berninghausen when you write "MB".


Here is one answer Mark, MB = Michael Bush, MP = Michael Palmer, and although it through me in a couple of post AB = Acebird. I eventually figured it out.

If you want MB to stand for you in my statement it works for me but you have some work ahead of you.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Beregondo said:


> I do note, though, that almost everyone I've heard of that is successfully running a treatment free apiary is small cell.


Very possibly correct. But as Barry has touched on, if we look at hive numbers, rather than beekeeper numbers, we may find that the majority of treatment free hives are large cell.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Specialkayme said:


> Two of the largest examples of people who are not using small cell in treatment free are B Weaver and Russell Apiaries. Just pointing to two successful, large cell, treatment free operations.


Are the queens around long enough so they would have to treat?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

heh,heh


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> I missed this. Has he stated this somewhere?


He has, somewhere on here that I can't remember.

I recently brought it up on Russell's forums, to clarify. It can be found at russellapiaries.webs.com


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

AB - I suggest you check out B Weaver's site. First page says: "Beginning in 1995 we started leaving hives untreated for varroa mites and only used surviving colonies as our breeder stock. Beginning in 2001 we stopped using any kind of treatment for varroa mites in our thousands of colonies"

Russell's started in 1943, although admittedly they were not treatment free at that time. Russell says he has never treated for varroa, and when it first arrived he began his selection process . . .


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> It can be found at russellapiaries.webs.com


Can't read anything, it's all private.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

http://www.beeweaver.com/best_bees.html



> Because we constantly introduce new stocks into our breeding population to ensure genetic diversity, some of our hives still succumb to Varroa infestations.


So why wouldn’t you want to put these bees on small cell and get every advantage you can?


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

That'd be a lo tof work and expense on the scale they afre working at, Ace


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Also, they are selling to beeks on large cell.

From the tone of some things they have posted, they seem somewhat dismissive of small cell.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Dynasty said:


> Got this stuck in my head, from another thread i was reading the other day. Keep seeing people say that newbies try to go treatment free and fail because they don't know what they're doing. (not exactly in those words)
> 
> I assumed that using/monitoring the drone comb for mites, and freezing the mites when necessary, along with a screened bottom board would be enough to combat varroa. I was also under the impression that other diseases are best kept away by keeping a strong hive, so i decided to increase my starting hive numbers from 2 to now 4.


Dynasty,

I would suggest that you stick with starting with two hives but invest in some additional nuc equipment and queens. More than simply not knowing what to do, the problem is not having the bee resources to use... bees, comb, spare queen. 

My colony history has gone like this:

First winter: had two lost one
Second winter had three, lost one
Third winter, had six, lost three
This winter, had eight, and have lost one at this point

One error I made my first year was not feeding enough ... some consider that a "treatment".


----------



## frazzledfozzle (May 26, 2010)

Beregondo said:


> And any feral (that is untended, wild for a few generations) bees that swarm are prospering well enough without treatment to swarm.


 Not necessarily bees that are overrun with varroa will swarm, abscond to get away from them leaving behind most of the mites in the brood which is why bees that have a tendancy to swarm also tend to manage varroa levels better and it's also why splitting a colony is helpful in slowing down mite buildup.

they are not more tolerant to varroa.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Beregondo said:


> That'd be a lo tof work and expense on the scale they afre working at, Ace


I wasn't thinking of Bweaver and Russel. I was thinking of newbies that buy from them.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Specialkayme said:


> Russell says he has never treated for varroa,


This is incorrect, if not directly, then by lack of clarification. He does treat, or at least did, just not breeder colonies, at least currently.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Beregondo wrote:


I do note, though, that almost everyone I've heard of that is successfully running a treatment free apiary is small cell.


We do not treat for mites with chemicals, and have dabbled with small cell foundation. We have seen no effect of cell size, but will continue to test. 

I see few problems with a newbie not using chemicals for mites, they are not that big a deal. It is dealing with the other pathogens without treatments that will throw them for a loop. I predicted that in a decade there will be no treatment free hobbiest or sideliners, do to the large capitol cost of sterilization with out chemicals. That is how I EARNED the name "Crazy" from someone that posts here.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> Can't read anything, it's all private.


You mean for members. You could create an account if you want to read the information. If you don't, I can't help you.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Right. I'm not interested in discussion that requires me to join in order to read it.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> This is incorrect . . . He does treat . . . just not breeder colonies . . .


Not exactly true.

Then perhaps I should clarify. I recently asked him about this. His apiary has four distinct operations. Queen production, Breeder Queen production, Nuc production, and package production. His Queen and Breeder Queen hives are not treated, and never have been. His Nuc and package production hives are treated. It is required by law to treat nuc or package producing hives. So, he treats what he has to in order to comply with the law, but does no more than what is required.

So, if you are purchasing a nuc or a package (which his package production is purely for large commercial operators), than you will be purchasing treated bees. If you purchase a queen or a breeder queen, you will be purchasing a queen that has not been treated, nor has the colony that the queen was from, raised in, or mated in treated.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> I'm not interested in discussion that requires me to join in order to read it.


Then don't ask me for the information


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I won't.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> Russell says he has never treated for varroa,


Just because someone may not treat for varroa doesn't mean they are treatment free. There are other things that get treated for.

A quick read through this thread will show you one thing he treats for.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?245511-SHB-Study...-NEED-YOUR-THOUGHTS


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

True that someone that doesn't treat for varroa isn't necessarily treatment free.

However, the link you provided only talks about some experiments that Russell was doing, and did not show anything about the "things he treats for." His production line and his experimental line are different.

As a matter of fact, he is also developing a Tiger line of queens, that are particularly resistant to SHB slime . . . and in order to breed for resistance from SHB from that line he doesn't treat for SHB and instead has to introduce some slimed frames from time to time . . . and that yard would also not comply with any of the experiments listed in the thread. But again that is just one part of his operation.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

"We use CoRal Powder 2%. A table spoon on the top of the frames in each back corner and a third table spoon sprinkled across the middle of the front (again on top of the frames so that it falls down inside the hive) should do the trick for the next few years."

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...itic-Mite-Syndrome-Poison&p=570639#post570639


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

"No feeding or treating for anything aside from the powdered sugar/Tylosin mixture for last year." http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?258816-Russell-Sunkist-Queens&p=746106#post746106

*"Tylosin* is a macrolide-class antibiotic used in veterinary medicine." - From Wikipedia


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I understand why the Rules on what can and cannot be discussed on TreatmentFree are what they are and why. I forgot. I'm sorry.

Wish I could say more, but that would be against the rules too.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Wow. I leave town for a few days, and look what I return to!
Oldtimer, thanks for the compliment.

Re: queens aren't important for treatment free, e.g. small cell/regression... I'll wager Michael Bush would affirm regressed/small cell is one part of his equation in being successfully treatment free, the queen is the other part. Genet\ics plays a key role in treatment free - the queen passes on those traits necessary for the colony to survive the varroa mite. 

Re: B. Weaver and Russell - why don't they go small cell and have the best of it all treatment free? Why? they don't need to. Their bees are successfully treatment free without small cell, and many of us who use them do not use small cell. We don't need to. The arguement hasn't really been settled about small cell vs. large cell. Though it has in some people's minds, and operations. 

Re: The bee hive cannot survive more than a year or two because, even if the colony still exists, it isn't the same colony, so ergo, it didn't survive... sigh... One last attempt...let's apply that reasoning to the USA. Based on that reasoning, the United States of America hasn't existed for 236 years (this year) because... follow this now: The USA was founded by white Europeans, and consisted of 13 states hugging the Atlantic seaboard. There were Africans here, but they were slaves, not citizens. There were indigeneous peoples on this continent, but they were not citizens. Today, 236 years later, there are 50 states, one of them out in the Pacific Ocean. Citizens consist of white Europeans, but wait! The nation's genetics have changed! There are orientals of every type, Hispanics from South America, several different races there also. Africans from Africa and the Caribbean. Indigeneous people of various tribes and races and now citizens. So, by applying the logic applied to the bee colony to the USA, the USA has not existed continuously for 236 years. opcorn:
Regards.
Steven


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

StevenG said:


> So, by applying the logic applied to the bee colony to the USA, the USA has not existed continuously for 236 years.


You're example doesn't fit. You are saying the NAME USA has not existed continuously for 236 years. If you are going to compare the NAME of a country, the only thing you should compare it to is the NAME of the insect you are trying to compare it to. Yes, America has been CALLED USA for 236 years, and bees have been CALLED Apis Melliffera since ___ (I don't know when, lol). I would agree that if you had "Hive #254" sitting on a block, and it sat there for six years, the colony is still "Hive #254." The name hasn't changed, the genetic composition and the characteristics of it have. By the same token, the characteristics, components, and abilities of America HAS changed over the course of the past 236 years. As a matter of fact, the Continental Congress changed the structure of the government in 1789 (with the articles of confederation adopted in 1777, and the Constitution adopted in 1789). Additionally, the genetic make up, both biologically, and the structure, politically, has changed drastically in the past 236 years. So yes, the NAME continues, but the COMPOSITION is entirely different.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry - instead of sifting through old Beesource posts, you could just check out what he's written on his site . . . unless you truly do have unlimited time on your hands . . .

Or, better yet, you could have asked him directly what he treats for, rather than interpreting his posts to have them say what you _think_ they say, if you hadn't run him off already . . .


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> You're example doesn't fit.


It seems to me we should be comparing hives to hives. Steven's hives are no different than anyone else's hives, 6 years later. Your hives are equally "not the same" 6 years later. I don't understand what the point is you're making.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Well, we certainly aren't discussing what is "possible for a newbie". Seems to me we aught to be discussing whether going "treatment free [is] possible for a newbie" ro not. In my opinion, sure, of course, why not? But I wouldn't do it. anymore than I would keep bees in a TBH or Warre. But, I don't know why anyone else couldn't.

The problem I see is in easily finding bees to buy which have not been treated or have not come from bees that have been treated. But, as the demand increases it seems likely that such bees will become more available just like medium depth nucs are becoming more available wherein just a few years ago no one would have heard of them.


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

I am thinking this discussion on whether a hive has survived for 2 or 3 or 4 years is kinda silly. To me a hive surviving means this, Continuously occupied by bees, the queen is either the same queen from 2 years ago or her daughter. Then again I am a bit of a nut job I don't requeen my hives I let the bees do that for me. Now obviously in the case of the daughter queen the genetics have changed a little bit, because of the drones she bred with, but with an insect that lives between 60 days, and however long in the winter for workers and a year or two or so for queens it really is the best we can do. I think we should be able to agree on what isn't surviving, a Box that had bees, they died, and they got replaced, but there are still bees in there. LOL Now I guess there would be some debate about a continuously occupied hive that the beekeeper requeened, but for purity sake lets say no. I am beginning to think I need to stop reading this thread, because I have never put any antibiotics, or other treatments (other than the aforementioned, irregular use of oxalic vapor) in my hives and they are thriving. Where is my nosmea? Where is my AFB, or EFB? I'm so confused.
Rod


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Be patient, diseases and pests will come. Sorry to say. Just a matter of time.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Specialkayme said:


> Or, better yet, you could have asked him directly what he treats for, rather than interpreting his posts to have them say what you _think_ they say, if you hadn't run him off already . . .


I don't believe Barry did any interpreting only provided the quote. How do you interpret it?


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

rweakley said:


> I am beginning to think I need to stop reading this thread, because I have never put any antibiotics, or other treatments (other than the aforementioned, irregular use of oxalic vapor) in my hives and they are thriving. Where is my nosmea? Where is my AFB, or EFB? I'm so confused.
> Rod


"Those who say something can't be done are oft interrupted by those who are doing it."


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I am always interested in hearing first hand accounts of success or lack of success at being treatment free. Somehow the conversation morphed into second hand reports of whether someone else is treatment free. I dont find those second hand reports nearly as compelling. Frankly I don't know whether Mr. Russell was ever claiming to be treatment free, perhaps some wrongly assumed so, perhaps Mr. Russell's definition is different than this forums or perhaps he is able to strictly segregate his hives, I don't know and I suspect no one else in this conversation knows either. About all we really have to go on are the numerous posts he has made, gleen from them what you will.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Well Dynasty you know how to make an entrance, a title like the one you gave this thread could create mayhem!


Told Ya!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Re: queens aren't important for treatment free, e.g. small cell/regression... I'll wager Michael Bush would affirm regressed/small cell is one part of his equation in being successfully treatment free, the queen is the other part. Genet\ics plays a key role in treatment free - the queen passes on those traits necessary for the colony to survive the varroa mite.

I was already not treating for decades before Varroa. Not treating has it's own set of advantages and some of those probably also contribute to surviving Varroa, but not enough that they survived. I was not breeding for Varroa resistance, but I bought everything that claimed any resistance and saw no difference. What tipped the scale was cell size. Does that mean I don't think genetics is important? Of course it is important to many things such as Nosema, AFB, overwintering etc. but I didn't see it make any difference for Varroa. Can it contribute to the Varroa solution? Perhaps, but it never made any difference that I could observe.

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


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> Can it contribute to the Varroa solution? Perhaps, but it never made any difference that I could observe.
> 
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm


The problem with Varroa is it bites into the protective skeleton of the insect, adds a chemical that keeps the wound from healing and thereby exposes the insect to EVERY germ in the hive. What does the bee die from mites? No. But everything else in the hive because of the mites. You have to get rid of the mites if you want the colony to survive. If you can breed in a trait that gets rid of the mites your golden but believing you can breed resistance to everything in the hive that the mite exposes the bee to doesn't make sense to me. And I wish you luck to those that take that approach.

My definition maybe not yours:
You can buy packages and queens that have been treated but if you don't treat them after you get them you are "treatment free" and your bees are treatment free after the second generation.
It is no different that organics. Seven years after not treating the land you can get certification for Organically grown produce.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> Your hives are equally "not the same" 6 years later.


Agreed.



Barry said:


> I don't understand what the point is you're making.


If you went back to the first post on this subject, you would understand that my point is that the person who claimed he had kept the same hive for six years, in fact has not. I have not made such a claim.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> The problem with Varroa is it bites into the protective skeleton of the insect, adds a chemical that keeps the wound from healing and thereby exposes the insect to EVERY germ in the hive.
> 
> You have to get rid of the mites if you want the colony to survive.
> 
> If you can breed in a trait that gets rid of the mites your golden but believing you can breed resistance to everything in the hive that the mite exposes the bee to doesn't make sense to me. And I wish you luck to those that take that approach.


So Acebird,
knowing all that which you state above, what's your plan? Treat for Varroa or no treating for Varroa? The "Live or Let Die" Plan.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> How do you interpret it?


He is taking quotes from experimental hives that Russell is doing, and claiming it is "what he treats for." An experimental treatment may, or may not, be what he does to the rest of his hives. He's interpreting the single quote to apply to ALL of Russell's hives, and not a small and distinct subset of them, that are not part of his production hives.

If he really wants to know the answer, he can ask Robert himself. But he isn't hanging out at this site anymore, because he found it to be a waste of time. So, Barry can go to _his_ site and ask him directly. If he isn't interested in doing that, he doesn't really want to know the answer. If he doesn't want to know the answer, why is he pouring through old posts, attempting to find answers and then theorizing on what they mean?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> I have not made such a claim.


I know. Your claim is that they are different. I see it as two sides of the same coin. I don't see Steven trying to differentiate his hives from anyone else's based on time. He merely made a statement that it's the "same" over 6 years because he hasn't intentionally changed it. We would accept anyone making the same claim regardless of treatment free or not. I think the understanding of what that statement means is a common one, not a scientific one at the micro level. However, in the end, we can each hold to a definition of our liking, even if it isn't what Steven means by it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Specialkayme said:


> He is taking quotes from experimental hives that Russell is doing, and claiming it is "what he treats for."


:scratch: If you would have read the thread of the second quote I gave you, there is no way one can apply any conditions (experimental hives) to it. He did not place any qualifying or limiting conditions to his remark. He simply said "We use CoRal Powder 2%. A table spoon on the top of the frames . . ." 

Let's remember, you were the one making claims on here that he is treatment free. I'm simply showing you what he has already shared on here about treatments. The onus is yours to show otherwise. And once again I'll be chastized for daring to say anything about Russell, even if it's his own words.


----------



## Flyer Jim (Apr 22, 2004)

jim lyon said:


> I am always interested in hearing first hand accounts of success or lack of success at being treatment free.
> 
> So am I. So tell me Specialkayme how are your bees doing this year? Give us a first hand account.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> He merely made a statement that it's the "same" over 6 years because he hasn't intentionally changed it.


And I merely made the statement that intention is irrelevant, they have changed. What's yourf point?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> He did not place any qualifying or limiting conditions to his remark. He simply said "We use CoRal Powder 2%. A table spoon on the top of the frames . . ."


Neither did he use any universal language. You interpreted it that way.



Barry said:


> Let's remember, you were the one making claims on here that he is treatment free.


To be fair, Russell is the one claiming to be treatment free. I'm just relaying information. But whatever, I'm not the onlyone relaying the information.



Barry said:


> The onus is yours to show otherwise.


Clearly you think so. However I reject your assumption. This is not a court of law, and I have no burden of production, persuasion, or evidence. I am happy to point you in a direction, however, even though I have no onus to do so.

So, I will say again, if you want the info then go to his site and get it. If you don't want it, or don't want to register at the site, then stop asking me for information. I told you where to get the information but you won't go there, that is your fault and not mine.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Flyer Jim said:


> So tell me Specialkayme how are your bees doing this year? Give us a first hand account.


They are all dead. Do you need further information?


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Specialkayme, I just do not understand your point. Perhaps you but definitely others say a treatment free beekeeper will have his hives die in the second or third year. Period. Mine have not. I have colonies that I hived six years ago from packages, that are still alive. Period. As far as I'm concerned, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have hives that are alive, continuously, after 6 years. So do others. Everyone knows they're not the same bee. That is not the point. Even hives that crash in the second or third year are not the same bees/hive. So? Let's compare apples to apples. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

For those of you wanting real world experience, I just came in from checking my 32 hives for the first time since last October. It's a balmy 60 degrees, sunny, and a bit windy here.
Of 32, I had two die. TWO. 30 hives are alive, treatment free, from their beginning, and on large cell. That is a 6 per cent loss. Now, I have to feed 5 colonies, and March has yet to arrive, but... I'll take those results any day of the year.

In the post-mortem, one hive had a queen issue last fall, and apparently died before the first of the year. A very very small cluster of bees in the lower deep. The top deep was completely empty, giving every indication of having been robbed out. The other hive apparently starved. Dead bees on bottom board, cluster in the top of the second deep brood box, head in to the cells. No honey around them, but some in the outlying frames (1,2,9 and 10) Some evidence of robbing of those frames.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

StevenG said:


> Perhaps you . . . say a treatment free beekeeper will have his hives die in the second or third year.


I do not.



StevenG said:


> I have colonies that I hived six years ago from packages, that are still alive. Period.


Their current status of alive or dead was immaterial to my comment. My comment simply referred to the statement that "I've had some hives continuously for six years." I fully understand what you meant, but felt it was necessary to clarify that it is genetically impossible to keep a colony continuously for six years. Again, it had nothing to do with your success rate, or your methods. It was simply a clarifying statement.

If you don't get my point, I don't have anything left to say on the topic . . .



StevenG said:


> Everyone knows they're not the same bee.


Clearly not, as my comment has driven such a lively debate, where several have disagreed with me.



StevenG said:


> That is not the point.


It was my point. 



StevenG said:


> Even hives that crash in the second or third year are not the same bees/hive. So? Let's compare apples to apples.


I'm not interested in getting into splitting hairs here, but that is arguable . . .


----------

