# Treat or not to treat



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

How about caging the queens for a while...


----------



## ky_mike (May 9, 2011)

I was in the same dilemma not to long ago and chose to treat. Treating I believe saved my hives and I haven't had to treat since and they are doing very well. I did a 24 hour mite drop count yesterday on the hive that was infested the worst and had a mite drop of 7. I had many bees with deformed wings and I don't see any now.

I'm sure you will get lot's of conflicting opinions on this topic but treating was the path I chose and I'm glad I did. Personally I used Hopguard because it seemed less harsh than some of the others and it worked great.

for the record I only have 3 hives right now and in my 2nd year beekeeping.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

You're right in that your chance of losing all those hives is almost nil. That said, the only way to know if they can "live with them" is to let them try. It's all in how upset you'll be next year if you lose those hives. This is tough, but try to think to next year, and if you lose, say 7 hives, and have 10 remaining, will you be kicking yourself for not treating? Or will you be saying, "I made the better decision because I have stronger bees, even though I only have 10 hives."

I treat w/MAQS. They have some drawbacks. But it's once and done and the honey can stay on.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

If you don't treat them, and if they survive and recover, you will have mite resistant bees.
You also may very well not only have a dead hive, but a possible "Mite Bomb" when the mites migrate to a nearby hive if the hive dies.

I'd suggest a soft treatment such as a sugar shake. Have a look at what Randy Oliver says about his surprise at the effectiveness of sugar as a treatment in the articles on varroa treatment:
scientificbeekeeping.com


----------



## Ted adams (Mar 20, 2012)

If we treated ourselves like our bee's would we still be here. I would not, when I had a heart attach I went to the doctor, I don't understand why we do not let the doctor treat our bee's when they are ill? I treat mine , they are dependent on me just like a dog. I do not treat for the sake of treating but I do before risking a whole hive


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I have never lost a hive to mites in four years and never have treated with anything. I use plain old Italian bees, nothing special. I see several DWV bees on the ground daily when I look for them. I don't do mite counts. My bees winter fine and become boomers with 125lb. average the next season. My bees couldn't be doing much better in my area, so the mites are not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Obviously, nobody wants to watch their bees dwindle down and die off for any reason. I am committed to producing a treatment free product for my customers and they expect it, and it will stay that way even if mites become a problem in the future. I know for a fact that "certain" hives of bees will develop a resistance, tolerance, whatever you want to call it, to the mites if given the chance. I have bees that show hygenic behavior, I see it going on regularly in all my hives. They weren't always this way though, without my help they learned a way to handle the mites in order to keep the colony going, thats all I can say. You may have bees like mine, if losing everything isn't everything then why not give it a chance and find out. John


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

Ok so i geuss i won't treat for my goal was to to biuld a better bee thats why i have 17 hives and at the beging of may i only had 3 i bought 3 nucs and the rest was swarms and what i made {splits} so now i have my stock and i can play. My goal now is to get all hives up to par for winter.
I really non't care about honey sales and i've dumped a pile of cash in to this hobby that for sure but i love beekeeping and have nice bee yards .
I've learned so much the last 3 years and as of now my bee's are strong and doing well we'll see how no treat go's.
Plus i ordered APIGARD off BETTER BEE and the called a left a message saying the computer took a dump and they lost my c.card numbers and to call and they could get the order out so i took that as a sign that i should go the no treat rout and i do want strong bee's. I'll be glad i don't have to buy bee's again i sure did learn to make bee ya. Thank you.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

Ted adams said:


> I treat mine , they are dependent on me just like a dog.


Bees are not people.
They are livestock.
Whether you believe it is nature or God who did it, selection is the process established to ensure that species as a whole remain healthy, suffer the least from disease or parasites like mites, and continue to exist rather than become extinct.

When one chooses to select for mite resistance by allowing a susceptible hive to succumb to mite pressure, the honeybees species is strengthened, there are fewer susceptible genes in the gene pool, and fewer colonies suffer.

It prolongs the suffering of the the species due to mites and is inhumane to interfere in this selection process.

The primary reasons people do so are emotional and financial - no beekeeper wants to lose the profit a hive will generate by letting it succumb, and he may not survive financially should he do so on a broad scale.
Manufacturers and sellers of the insecticides we use in our hives for mite control also have a huge financial interest in preserving the treatment paradigm.

Some look at bees as though they are people, and not recognizing that they are promoting the suffering to the species as a whole, and, as the writer above acknowledges, making them dependent on men for their welfare and unable to care for themselves as they have for eons, feel it is compassionate to put insecticides in our insect colonies. 

To do so to protect short term financial interests, or out of not understanding the damage it does to honeybee species as a whole, is folly.

We owe the bees better than that.

Respectfully, 
B


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Here's how I look at it. If you want to kill mites, kill mites. If you don't want to kill mites, then don't kill mites. The bees may or may not survive either way. As a genetics major, it's too early to tell with this pest what is the best course of action. You have to look at the end goal.... do we want mite tolerance, mite resistance, or immunity? Looking at it ecologically is not treating and harboring a population of pests smart?? People have the one sided notion.... the bees will adapt.... what if the mite adapts more?? Treating or not treating you're still putting selection pressure on the mite to overcome. I don't think there's a right and wrong decision. I mean, if i treat and get 100% kill and the guy next to me is treatment free and harboring mites.... whose the problem in this picture? At the same time, treating needs to be done correctly and you really should try products with differing MoA's so resistance isn't built.


----------



## danmcm (May 23, 2012)

Bees aren't human they are livestock... Treating them would be inhumane? Let natural selection take place? Hmmm let's not treat them humane but treat them as livestock. Or if you are building a better bee get a program of different bee stock together and cross and cull. If a hive has hygienic behavior it cleans mites off and infected brood out it may have a smaller population because of this but it wont have high mite numbers. As you might be able to discern you can use IPM and build a better bee if you are breeding and introducing stock and doing mite counts. Raising queens breed to her brothers won't get you far and hoping a wild "survivor" is out there to add its genes to the pool is well hope and not much of a program. 

Best of luck whatever you decide


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Your goal of selecting mite resistant bees is admirable, however from a breeding standpoint you are fooling yourselves. I am a corn breeder and I figure I have to look at 20-30,000 corn hybrids to find one really good one. What would be my chance of finding that one hybrid if I only looked at 17? Virtually impossible. Unless you have the resources to select among thousands of queens over many years, your chance of finding mite resistance is nil. If your colonies survive it is more due to luck (weather, etc.) rather than the genetics of the bees. Ah, if breeding were only that easy....of course if it was I wouldn't have a job


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Not treating is considered irresponsible by many people on this forum, I have been chastised many times before for suggesting someone not treat their bees. It really is an individual decision, one that you need to be prepared to live with. My decision to not treat is rooted in wanting to produce and sell a product that I can say has not been exposed to contamination from substances that should not be there. Others will say that it is more important for the beekeeping industry to use treatments to keep the bees alive to preserve the species, to preserve investment, or it is the humane thing to do as bees are livestock or are like our pets. I wish I had the absolute correct moral answer or correct moral choice for treating or not treating if you know what I mean. Or are we over thinking this whole thing. I just hope that the no treatment guy is not looked upon as a "problem" by the other people. I certainly don't harbor any negative feelings for those who choose to treat, I just wish they were on my side because I think in the long run the mite problem will be solved by the bees. We may never be without mites, but hopefully we won't be without honey bees either. John


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

hilreal,

I don't consider my bees success over four years to be luck. Were not talking about one colony here, I have many more than that. Once again, I have had mites for four years, bees with DWV every year in front of every hive on the ground. I have been told more than a few times that once you see DWV your hives are on the brink of collapse and won't make the winter. This is not what will happen in every case, so how do you explain their continued survival and prosperity, by saying it is luck, the weather, etc. How does the weather have to change for me to see the mites take control? What does the etc. refer to? Just because you and I don't know how the bees adapt doesn't make it highly unlikely that they do. John


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

jmgi said:


> Not treating is considered irresponsible by many people on this forum


 More than agree! I find very disturbing that people so resistant to learn something different/new. It is my opinion that US commercial beekeeping approach actually DOES create the problem. Numerous bees lost over the years is a result of unchanged methods used and promoted by many commercial beekeepers. Thus, this approach is not credible to me. My bees are survivors, I posted in some thread already: my large happy beehive has a constant 24h mite count of 50. My other beehive, which is not doing well has 7 mites count. I could trace those two colonies for 3-4 years (11 mo with me). They never were treated and they are very prolific. Mite counts must be normalized per bee, otherwise, it is meaningless since in the large hive, we have more bees...


> I wish I had the absolute correct moral answer or correct moral choice for treating or not treating if you know what I mean. Or are we over thinking this whole thing. I just hope that the no treatment guy is not looked upon as a "problem" by the other people. I certainly don't harbor any negative feelings for those who choose to treat, I just wish they were on my side because I think in the long run the mite problem will be solved by the bees. We may never be without mites, but hopefully we won't be without honey bees either.


 Agree! 
Officially, bees are a livestock. But in reality, they are wild animals/insects - they managed to escape domestication for 10 thousand years! They have very sophisticated genetics, they are not such easy as a corn. And even corn's genetic is very complicated. We had an arguments on this in bee-club. After that I read a lot of literature regarding bee-genetic. It is very sophisticated and not much known. What I know for sure is that any "good" gene may be "fixed" in genom by natural selection (old Darwin). It needs to go through sexual reproduction, many cycles. Annual requeening completely screw up the sexual cycle, thus - not much success in selection. Also, drones are equally important as queens. The whole commercial approach to minimize drones breaks reproduction cycle again. The natural way of reproduction for bees are swarming - swarming suppression again breaks the cycle! Sergey


----------



## justin (Jun 16, 2007)

i had strong colonies through august last year. 60 or so. i made a good honey crop which i pulled in early september. by the end of september i had less than 30 colonies and by spring i had 8. i had planned to treat but we got a long cold snap late september. using hopguard september 1st this year. justin


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

GLOCK said:


> i took that as a sign that i should go the no treat rout and i do want strong bee's. I'll be glad i don't have to buy bee's again i sure did learn to make bee ya. Thank you.


So, does that mean you aren't going to treat at all? Not even after the honey supers come off? Let us know how that works out next Spring. And if you had orders your Apigaurd from Dadant's of Waverly, NY you would have had it two days aftrer ordering. Would you have used it?

Were you me, sorta what you asked in your first Post, you would determine what your mite load is and use that to decide your course of action. Or, you would know that your hive has varroa mites and you would treat.

Live and let die works. I'm glad you can afford to use it.


----------



## Keth Comollo (Nov 4, 2011)

jmgi said:


> hilreal,
> 
> I have had mites for four years, bees with DWV every year in front of every hive on the ground.


I would be very interested to know what kind of honey production you are getting from these hives.

Also, are other beekeepers in your area seeing an increase in DWV with your hives in their foraging area?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Beregondo said:


> To do so to protect short term financial interests, or out of not understanding the damage it does to honeybee species as a whole, is folly.
> 
> We owe the bees better than that.
> 
> ...


If we had followed that model I doubt that you would have bees now. Unless they were Africanized bees.

Short term financial interests? What is short term when outfits have been able to stay viable in business since 1986? 

How many colonies do you have? How long have you kept bees? I'd like to know so we have some reference to know where you may be coming from. Where did you get your bees from?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

cerezha said:


> More than agree! I find very disturbing that people so resistant to learn something different/new. It is my opinion that US commercial beekeeping approach actually DOES create the problem.


How does the successful treatment use of a commercial beekeeper effect you? If a commercial beekeeper uses treatments to keep his colonies strong, productive and reproductive year after year, how does that impact those who don't treat?

I don't see those who don't treat as a problem to me. It's not what I do, but go ahead, don't treat. It disturbs me that those who don't treat see guys like me as the problem. Apples and oranges. I'm feeding my family thru beekeeping and others aren't.

Sergey, from my point of view there is nothing new about letting bees die as a way to address the impact of varroa mites. It has been going on since varroa was found in the US, and in Russia as far as that goes. But, we decided not to goi quietly into the dark grey night of death to the industry by doing nothing. We addressed the problem w/ a new idea, miticides. All along during the last 26 years bees have been dying, managed and unmanaged. So, I don't see anything new about "Live and Let Die". I tried it. It didn't work out for me. Didn't work out for many.

Let's not demonize any camp, small scale let em die beekeepers or commercial beekeepers who treat.


----------



## DonShackelford (Jan 17, 2012)

I have 14 years with bees, but this is my first year back in since mites. Yes, I'm old. 
As one trying to pull 45 new hives through the winter. I've researched various treatment and non treatment programs, but see nothing that makes a dramatic difference given the money and time required. 
I think the drought here has helped keep the mites down for now. I haven't treated, am open to it, but also afraid I'll kill half the queens I just put in. 
Since MAQS is formic acid, I'd be inclined save a few bucks and treat with formic acid if and when I see the need.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Keth, I already said earlier that my honey production from these hives is around 125# average which is the best you can get in my area, twice the state average I believe if that means anything. John


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

C'mon Mark, you're sounding like I am one of those problem beekeepers we hear about. John


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

cerezha said:


> More than agree! I find very disturbing that people so resistant to learn something different/new. It is my opinion that US commercial beekeeping approach actually DOES create the problem. Numerous bees lost over the years is a result of unchanged methods used and promoted by many commercial beekeepers. Thus, this approach is not credible to me.
> 
> 
> Well here is a "one size fits all" statement ya. Apparently in your mind all commercials are the problem? All commercials follow the same treatment procedures?? Only commercials lose bees??? Only commercials are resistant to change???? Have you ever been around one of these commercial operations? Can you back any of this up with data or is this all just sort of a WAG?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jmgi said:


> I have never lost a hive to mites in four years and never have treated with anything.


What have you lost them to?
I have no problem with folks going treatment free. It’s important, in my opinion, that they have a good understanding of the potential consequences. Every stress faced by a colony of bees is exacerbated by mites. Parasitized bees are weaker bees. Whether its tracheal mites, bacterial or viral diseases, small hive beetles, wax moths or whatever. Mites add to the pressure and increase, significantly, the likelihood that the colony will fail. 
If you understand and accept this and want to go treatment free, I say fine.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

cerezha said:


> I find very disturbing that people so resistant to learn something different/new.


Sergey, what's new about not treating? Back in the eighties commercial beekeepers didn't treat for mites. When mites arrived some walked away rather than treat. Others treated so that they could make the mortgage, pay their employees and stay in business.
Do you think they like to treat?
To my knowledge there are only a couple of successful, commercial treatment free beekeepers. Dee Lusby and Kirk Webster. And, I believe Kirk Webster will tell you that you will have huge losses periodically. 
There isn't anything new about not treating.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

As usual, this conversation has degraded down to "you're the problem", or "you do what you want and I'll do what I want." In a perfect world, which this isn't, we would not have to contend with mites, agreed? So, is my hope for a miteless beekeeping industry someday unrealistic? In reality, even if every last beekeeper treated we would still have mites to some extent, even if that meant that the mites adapted to every treatment we throw at them along the way. Also in reality, even if every last beekeeper did not treat in the short term, we would certainly have more mites than we currently do, but the possibility of the bees adapting a resistance long term would be greater than it is now. I agree that we don't want to see another downswing in worldwide honey bee populations to the point where they are nearly extinct. So should I give up the hope in a better bee that can handle mites through non treatment, or treat and forever have bees that depend on us to handle the mites for them? This is the basic question that I would like to see answered here. John


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jmgi said:


> As usual, this conversation has degraded down to "you're the problem", or "you do what you want and I'll do what I want."


The only implication of fault that I've read in this thread is when treatment free proponents suggest that commercial beekeepers are the problem. Is that what you're referring to?
Instead of 'you do what you want and I'll do what I want', what do you think it should be?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jmgi said:


> C'mon Mark, you're sounding like I am one of those problem beekeepers we hear about. John


Moi? I had no intention of pointing out any one person in particular.  But if the shoe ... .


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jmgi said:


> So, is my hope for a miteless beekeeping industry someday unrealistic?
> 
> bees adapting a resistance long term would be greater than it is now.
> 
> ...


John,
Yes, a world w/ no mites is a dream you will never live to see. The original host of varroa destructor still has them. They co-exist. Tolerance, not resistance.

Nearly extinct? Hasn't happened. Won't.

If you are dependent on your bees they should be sure that they can depend on you. That is my opinbion and in no way me telling you to do anything.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

Beregondo said:


> If you don't treat them, and if they survive and recover, you will have mite resistant bees.
> You also may very well not only have a dead hive, but a possible "Mite Bomb" when the mites migrate to a nearby hive if the hive dies.
> 
> I'd suggest a soft treatment such as a sugar shake. Have a look at what Randy Oliver says about his surprise at the effectiveness of sugar as a treatment in the articles on varroa treatment:
> scientificbeekeeping.com


WOW.

I didn't expect such emotional responses to a suggestion to try soft treatments first.

Granted, my response to one of the posters on this thread anthropomorphism of bees was a bit extreme; my intent was to prompt what I perceived as a somewhat condescending post addressing what I'm sure that poster considered a morally corrupt practice of not treating to consider that there might be moral considerations beyond the infested hive...ie, preventing larger scale hardship on the species because mite susceptible genetics remain in the gene pool.

Mark:
My reference to concerns about short term financial interest was in no way intended as denigrating. Failure to maintain short term solvency is a short step from bankruptcy. 

Segregating a portion one's hives and not treating in order to have hundreds and in the case of some outfits thousands or tens of thousands of hives adapted to survive without treatment is an expensive process and would take years to accomplish. 

Once accomplished, there would be far fewer males in the drone pool distributing genes that require treatment.


"Short term financial interests? What is short term when outfits have been able to stay viable in business since 1986?"

How much do you spend on treatments in a year? 
I suspect the amount is not insubstantial.
The savings of not treating over one man's lifetime may or may not come out on the profit side of the ledger.

But if we think generationally, it is cheaper to take the loss and convert to non treatment.

We'd have bees that took care of mite on their own and aren't dependent for survival on us.

On the other hand, I think guys like Kirk Webster will tell you you might expect 90% losses short term by not treating.

Looking out for short term financial interests may be folly in the long run, costing a good deal over time, and leaving bees dependent on human treatment intervention, but it keeps the lights on, the wife happy and the kids tuition paid.

The folly is in leaving the situation status quo, so that three generations from now our [collective] great grandkids are still worried about mites in their bees.

Or managing one's bees based on emotion rather than wisdom. (I'll admit that my second post was couched in very emotional in an attempt to persuade a poster whom I perceived was motivated by emotion to treat to consider alternatives, both to his perspective and protocol, and was a bit extreme.)

Personally, so long as my living expenses are not dependent on my hive count, I'll treat as little as I possibly can.
But you can bet that if some other stressor compromises a hive's health and a line of bees whose genes I work to develop is in danger of perishing without treatment, I'll seriously consider doing so, weighing the whole cost (contaminated comb on one hand, for example, and loss of the work that went into them and income potential from them on the other).

"How does the successful treatment use of a commercial beekeeper effect you?"

Substantially. 
The decisions of a single commercial guy can have a greater effect on what genetics are or aren't present in the drone pool than MANY hobbyists with one to ten hives.

don't think that commercial beeks are fools, or wicked, greedy, bad guys.

When assert that it's folly to not treat because of short term financial interests, I'm talking about us as a whole community not coming up with a pragmatic, practical path to something more sustainable long term, spmething wise ofr our progeny, and getting off the tread mill of spending for treatments.

I'm not intending at all to say a guy is foolish for protecting the business that provides for his family. 

Respectfully,
B


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm out of this conversation, again. There will be a much better world for all someday. John


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Beregondo,
Yes, I tried that. Not on purpose. Went from 732 down to 100 in less than 9 months. Looked at my options, too complex to go into here, and decided to fight mites instead of succumbing. I wanted to make a living keeping bees.

I would like you to talk to a friend of mine who has over the last 5 years grown from 1500 or so to 3700 colonies and suggest to him that he should do as you suggest. It's fine for you, but doesn't fit the business model of a commercial beekeeper. No one of size who wants to exploite, for lack of a betyter word, all avenues of beekeeping to make a living. He is doing quite well. Thriving. So are his bees.

Steve Taber suggested just what you do and in 30 years, he predicted, our bees will tolerate mite presence. But, we will have no commercial beekeepers, he said. So, how is modern agriculture supposed to handle that? We saw how. They will import pollination from Australia.

I believe that what you are supposing is a nice idea. Just not practical in todays world. Not for those dependent on bees.

I think we understand each other. Let's part in Peace.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jmgi said:


> I'm out of this conversation, again. There will be a much better world for all someday. John


Only if we make it so.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Beregondo said:


> "How does the successful treatment use of a commercial beekeeper effect you?"
> 
> Substantially.
> The decisions of a single commercial guy can have a greater effect on what genetics are or aren't present in the drone pool than MANY hobbyists with one to ten hives.
> ...


Okay, how does it effect you personally? If we followed your suggestion, stop treating across the board, do you know how much the gene pool would be limited?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

This is a classic topic on Beesource that naturally brings up the finger pointing.

Glock, I can't be you. I can only be me and I don't treat. With one to three hives in my possession it isn't going to change the world of bees. Possibly if my little apiary builds some resistance to mites it may help the gene pool around me that will help some local people. If it doesn't my bees will just die. If you are a local person that treats my increased farm of mites will not affect you because you are already treating. I don't know enough about genetics but I don't see how a neighbor that treats affects me. As far as I know treating for a disease does not pass on a resistance or lack of to the offspring. I am more concerned about the treatment of food sources for the bees and myself over long periods of time. That is the stress I worry about. These chemicals or more permanent than what we were led to believe.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I don't know enough about genetics but I don't see how a neighbor that treats affects me.


That guy down the road who treats is nurturing a bunch of mite sensitive bees. His drones spread those genes into your mite resistant bees. So the theory goes.


----------



## avesterfelt (Jan 31, 2012)

BeeCurious said:


> How about caging the queens for a while...


This is how I treat for mites. Either that or just squish the queen and let them rear another. It is the break in the brood cycle that will help. I never use chemicals in the hive. I have done it twice and both times the hives have rebounded to be just fine.


----------



## avesterfelt (Jan 31, 2012)

Let me also say this; I do not have a full time job doing this (yet; I am working towards it). I do believe that breaking the brood cycle is a treatment just not a chemical. I think it is important that we treat our bees; I just provide a product that has no chemicals or antibiotics and that is what my customers pay a higher price for. 

Do I lose honey production from doing this? Yes

Do I lose bees from doing this? Not yet, but it has not been a real problem so far. 

The problem as I see it and I run into in a lot of discussions (both old and younger); is simply, the unwillingness to try something else. I would not suggest that a commercial operation stop treatment, which would be foolish. What I suggest is that instead of saying chemicals are the only cost effective treatment method; can we open our minds to a possibility of another way? In my case; I save time by just squishing a queen. I lose honey by doing so, but I also get a higher price for the end product. In my case; I am able to come out the same or a little ahead, in the end as if I would have treated. 

There is no blanket statement that can be done for all; however anyone who feels that the industry standard or status quo is the best option might need to rethink their own arrogance. I will never have the answers and will always listen to suggestions. The suggestions must be able to be proven; either with numbers that show the risks or with proof from experience, not just simply an opinion. 

I think both the hobbyist and the commercial beekeeper are important and as with other things (faith) people need to stop attacking and fighting. It is walking hand in hand with your brother (or sister) that will find you the most success.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Well, just have to toss in my 2 cents.... In the year I spent researching bees before re-entering the craft, and in the years since, I've discovered a truth - if you bought or acquired treated bees, you have to treat or they will succumb to the mites. If you bought treatment free bees, don't treat. That is the route I've taken for about 7 years now. If you obtain a swarm, and put them in your treatment free apiary, probably even odds they'll survive treatment free. But I don't treat at all, and won't treat swarms. Want to maintain the integrity of my operation. 

The key is to do what you're comfortable with, but do it rationally, with your long term goals in mind. And just because someone does it differently than you, it doesn't mean they're wrong. Or right.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

To all people who got offended by my statement regarding commercial beekeeping.

First, I apologize for generalization. I had no intention to hurt anybody personally. My statement was mainly not about beekeepers but about traditional beekeeping practice used in commercial beekeeping. The practice has been developed before Varroa mites. Thus it had no tools against Varroa. "Treatment" (chemical) was urgently introduced to mitigate the problem. The chemical treatment (any) normally stimulates the resistance to the treatment (Varroa resisted to the treatment). So, everybody who treat - actually is working hard to produce more resistant Varroa mites. It is just biology. It reminds to me the story with penicillin, when people unwisely used it and produced penicillin-resistant strains of bacteria. When penicillin did not work, another antibiotic was invented and soon we got resistant strain. Using this approach, we already developed the strains of bacteria, which are deadly - there is no treatment for them available now. Right now, people are dying from bacteria, which originally was sensitive to the ordinary penicillin, but not anymore. It seems to me, commercial approach is heading in the same direction demanding more and more "treatments" (chemical) and making more and more resistant mites!

Another aspect of this is the bees. Any chemical treatment weaks the body and suppresses the natural resistance. Treatment technically is a poison. You are trying to establish the dose, which is deadly to mites and not for bees. But low dose of poison is still a poison and affects bees biology. So, one, actually do a weird selection - bees tolerate the poison and do not tolerate the mites. Is it sounds like reverse to what one wanted?

This is why I feel skeptical about "traditional" commercial approach in Varroa time - it is just against biology. It was reasonably good before Varroa. It needs to be adjusted to new reality. Chemical treatment just creates the super-Varroa. Treatment must be a temporary solution - you could not keep human on antibiotics all the time. Russian says - there is nothing more permanent than temporary solution. It is exactly about Varroa - treatment was used as an emergency remedy at the beginning but becomes a standard now. I am against treatment to be a standard procedure. It must be an emergency remedy. 

Spreading super-monster-Varroa in feral bees population is extremely bad since if bees could mitigate a normal Varroa, it does not mean that they are prepared for super-Varroa. 
Sergey

PS I am using the word "treatment" meaning a chemical treatment.


----------



## Hawkster (Apr 16, 2010)

My guess is that like what has been stated Survival is more luck than anything else if nothing is done either with treatment or management. We normally don't have populations large enough to let natural selection work. Skilled breeders with thousands of queens to evaluate are our best hope until then I try and keep my bees alive via every means at my disposal including treating when all else fails. 

I haven't seen a feral colony here in NE Mass in quite a few years


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

cerezha,
making rash thoughts about commercial or what was it, traditional ways of beekeeping and also about treating vs not treating with only 10 months under your belt...thank you.
At ten months, I could hardly think of telling others what they should do cause I was still learning, and had yet to survive a winter let alone 2 winters.

Please get some experience and then trash talk us commercials who practice "traditional beekeeping"
.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

honeyshack said:


> At ten months, I could hardly think of telling others what they should do cause I was still learning, and had yet to survive a winter let alone 2 winters.


Honeyshack/Tammy
Many thanks for your comment. I knew that somebody will rise this. It is not a problem. As you probably noticed, I was talking about resistance in any animals including insects. It is a general subject. I feel having 30+ years of expertise in biology (bachelor), human and animal physiology (masters) and two PH.Ds in Molecular Biology and Immunology I could express my personal opinion on *this* subject with full understanding that I am not an expert in traditional commercial beekeeping. I have to admit that I took commercial beekeeping classes this season, so I have an idea how it works. It is disturbing to observe people talking about "practical experience" and without any reference to basic science, genetics, physiology etc.


> Please get some experience and then trash talk us commercials who practice "traditional beekeeping".


 _At the time I got sufficient to you experience, bees will gone if you will continue to do it your experienced way..._ I am sorry... could not help!

I am not trying to offend anybody, I am just trying to deliver a simple message - systematic use of ANY chemical will create a resistance not in bees, but in Varroa! Could you understand this? It is a science, not beekeeping. 

By the way - I am in So Cal. We do not have a winter. I adopted bees 10 mo ago, but it is the same bees, who is in the hive for 2-3 years. They are survivor bees. In another words, each bees-colony is approximately 3 years old. In your language, it survived at least two "winters" untreated. In our neighborhoods we have total 4 colonies, who survived and doing very well for a few years already. I am new, bees are old. I apologize for any inconvenience my post could cause. Sergey


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

cerezha said:


> This is why I feel skeptical about "traditional" commercial approach in Varroa time - it is just against biology. It was reasonably good before Varroa. It needs to be adjusted to new reality. Chemical treatment just creates the super-Varroa. I am against treatment to be a standard procedure. It must be an emergency remedy.


Theoretically, what would you have people do? What do you think someone w/ 10,000 colonies should do?

"It must be an emergency remedy." How would you determine what is an emergency and then what would you use?


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

It always seems kinda funny when people start saying their bees are survivor bees, when they do absolutely no manipulation on queens and open mate., etc. It is highly unlikely that the queen in your colony today was there a year ago. And as such since the original queen mated with 5 to 10 drones, you have no idea of her genetics or her survivability. All you really know is that bees hive lived in your hive for certain amount of time. You don't know their genetics or how long those genes have been in the hive. Genetics in bees are not the same as mammals, etc as they are haploid. I won't pretend to be an expert in bee genetics, but when you don't manage your colonies, you have no idea what is in them.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Bees are haploid? I know drones are, but I thought that since workers and queens come from fertilized eggs, that theytwere diploid. Maybe I don't understand haploid and diploid.


----------



## xcugat (Mar 4, 2008)

Good post jbeshearse!

I am no Gregor Mendel, but I think that in order to have "survivor bees" you would at least need to have some clue as to the queens origins and then work on getting good drones, an operation that requires a lot of hives to get off the ground, not one or two. 

I would like to hear from more members here with at least 10 hives that do not or have not treated for several years to get more of an idea as to expected losses and success rates. One or two hives is just a fluke but to have a sustainable system of treatment free every year is much more impressive ( I know there are some of you out there!)


----------



## Cedar Hill (Jan 27, 2009)

Am recommending to all concerned an excellent article in this August 2012's Bee Culture magazine found on page 51 "Is monitoring for mite levels necessary?" (We all have mites. Should we just treat?) by Ross Conrad
Personally, I never have tested for mites in my hives - keeping it simple. They all have screened bottom boards. Every one of them is treated after the Clethra flow (Aug.) with formic acid, they produce well and winter well. OMTCW


----------



## Tohya (Apr 6, 2011)

If you plan on not treating, I would suggest that you buy bees that are known to be resistant to varroa. Like VSH strains or Russians. 

If you don't have varroa resistant bees, expect lots of them to die when you don't treat them.

Those of you worried that treating bees is some how going to doom honey bees to extinction, its not going to happen. The Varroa mites aren't going anywhere either.

Varroa destructor was originally a parasitic mite of the Asian honey bee Apis cerana. And Asian honey bees have/had no problems living with varroa. Apis mellifera in Primorsky, this is where the Russian bees are from, have been living with varroa since the 1800s. And 200 years of varroa have not wiped them out yet.


/2 cents


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Theoretically, what would you have people do? What do you think someone w/ 10,000 colonies should do?


 Mark
This is what I was afraid! How I could teach you what to do with 10000 colonies?! As it was pointed out many times, I have only 10 month of beekeeping. It is true that I am not experienced in classical beekeeping. But, I strongly believe that "knowledge is power" - if you understand what is the problem (one out of many), you could choose a better option. Many years ago, people would argue that organic farming is impossible. These days organic farming is doing quite well. I would imagine, something like that may happens in beekeeping when commercial beekeepers will be forced to change their methods under the pressure of public opinion. Like with chickens - non-caged chickens, now! I am sorry Mark - I am not a genius, I could not solve your problems, Mark.


> "It must be an emergency remedy." How would you determine what is an emergency and then what would you use?


 Emergency is when you must use an epipen! Seriously, even with humans, we are not using medicine "in advance" - we use it when prescribed and often do not use it even when prescribed, because we do aware that any chemical may have a side effects etc. And antibiotics are strictly regulated. I would think about chemical treatments as an antibiotics.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Tohya said:


> Apis mellifera in Primorsky, this is where the Russian bees are from, have been living with varroa since the 1800s. And 200 years of varroa have not wiped them out yet.


 But they were not treated as far as I know.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Bees are haploid? I know drones are, but I thought that since workers and queens come from fertilized eggs, that theytwere diploid. Maybe I don't understand haploid and diploid.


Yep, Sqkcrk, you are correct of course, the drones are haploid while the workers and queens are Diploid. So much for my biology...lol...


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

jbeshearse said:


> Genetics in bees are not the same as mammals, etc as they are haploid. I won't pretend to be an expert in bee genetics, but when you don't manage your colonies, you have no idea what is in them.


 Absolutely agree! Genetics in bees are very tricky. Currently, I am trying to figure it out - I'll report to society. By the way, drones are haploid and queen/workers are diploid. The trick is that any good/bad changes in genom (what we needed) may be possible only via sexual cycle, insemination of the queen and next queen must be a decent of existing queen - repeat this 100 times and one may have one gene stick to the genom. Since swarming and drones production in commercial approach is limited and requeening is common, the natural selection does not work. But, it does not necessary means that only big "queen factory" may handle the task of selection - mother nature do it all the time without any help! Just do not interfere! Sergey


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

I guess we should just kill all the honeybees in the US anyway, as they are an invasive species and are not suitable for the US as they are non-native. Furthermore, since we feed millions of people by mass producing food on large farms, which is not natural at all, the whole ecosystem is off kilter. So it would follow that any attempt to allow "nature to take its course" is folly.

Seriously, if we let natural selection take over for all our farm and livestock practices, half the people in the world would starve to death.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Sergey: While I appreciate the tone of your post I think, despite your education, that you simply don't get it. There is no longer a traditional commercial approach. It has evolved with the development of different compounds, different hive manipulations and the introduction of better and more resistant lines of bees. From my perspective we are not losing the battle by breeding super mites we are, in fact, winning the battle. The days of using lots of hard chemicals ended nearly 10 years ago for us when we came to the realization that varroa was building resistance faster than products could be approved. In addition, the major honey packers began much more stringent testing for residues. Last year our honey crop tested 0% ppb for any mite treatment chemicals. That includes coumaphous, amitraz, and fluvalinate. We have developed a "less is better" mentality when it comes to mite treatments. For us it has been fall treatments of thymol and oxalic and spring brood breaks. Thats it. I am not saying everyone has gone that far, but I'm trying to help you to understand that treatments and treatment mentalities have changed considerably in the past 20 years.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Jim
Many thanks for your respond. It is very interesting that you figure this out 10 years ago and congratulations on your 0 ppb! Did they check your wax as well? When I took commercial beekeeping classes at the commercial apiary, they instruct us to start treatment 1/2 normal Apiguard and continue once a week until December! It was just last week. So, I could make my conclusion only on my own experience (which is limited) and reading the books/papers. I think it is very important that people like yourself provide the examples of successful beekeeping with minimal treatment. Hopefully, it will motivate other beekeepers. Many thanks for your post, it was very useful! Sergey


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm convinced that one really has to try different approaches to pest management to have any understanding, and an idea for which method is best. For every experienced beekeeper who touts a method, there is another who disagrees with that method, and recommends another.

There simply is no right answer, and no singlular authority on mites who can tell what is right for your goals and specific location. I think you have to try different approaches and test the advice you receive for yourself.

Adam


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I'm convinced that one really has to try different approaches to pest management to have any understanding, and an idea for which method is best. For every experienced beekeeper who touts a method, there is another who disagrees with that method, and recommends another.
> 
> There simply is no right answer, and no singlular authority on mites who can tell what is right for your goals and specific location. I think you have to try different approaches and test the advice you receive for yourself.
> 
> Adam


I agree. different climates and seasonal lengths make what might work in one scenario impossible in another. That was my point, that there is no "traditional" commercial approach. It's just not that simple. 
Sergey: I don't have any test results for beeswax. My guess is that there are some trace amounts of miticides. Anybody know who tests beeswax?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

cerezha said:


> Just do not interfere!


I am trying...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> We have developed a "less is better" mentality when it comes to mite treatments.


I have to say that is not apparent to the new beekeeper when you start out. From my own experience it is exactly the opposite. The requirement to chemically treat is rammed down their throats. The average new beekeeper not only has no idea what he / she is doing when they decide to keep bees they have no idea how to handle chemicals or the importance of dosing. It could be that the newbie is the worst offender when it comes to chemical treatments.
Jim I wished your post could be highlighted and flashed across the advertising boards instead of those young dolls that say they want me.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

I think Sergey has a good point, in that the varroa mites will become resistant to poisons used over a period of time. I have watched our fire ants become resistant to more and more poisons, and in my limited (really limited) knowledge of biology, both honey bees and ants are hymenoptera.

I certainly think Jim Lyon has a creditable post about using less harsh chemicals as time passes. 

For sure, Sqwcrk had a good point about what are the commercial beekeepers going to do today. They cannot afford to experiment with “no treatment” vs using drone comb and selective breeding and ….. It’s easy for those of us with no dependency of bees to type solutions to beekeeping problems, but it is a different thing if you NEED annual income from your bees and your current methods are working for you. 

I’m a new beekeeper and a hobbyist. Make that a naturalist! I have two apiaries. One of my apiaries was installed a year ago last April from Italian packages. Those bees went through the worst drought in a hundred years with a novice beekeeper. They had a good spring and have built up to a 10 frame deep and most of a 10 frame medium box above the deep. We are in another drought. I have not done anything to these bees this year. Last year I fed them, but they have never been treated. All three hives queens have been superceded, so I have queens from native stock.

I don’t intend to treat these hives. I will keep the forum informed on what happens to them. 

This thread has been very beneficial to my knowledge of bees and varroa mites. Thanks to all of you for my continuing education.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Manitoba was part of a wax testing along with Ontario.
I was part of the testing
Results were...
checkmite, had levels in brood wax, apivar ( amitrax) not, formic not, we did not have registration for thymol at the time of this test.
Canadian honey council recommendations to Canadian beekeepers is...no comb or very little comb from brood chambers should be extracted.
It is recommended to regularly rotate comb in Manitoba


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

lazy shooter said:


> Sqwcrk had a good point about what are the commercial beekeepers going to do today.


It has become apparent to me that they are all different with different circumstances. Even if you were in their shoes you couldn't tell them what they should do because of these differences. I know I would make every effort to keep treatments to a minimum even if it hurts a little because I think it would pay off in the long run. I certainly would not stop treatments cold turkey even for a trial.


----------



## dfortune (Aug 10, 2012)

I would definitely treat for varroa mites. They may seem fine right now but during winter when brood production slows, your mite to bee ratio will increase and then it will be too late. I've even seen mites crawling on queens which is the cause for random queenlessness I believe.


----------



## Knewbee (Nov 17, 2011)

Beregondo said:


> Bees are not people.
> They are livestock.
> Whether you believe it is nature or God who did it, selection is the process established to ensure that species as a whole remain healthy, suffer the least from disease or parasites like mites, and continue to exist rather than become extinct.
> 
> ...



B,

Great post! You have succinctly stated the position of the non-treatment group. I can certainly understand commercial beekeepers for treating their hives. However, in the long run is that the best course for the species? Commercial beekeepers are not evil they are only looking at the short term....keeping their current hives alive. I understand that but that is probably not the best thing long term. Sort of like politics, everyone wants the same thing, yet the rub is how to get there. That is what the argument is about. 

Tom


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I think no one has the answer as to what would be the best course to take. We cannot see into the future and be certain that moves made today are not limiting options in the future. If we also limit our vision to one pest at a time we could easily be setting the scenario for another pest around the corner to take advantage of any narrow genetic (so called) improvent we might be making to resist the pest of the moment. 

Man certainly has the capability to skew the direction of evolution of species; the question is, does he have the wisdom to know he is not creating unforseen consequences. I am not in favor of deliberately allowing a man created circumstance (importing once geographically isolated pests) justify annihilating part of the bees genetic library to achieve resistance to only one pest. I think the live and let die philosophy may have some flawed logic in the big picture view. I say treat and buy time and keep options open.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

honeyshack said:


> Manitoba was part of a wax testing along with Ontario.
> I was part of the testing
> Results were...
> checkmite, had levels in brood wax, apivar ( amitrax) not, formic not, we did not have registration for thymol at the time of this test.
> ...


Thats nice to hear.....sort of. We havent extracted brood chambers in years. Did they do any testing for fluvalinate? Coumaphous is just nasty stuff, I can't believe people are still using it. And on another note, whats going on here? Acebird and I seem to be agreeing more and more nowadays I am starting to miss the "old days" and yeah I even found myself worrying about why he quit posting for awhile. Fortunately, for everyone, he was just on vacation.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Last year I went into winter with 15 hives and 16 nucs. I've tried various types of treatments including drone removal, sugar dusting, SBB's and queen introductions to break the brood cycle. I felt the treatments consumed too much of my time. Last year I decided to try the "survival of the fittest" that some espouse. My bees are for the most part local swarms and cut outs with a queen bought here and there. They looked good and produced quite a bit for me last year . I figured I'd loose half of my hives and a quarter of my nucs to overwintering without treatments. When the winter broke and Spring arrived I found I had 1 hive and 5 nucs still alive. Though I am a sideliner, I have multiple retail customers who rely upon me for their local honey. After wiping the egg from my face and buying 6 nucs and 6 packages to try to get myself back in the game I decided I won't try that trick again.

I've got SBB's and am removing drone frames every 3 weeks with a Hopguard chaser every 6 weeks, starting July 4th. Yea, I'm still elbow deep in the hives but only every 3 weeks. The hives look good but winter is the final judge of their fitness. If you don't want to treat for varroa, don't. You can either learn from my experience or repeat it. It's much cheaper to learn than repeat, but the lesson may not "take" as well.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> ...whats going on here? Acebird and I seem to be agreeing more and more nowadays I am starting to miss the "old days" and yeah I even found myself worrying about why he quit posting for awhile. Fortunately, for everyone, he was just on vacation.


 It is my influence. My posts normally irritate people to the degree that even "enemies" unified against me. I do not mind. People active and during discussion they've developed/polished their own position. To witness active collective thinking process - this is very precious to me! This thread was really god and very educational to me. Thank you all! Sergey


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> It has become apparent to me that they are all different with different circumstances.



We should all keep in mind that we are all doing the best we can, under the circumstances and w/ what we have.

I don't think Sergey or anyone else has brought up anything that isn't know to most commercial beekeepers. As Jim Lyons pointed out, w/ his soft chems Post, we all try to keep abrest of what is available and what is effective and what is practical and affordable. Ideas are always good to kick around. Ya never know when something useful will come to someone who can use it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Knewbee said:


> However, in the long run is that the best course for the species? Commercial beekeepers are not evil they are only looking at the short term....keeping their current hives alive.
> Tom


Tom, I think you, and others who have stated similar comments about commercial beekeepers short sighted view. I am not offended, but I think you (plural) are selling commercial beekeepers short. Commercial beekeepers are in business and would like to pass that business on to someone else, when they can no l;onger work their bees.

Commercial beekeepers are short sighted and far sighted. They are at the forefront of research and legislation. It is their business to be up on what is new and what works, what is on the horizon and what is in development. They preserve the species so it is available for all aspects of beekeeping, selling nucs and queens, providing pollination services so you all can eat nice fruits and vegetables, and honey production of all sorts. Many are Producer/Packers too.

So, maybe you could come up w/ a different word other than "short term"? Or maybe more easily you could see things differently.

We can all work together if everyone trys to see the interests and abilities of each other.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

cerezha said:


> It is my influence. My posts normally irritate people to the degree that even enemies unified against me.


If I may correct you Sergey, I have no enemies I only have people that don't like me or don't like what I say. There are a bunch of people that believe you are on the right tract. I believe you are on the right tract but I can sympathize with a commercial operation that needs to run enough in the black every year to make it worth while. Slow change is good change.

DCoates, you did not know that you would have a major fall out? You could have got that info from this forum without even trying. Now that you took the big hit why are you not propagating the survivors? Seems a waste to suffer a big lose and not monopolize on it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> We can all work together if everyone trys to see the interests and abilities of each other.


I like that Mark. Good post.


----------



## xcugat (Mar 4, 2008)

Ace be fair to D coates-- He knew he would have large losses going treatment free and ended up loosing 94 percent of all his full hives. Even if he propagated that one hive and split it twice in one year what would he have maybe 8 hives max--Even if he did everything going right into winter and even that is pushing it--no extra honey or bees or anything. That one hive may have just been a fluke, as 16 hives is not exactly going to be all that genetically diverse. So instead of survivors he just had one that got lucky--if he had the same losses the next year he would be left with one half dead hive after two years of work. For those who go treatment free come back to us after losing ten or more hives every year and having to start over it gets old real fast--believe me I have tried it myself. I am still waiting for someone out there with more than 10 hives that has been treatment free for more than *3 years with the same queens* to chime in with their experience.

100 Posts! Shippoopi!!


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Acebird said:


> I have no enemies


 Corrected enemies -> "enemies". I am sorry I used this word since was running out of English... sometime it happened to me...


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

xcugat said:


> ... I am still waiting for someone out there with more than 10 hives that has been treatment free for more than *3 years with the same queens* to chime in with their experience.


 I think, you need to address this question to Solomon Parker - he is on treatment-free forum. If I understood correctly, he considered even essential oils and purposely planted plants as a treatment. He stated that his apiary is treatment-free for 8-9 years, but you better communicate with him directly. I personally do not label the queens, thus, it is not possible to tell how long hive has the same queen. I have no intentions to label queens in the future. Sergey


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

If we think about commercial beekeeping like we do commercial farming, maybe the differences will make more sense.
A person farming hundreds/thousands of acres will find it necessary to apply some sort of pesticides to assure his crop. Livestock producers are much the same. None of us (or them) are happy with that but we do like eating.
As an individual, you can likely grow a backyard garden or have a few chickens and not use any (many) pesticides. You may well succeed.
Would you suggest that the fellow farming those thousands of acres abandon the use of pesticides entirely? And if he chose not to, would you say he was being short sighted?
Wouldn’t it be entertaining to see a message board where commercial farmers and backyard gardeners could exchange ideas like we do on Beesource? Can you imagine the brawls?
As Jim and Mark have pointed out, many commercial beekeepers are working to reduce or eliminate contaminating pesticides in their businesses. These are thoughtful, forward thinking people, trying to make a living, produce a quality product and leave something worthwhile for their descendants.
As has been pointed out we are all walking in different shoes….for crying out loud….even Ace is on board.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Commercial beekeepers are short sighted and far sighted. They are at the forefront of research and legislation. It is their business to be up on what is new and what works, what is on the horizon and what is in development. They preserve the species so it is available for all aspects of beekeeping, selling nucs and queens, providing pollination services so you all can eat nice fruits and vegetables, and honey production of all sorts.


 I am sorry Mark - sounded like soviet-time propaganda. I did not see any *scientific* papers published by commercial beekeepers or papers stated that they had money for research from commercial beekeepers. Legislation - beneficial to industry, not consumers. "Preserving" the species - are you serious? Bees nearly disappeared under commercial practices. Pollination - moving bees 1000 miles - what is good in this? Spreading diseases and other problems? I would imagine that you and others have a good intentions, but I, as a customer, just do not see it. But - it is my problem if I do not see something.

This discussion gave me some new information but it did not change my opinion on commercial beekeeping practic*es* (now I am using plural instead singular). It is not because I am stubborn (quite possible also), it is because I just did not see the arguments, which could change my opinion. I am sorry, people. sergey


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

What is the advantage of a queen that stays productive for 3 years over bees that supercede smoothly? 

If you are buying mated queens I see the point...but cells and virgins are cheap to buy, and even cheaper to raise yourself.

Without our help, most hives will swarm every year...and my understanding is that swarms often (if not usually) raise up a new queen after getting settled....so are queens supposed to be productive for 3 years?....or is it only important if you are buying them?

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

cerezha said:


> I am sorry Mark - sounded like soviet-time propaganda. I did not see any *scientific* papers published by commercial beekeepers or papers stated that they had money for research from commercial beekeepers. Legislation - beneficial to industry, not consumers. "Preserving" the species - are you serious? Bees nearly disappeared under commercial practices. Pollination - moving bees 1000 miles - what is good in this? Spreading diseases and other problems? I would imagine that you and others have a good intentions, but I, as a customer, just do not see it. But - it is my problem if I do not see something.


That's okay. I don't know that you actually wrote this outright, but you seem to blame the commercial beekeepers for almost wiping out honeybees in North America. Is that your opinion?

This never happened. The idea that honeybees were in peril is fiction. There has never been a shortage of honeybees. I know no one inj need of pollination who hasn't gotten bees. I know no one who has ever wanted to buy bees who couldn't get them because of shortages or extinction.

On the other hand, were it not for commercial beekeepers queens for selling and beehives for pollination would not be readily available when needed. Moving bees thousands of miles, or simply hundreds of miles, keeps fresh, well developed fruits and vegetable in produce aisles of grocery stores across the Nation. That's what good such work does.

You as what kind of customer? You don't buy bees from commercial beekeepers, so that can't be it. Do you mean as a consumer of foods grown from pollinated crops?

As far as diseases and pests are concerned, if no commercial migratory beekeepers existed those pests and diseases would still exist and get around. No commercial beekeeper brought varroa jacobsinii to North America.

Sergey, you may not know about The American Beekeeping Federation and the American Honey Producers Association. Google them and see what they are about. Those two associations, primarily but not exclusively commercial beekeepers, support grad students and research done on bees and problems that honeybees have.

They hold annual conferences with huge agendas covering many aspects of beekeeping w/ speakers and presenters not found at your State Level Association Meetings. A huge list of speakers, people from all walks of beekeeping life. From beekeepers to international researchers and everything you can think of in between.

"Preserving the species'? Yes, we make new colonies and queens every year to replace those lost and to sell to others. Our goal is to see bees and beekeeping survive and thrive on into the future.

You are a Scientist. You want documentation and impirical studys. You really should go to 
Bee-L, bee-L.com. Sure, there are folks who could sight studys and papers for you. That's not me. I'm a hands on guy, not a computer wiz or the reader of Papers. I subscribe to American Bee Journal, mostly for the pictures.  (a little American humor) There are very few scientific papers I have read in ABJ. My mind goes numb. I'm sure you can understand.

We have exchanged PMs. I have no problem w/ you. You bring up interesting things to think about.


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

guess i'm damed if i do and damed if i don't. But like i said i have 17 hives so if i get some throught winter i'll bee happy then i can make splits and queens and don't have to deal with trying to buy nucs. As far as the money and honey if i get honey for me them i'm happy i have bee's as a hobby and don't care about making money. I'll let every one know how winter go's last year i had only 3 hives and they made it throght winter ok . One thing i have learned since i joined beesorce is beekeepers get p.off easy but i've learned alot here thank you.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Please don't read anything I have written as if it were written in anger. It was not. I just happen to have a different perspective and mental bent on things near and dear to me than some others who hold things near and dear to themselves too. Don't confuse passion w/ anger.

It's all good.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

GLOCK said:


> guess i'm damed if i do and damed if i don't. But like i said i have 17 hives so if i get some throught winter i'll bee happy then i can make splits and queens and don't have to deal with trying to buy nucs. One thing i have learned since i joined beesorce is beekeepers get p.off easy but i've learned alot here thank you.


If you have really high mite loads, late summer right after you have taken your honey crop off and the queens are still laying is the perfect time to treat with something like hopguard or a formic or thymol product. There is virtually no danger of honey contamination. You will kill lots, and lots of mites and no one will ever convince me that such a treatment is a bad thing. I really dont see a downside to that. Its the one treatment that I just cant forego because it is the time that mite loads are the highest. Get your numbers low in the fall, use the resulting strong hives in the spring to make a bunch of splits and you are on your way to success. Its where I part ways with my friends in the treatment free crowd. If you don't have a problem, well then thats the best situation of all. If it ain't broke don't fix it. 
People getting upset on Beesource? The way this thread has been sounding lately I think we are ready for a big ole group hug.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

GLOCK said:


> One thing i have learned since i joined beesorce is beekeepers get p.off easy.


That's ok Glock, I'll save some room for you under the bus.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Is it warm under there Keith? Is that why you are hiding there? Or maybe it's cool?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Many posts back, some one asked:

I am still waiting for someone out there with more than 10 hives that has been treatment free for more than 3 years with the same queens to chime in with their experience.

We have one yard(of around 20) that has been genetically isolated from the rest, for five years. We do not use any chemical miticides. It currently us at full strength, 20 hives(what we feel the location can support). What would you like to know about them?

If commercial beekeepers are so bad for bees, why do most people buy their bees from them? When the commercial people are buying from the hobbiest, I will drink the coolaid.

If commercial beekeepers are so short sighted, why are WE still in business after 160 years?

When you get CCD(the REAL thing), you will realize these mites are a "walk in the Park". Get you mite solutions straightened out, because there is something much worse on the way.

Was the passing of the toughest honey definition laws in Wisconsin, at the instigation of the BEEKEEPERS, not beneficial to the consumer?

Crazy Roland


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Roland said:


> If commercial beekeepers are so bad for bees, why do most people buy their bees from them?


errrr, this is a simple math problem. 1% of the beekeepers (the migratory commercial beeks) have 99% of the bees (these figures are rounded, but not much).
Of the rest of the 99% of beekeepers, they have 1% of the bees.
So, is it surprising that a group with 99% sells to the group with 1%?
Why do commercial beekeepers tend to sell nucs? ...because they are taking their own advice and rotating out their old comb!

deknow


----------



## xcugat (Mar 4, 2008)

Thanks Roland! Finally someone has taken up my challenge of more than 10 hives for more than 3 years treatment free.

Here are some questions for you

You said the yard has 20 hives in it currently. Approximatly how many die off each year, and when they do are you splitting the ones left to get the numbers back up and keep them isolated?

What race of bees are they/are they mutts?

Do you mark/keep track of queens for longevity? 

What kind of treatments do you do if any that are non chemical ie drone trapping sugar dusting (if that is non chemical...) Breaking up the brood cycle or maybe nothing?

Are there any other apiarys nearby to cross mate with?

Thanks for any insight you have--treatment free in scale is much harder in practice than a lot of people think.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> ...because they are taking their own advice and rotating out their old comb!
> 
> deknow


I find that a cynical reply. As if I intentionally amgetting rid of something bad or not good for my customers. I help a large nuc provider make nucs from his hives. Never have I been told to be sure to use the old combs.

I sell nucs for the income.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Most larger beekeepers sell nucs (do splits) as part of their swarm management and sell those nucs as a good business practice. I too sell nucs. My nucs have frames that are less than or at most two years old. My frame cull pile is filled with older frames. Anybody else resent being unjustly painted by such a cynical brush?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

beemandan said:


> Would you suggest that the fellow farming those thousands of acres abandon the use of pesticides entirely?


I would prefer the size of the farms to be small or smaller with a lot more people farming them if that is the answer to abandon pesticides. If this works for beekeeping than I am in favor for that also. Mark used the word "passion" their is no passion in a major corporate entity other than chasing dollars. Anything they can get away with that will increase the bottom line is deemed acceptable.

Big government and big corporations = the same thing. "How can we take in more money." "We don't care about anything else."


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

.....hold on a second you two.....I am specifically referring to to 1% of commercial beekeepers with 99% of the bees. I don't know the details of either one of your businesses, but i dont think either one of you is part of that group.
Supplying quality nucs is good business...but the nucs ive seen from the larger players (the ones that go around looking for local brokers to sell their nucs) are obviosly made from old combs as part of rotating them out of their own operation (these are also heavily treated bees to start with, so comb contamination is a real issue).
At least one local producer of nucs has stopped because he cant afford to lose so much good comb as part of the process.
Do you really think that the 1% of beeks with 99% of the bees are selling nucs with good comb?
I do have a comb sample from a local beek (a resource contributor) that I sraped off the plastic foundation of such a nuc.... the intention was to have it tested, but the matching funds are no longer available, and the $200+ for the testing is better spent elsewhere (at least my $200 is). I ha e the sample im my freezer and will photograph it when I return home next week......mostly cocoons.

Deknow


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

beemandan said:


> Most larger beekeepers sell nucs (do splits) as part of their swarm management and sell those nucs as a good business practice. I too sell nucs. My nucs have frames that are less than or at most two years old. My frame cull pile is filled with older frames. Anybody else resent being unjustly painted by such a cynical brush?


I am not going to attempt to generalize what motivates most nuc sellers but I would tend to think it is driven more by the opportunity to derive income from their excess bees than by a desire to get rid of old comb. I have done enough of it to know that nucing is a pretty intense time with a lot of stuff going on such as cell schedules, bee moving, feeding, controlling robbing and drifting etc. that trying to factor in how to make sure I cull certain combs into certain nucs is pretty secondary. In my case I have more often ended up on the short end of the frame exchange quality issue because it is a bit of a problem to require all new combs in exchange because I don't like to put too many frames of foundation in a split so I prefer a mixture of foundation and drawn comb.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

In my opinion Dean, you sometimes take a broad sweep in an accusation without considering it carefully. Overt accusations are a serious matter, again in my opinion.


deknow said:


> Why do commercial beekeepers tend to sell nucs? ...because they are taking their own advice and rotating out their old comb!


Had you included the word ‘some’, I (and likely innocent others) would not feel tainted.
But you do it again.


deknow said:


> ..I am specifically referring to to 1% of commercial beekeepers with 99% of the bees.


The word ‘some’ would, again, be appropriate. Now instead of accusing all nuc producers, you’ve only accused ‘all’ of the big ones. 
I bought nucs years ago from one of the ‘big boys’ and had to cull all of the frames the first season. On the other hand, I’ve seen nucs produced by a multithousand hive beekeeper that are probably as current as the ones I sell. And…he doesn’t use any synthetic miticides. I’m sure if he bothered to read this thread, he’d be rightfully offended. And I don't believe he is the only one.
Everyone is not guilty.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I can't do anything to insure that one sentence in a post that is talking about the biggest 1% of beekeepers isn't taken out of context.
Your experience with the nucs that had to have all the frames culled is exactly what I was referring to.
The other beekeeper you mention.....I have no idea who it is, or what their practices are. Synthetic miticides were discontinued how many years ago? What about tylosin? 
Are all of his/her nucs. Up to your standards...or just that you saw some that were? 
What do you think a beekeeper (new or seasoned) should ask a nuc supplier? Do you think the broker or supplier always knows how old the combs are, what they were treated with? Do you think one would always get a straight answer?

Wrt. Jim's comments I would suggest that a BIG operation has both the manpower and organization to preferentially pull old comb for nucs.....not to mention the financial motivation (otherwise "good" combs are used for nucs to be sold to others, and the comb that need to be culled are burned).

There is a big difference between nucs (or honey) that is produced in order to produce a quality product, and nucs/honey that are a mere byproduct of the business of pollination.

Best case scenario is the customer has a trusting relationship with the supplier/producer...and that that trust is justified...this is often not the case (again, many nucs are sold by brokers who are not transparant or even informed about where they came from, and what the circumstances are). If you have that kind of relationship with your customer base, nothing I say here will affect your business...nor should it.

But these issues are not visible to the new beekeeper...and many end up on the short end of the stick...I see it every year, as these are the least expensive and most abundant nucs available.

deknow


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

xcugat said:


> Ace be fair to D coates


Some folks can't help themselves with their love of armchair quarterbacking, posting, and pointing out their hindsite brilliance. It's those type of posts that inhibit the transfer of knowledge because exposing yourself to snarky snipers with an obvious failure is not pleasant.

The whole reason I told of my failure was your request to know how someone with more than 10 hives faired with no treatements. I tried that route and won't again. I did split the one hive that survived with the idea of possibly rearing queens from her. I found supercedure cells in that hive 2 months later. I found the marked survivor queen and transfered her to a nuc where she lasted a month before she was superceded herself.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

D Coates said:


> ...and pointing out their hindsite brilliance.


I think you are using the wrong term....they are pointing out what they see in themselves...their "hindside brilliance"....which is often observed from the interior or their own hindside.

deknow


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Dang, I though you missed my sarcasm. Nope, you got it just right.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> could be that the newbie is the worst offender when it comes to chemical treatments.


The following poll suggests that the great majority of new beekeepers wish to avoid chemical treatments.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/poll.php?pollid=425&do=showresults


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Just to be a bit of a smarty pants (the cleaner version of what originally was in my brain)

Question is what are your intentions. The option most people picked is, "I would like my bees to be treatment free".

I'd like mine to be treatment free too, but that's not my intention.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

BeeCurious said:


> The following poll suggests that the great majority of new beekeepers wish to avoid chemical treatments.


I would submit to you that beekeepers universally wish to avoid chemical treatments.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> I can't do anything to insure that one sentence in a post that is talking about the biggest 1% of beekeepers isn't taken out of context.


In light of the rest of your posts, I think I represented the meaning of your sentence perfectly.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

....and Americans would all like to be rich....but those that try by selling Amway, buying lottery tickets, or Anthony Robbins videotapes don't get there. It isn't just what you want, it's what you do to get there that counts.

Deknow


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

deknow said:


> Wrt. Jim's comments I would suggest that a BIG operation has both the manpower and organization to preferentially pull old comb for nucs.....not to mention the financial motivation (otherwise "good" combs are used for nucs to be sold to others, and the comb that need to be culled are burned).
> deknow


Gosh Dean just because you feel that we would have the manpower to make sure that our customers get bad combs dosent mean that we would do it. When I have sold nucs they have always been pretty large quantities and all I am thinking about are things like where are the best bees with the most brood so that I can do this as efficiently as possible. Oh sure I know of a few commercial guys that would probably be concerned with getting rid of the bad stuff but I know far more fair and honest folks that would make sure their customers were happy. Come on down to Texas next spring and spend a few days splitting with us, it will give you a whole different perspective.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> It isn't just what you want, it's what you do to get there that counts.


Amen to that.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

xcugat said:


> I would like to hear from more members here with at least 10 hives that do not or have not treated for several years to get more of an idea as to expected losses and success rates. One or two hives is just a fluke but to have a sustainable system of treatment free every year is much more impressive ( I know there are some of you out there!)


Xcugat
There is a sticky note just at the beginning of the Bee-forum about treatment-free 6 years experience by StevenG. It is quite elaborate report with year-to-year details for each beehive. Report is here:
http://www.beesource.com/2010/no-treatment-of-honey-bees-report-3/

enjoy, sergey


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Acebird said:


> Big government and big corporations = the same thing. "How can we take in more money." "We don't care about anything else."


Well... Let me help you here, AceBird.

Big Goverment= "how can we TAKE (TAX) in more money"
Big Cororations = " how can we EARN more money"

keith


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

beemandan said:


> I would submit to you that beekeepers universally wish to avoid chemical treatments.


 Did you do the poll? It is only way to prove your words. Otherwise, it is empty words - they may wish one thing but do another... I am sorry, but I think if such poll would be performed for mature/commercial beekeepers here, it will show the opposite results. My feeling based on experience at beesource - treatment-free is minority here. Sergey


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Keith Jarrett said:


> Big Goverment= "how can we TAKE (TAX) in more money"
> Big Cororations = " how can we EARN more money"
> keith


 EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

cerezha said:


> Did you do the poll? It is only way to prove your words. Otherwise, it is empty words - they may wish one thing but do another... I am sorry, but I think if such poll would be performed for mature/commercial beekeepers here, it will show the opposite results. My feeling based on experience at beesource - treatment-free is minority here. Sergey


I think you may have missed a nuance in Beemandan's quote. That being, "wish". Most beekeepers do "wish" to avoid chemical treatments. I would LOVE to avoid the time, money, and effort consumed by chemical treatments. Everything is made of chemicals so unless you want to remove them physically you're using a chemical in one way shape or form. Logically, who in there right mind wants to do these things and pay these costs if they aren't neccesary? There's nothing to argue about here.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

cerezha said:


> EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey



Huge difference, if you don't want to do business with big corporations you don't have to. Therefor they "earn" no money from you.

You can't avoid the Government, they'll get money from you in one way shape or form.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beemandan said:


> In light of the rest of your posts, I think I represented the meaning of your sentence perfectly.


So, what do you think is going on?

1. I meant that ALL commercial beekeepers (beekeepers who make a living with bees) dump bad comb...and for some reason I'm backing off on the claim? I'm hardly shy about expressing my opinions even if they are not going to be well received...if that is what I thought, I would say so. It's also worth noting that some commercial beekeepers I count among my very good friends....do you think I'm claiming that Kirk Webster and Mike Palmer (among others) are dumping old comb in nucs?

2. That you know the "meaning" of my post better than I do?

3. That I'm nuts and have no idea what I'm talking about?

...or what?

I'm also curious which of "the rest of my posts" indicate that I think badly of all commercial beekeepers?

...or is it even a distant possibility that I'm being honest and upfront and in fact, that a post that was talking specifically about the biggest 1% of migratory commercial beekeepers was not referring to every commercial beekeeper in the U.S. or on the planet?

Honestly, I think it's funny that I would be accused of "backpedaling"...I said what I meant and meant what I said....and when what I said was placed out of context in order to show that I said something I didn't, I clarified my position....not by changing it, but by pointing out what I actually said.

Since we are taking single sentences out of context in order to 'prove' that the poster is full of it....One of your posts earlier in the thread contained this funny claim:


> Sergey, what's new about not treating? Back in the eighties commercial beekeepers didn't treat for mites.


...by the mid/late 80's they did. Before that they were using antibiotics copiously...and before that, sulfa drugs....ditto with fumidil. Has there ever been an approved (or unapproved) treatment that commercial beekeepers have shied away from? If there were something effective against chalkbrood it would be being used today (well, some are using bananas). Heck, Randy Oliver (and others) were paying to do RNAi trials for Beeologics/Monsanto. No one seems to admit to using coumaphos anymore...but someone is buying it. No one would have stopped using apistan if resistance hadn't developed. In general, the commercial beekeeping industry has embraced every treatment that has come along...and stayed with them until they lost effectiveness. Heck, wasn't Tylan just approved a few years ago...now there is another new antibiotic for foulbrood.

So what is new about not treating? Since the introduction of treatments, they have been baseline beekeeping. I've had a state inspector claim some bees weren't treated...until I asked about fumidil...the answer was, "well....fumidil...". One researcher I know got bees from one of the bee labs...they commented to the lab that they wish they could get untreated bees...the lab's response was, 'we don't treat our bees'...when asked what they do for varroa, the answer was, 'well, we treat for mites'.

Since when does 'treatment' mean only mite treatment? Since when is mite treatments not treatment?

I know several bee researchers that don't treat and don't feed...I'm not going to out them, but the approach is so controversial that they generally keep it on the DL.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

cerezha said:


> EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey


here is a good example of exactly what I've been accused of. We have an LLC....meaning that we are a corporation. I understand the drift of the post, and I am not confused thinking that Sergy means all corporate entities are "stealing"...he is talking about big corporations that influence policy to their own benefit. He is not talking about a small business that is incorporated.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

D Coates said:


> Huge difference, if you don't want to do business with big corporations you don't have to.


Err, sure, under the new health care legislation, you can pay a tax to the government if you don't want to buy insurance from a big corporation.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I would prefer the size of the farms to be small or smaller with a lot more people farming them if that is the answer to abandon pesticides. If this works for beekeeping than I am in favor for that also. Mark used the word "passion" their is no passion in a major corporate entity other than chasing dollars. Anything they can get away with that will increase the bottom line is deemed acceptable.
> 
> Big government and big corporations = the same thing. "How can we take in more money." "We don't care about anything else."


Acebird,
Who are you going to work those farmers, imported slave labor? Theconomics isn't there for what you dream of.

When I used the word "passion" I was refering to the tone of my response, as opposed to "anger". I don't know how you took that leap into the major corporate.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> .....hold on a second you two.....
> 
> but i don't think either one of you is part of that group.
> 
> ...



Dean, I don't know where the cutoff is in your mind between someone like myself who runs between 400 and 600 and as much as 800 and "the 99%". I believe you are refering to DM, right?

I can't say what all of the rest of the commercial nuc producers and sellers do, only one who produces thousands of nucs and his nucs are made up from combs found in the hives, and as I said, no one is directed to go for the oldest combs. There are new frames and foundation in those nucs too. A frame of capped brood, a frame of honey, a frame w/ pollen and open brood a frame of foundation or two, and a frame of empty comb. W/ a queen cell added.

Your experience is different from mine. What can I say? I can see why you see this the way you do.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

cerezha said:


> EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey


:shhhh:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

cerezha said:


> My feeling based on experience at beesource - treatment-free is minority here. Sergey


Sergey, I would love to be treatment free, but I am not. Because I have chosen to make a living keeping bees.

I would also love to be thin, but I am not. I am however thinner. Just as I am this year using softer chemical treatments, MAQS and Apigaurd. I know that is not the samer as no treatments at all, but it is a step to better beekeeping, in my opinion.

Also, I would suggest that you try to write about the use of treatments in the Treatment Free Forum and see how long your Thread lasts before being shut down.

Asw a nuc seller I have gotten more bad comb from those I have sold nucs to then they have gotten from me. So, especially after recieving 5 nuc boxes returned w/ 25 frames of AFB scale, I no longer accept frames from customers. All I want back is the box.

Were I not familiar w/ AFB, maybe I would be painting nuc buyers w/ Dean's brush.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

cerezha said:


> EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey


You are a Scientist, right? Which Corporation do you work for?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

deknow said:


> Err, sure, under the new health care legislation, you can pay a tax to the government if you don't want to buy insurance from a big corporation.
> 
> deknow


Yes, but who instigated it? Big Government. You still don't have to do business with a Big corporation. Big govt will be there to get your money then.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Watch it, political comments are liable to be deleted or end up in Tailgater.



cerezha said:


> I think, you need to address this question to Solomon Parker - he is on treatment-free forum. If I understood correctly, he considered even essential oils and purposely planted plants as a treatment. He stated that his apiary is treatment-free for 8-9 years, but you better communicate with him directly. I personally do not label the queens, thus, it is not possible to tell how long hive has the same queen. I have no intentions to label queens in the future. Sergey


Not quite correctly. I consider essential oils a treatments, but not plants. However, I do not do anything to help the bees deal with pests, that includes plants, screen bottom boards, sticky boards, brood breaks, systematic splitting, and drone come removal.

I have been keeping bees for nine years, four months, 21 days, approximately. I started with 20 three-pound packages and I currently have 28. Most of my current hives are descended from one hive which has survived this entire time with no treatment whatsoever. During that course of time, I have added approximately ten outside queens, five of which are still with me, and one of those has been mother to half a dozen or so others.

I wish I had gotten in on this conversation earlier, but to answer the OP, I have had a hive crawling with mites, dozens of living mites readily visible, with expectation of the collapse of the hive. However, that hive is still with me today. It's not a great performer, but it's still alive. I say you don't know what they can do until you let them try. The ultimate solution for honeybee diseases is for all of them to be treatment free. That's the only way to have a sustainable kept honeybee population without expensive and ineffective treatments.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Acebird,
> Theconomics isn't there for what you dream of.


If I try to answer I will get blamed for taking the topic off topic. My comment is that we disagree on this. 
The pesticides that are used on bee colonies are poisons. If you agree with Seregy's point of view that these chemicals are bad for bees in the long run, (I do agree) you might also agree that these chemicals used on human food are also bad for humans in the long run (not everybody does, I do). If you are a believer you see the economics but it is another hot topic that has been discussed before.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

cerezha said:


> EARN - really?!!!!!! may be "steal" the better word? Sergey


Now that sounds like a bitter statment.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> If I try to answer I will get blamed for taking the topic off topic. My comment is that we disagree on this.
> The pesticides that are used on bee colonies are poisons. If you agree with Seregy's point of view that these chemicals are bad for bees in the long run, (I do agree) you might also agree that these chemicals used on human food are also bad for humans in the long run (not everybody does, I do). If you are a believer you see the economics but it is another hot topic that has been discussed before.


Amazingly almost all of the food you eat has been brought to you thru the miricles of modern science, mainly chemistry, and you and everyone else survives and thrives, w/out detrimental side effects, far more than not.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> ... I would love to be treatment free, but I am not. ..


 Mark, I feel that this discussion actually is going in good direction. I am very glad to hear that commercial beekeepers are aware of the problem and are willing to work in the direction of reducing the usage of chemicals. If it is true, it is just great! Still, promises needs to be fulfilled, but it is a good beginning. Unfortunately, my area of expertise is away from bees, so I could not provide practical help, but hopefully others could. Sergey


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

D Coates said:


> .. if you don't want to do business with big corporations you don't have to. Therefor they "earn" no money from you.


 Not true - I could not change my gas or electric company. During EMRON (spell?) crisis, our Edison increases prices for the electricity and magically "forgot" return them back when crisis was over... Later it was established that the whole EMRON crisis was artificial and affected a million of customers but nobody was compensated. The same - my insurance company and if you do not know, but at university, we may order stuff only from particular companies. Talking about "good" intentions in large corporations is a pure propaganda to me. Sergey


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

When we commercial beekeepers are able to keep bees w/out mite treatments we will. Just as we did before 1984. Yes, Dean, some will still use fumidil and Tylosin or TM, but I haven't and don't think I will. Diseases I address w/ fire and young queens in strong colonies.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

Keith Jarrett said:


> Now that sounds like a bitter statment.


Keith,
Russian says that truth is sour, but may be in English it is bitter?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Amazingly almost all of the food you eat has been brought to you thru the miricles of modern science, mainly chemistry, and you and everyone else survives and thrives, w/out detrimental side effects, far more than not.


 O-oooo I got you Mark! *This IS area of my expertise!* Not true entirely! We have substantial increase in the cancer (and allergy), which is clearly associated with pollution of any kind including but not limited to pesticides and hormones in food chain, air pollution, electromagnetic field pollution and many others! The problem with pollutants (any) is that they are working at very low concentrations/doses for long period of time (decades). Also, if you are living in US, please, do not think that you are protected from pollutants - you ARE NOT! Most of EPA, FDA you name it ... agency's standards are way above (permits the higher amount of bad stuff) standards in Europe or Japan. Why? Partially, because of lobbying by big corporations. Particularly, I was involved in investigation of the black carbon pollution from truck's diesels. Apparently - black carbon standard in US is used to be 10 times higher (more pollution permitted) than in Europe because of lobbying by coal industry. Also, other, even more dangerous products of diesel fuel decomposition are not regulated at all! As a result, the mortality from cancer in the Central Valley (CA) is 30% higher in the areas with main trucks paths. On the map it looks scary - around each road with trucks - there is a halo of cancer deaths. This study was performed by UCLA and available.

Mark, when your trucks are moving bees, they literally spread the cancer around! It is not a joke! It is deadly serious - trucks pollution is practically unregulated in US.

I wish everybody healthy life away from chemicals. Sergey

By the way, as a biochemist (my official title, I have many), I could tell you - there is no good (for your life) chemical - all of them bad for animal/insectl/human just in different way. Unfortunately, sometime we need to use them, but once it is a system or overdose, it is always turned bad sooner or later. Using chemicals on wild animals like bees is even more dangerous since we do not know well how wild organism will respond on chemical. In Los Angeles, during 60-es (I was not here) nearly 95% of natural ecosystem was destroyed by pollution. It is not recovered yet. What we have - non-native more aggressive species filling up the gap, africanized bees for instance.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

cerezha said:


> Keith,
> Russian says that truth is sour,


Well, maybe you should go where the truth is sour.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Hey Glock,

Why not just do a few sugar dustings, and leave them be....


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

cerezha said:


> Mark, when your trucks are moving bees, they literally spread the cancer around! It is not a joke! It is deadly serious - trucks pollution is practically unregulated in US.


So what is all this talk about new clean burning deisels that just emit water vapor and whats the purpose of all this DEF fluid that I have to keep buying?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Amazingly almost all of the food you eat has been brought to you thru the miricles of modern science, mainly chemistry, and you and everyone else survives and thrives, w/out detrimental side effects, far more than not.


...there pretty much isn't a disease that humans get that isn't exacerbated by being overweight. Do you think that our modern food system has nothing to do with obesity, heart disease, diabetes? Do you think we are healthier with cheap refined sugars being made so readily available? Would we be a healthier society if we didn't have soda?

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

jim lyon said:


> Come on down to Texas next spring and spend a few days splitting with us, it will give you a whole different perspective.


If that's a serious offer, you might get a 2 for 1...Ramona won't let me have all the fun 

deknow


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> So what is all this talk about new clean burning deisels that just emit water vapor and whats the purpose of all this DEF fluid that I have to keep buying?


 DEF reduces nitrogen oxides, poisonous stuff. Initially was established in Europe, I am pleased to see that it is in US also. It does not affect other stuff from diesel. As far as I know, diesel emits black carbon, which considered to be a carcinogen by World Health organization, Europe and Japan but US (potential carcinogen in US). Diesel emits also "organic" byproducts of incomplete fuel burning - many of them known to be a mutagenes, but not regulated in US. Diesel also emits a new "enemy" - nanoparticles (recent addition), which potentially may be toxic. Nanoparticles are under close watch from EPA - as far as I know, for some reason, they wanted them to be regulated... not yet. 

I am impressed with DEF - Jim, is it mandatory to use? Sergey


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

deknow said:


> ...Ramona won't let me have all the fun


 Deknow, are you from Ramona, SoCal? I have "uncle Charlie" in Ramona, he has chickens and his daughter owns "Ramona Cafe". Sergey


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> ...there pretty much isn't a disease that humans get that isn't exacerbated by being overweight. Do you think that our modern food system has nothing to do with obesity, heart disease, diabetes? Do you think we are healthier with cheap refined sugars being made so readily available? Would we be a healthier society if we didn't have soda?
> 
> deknow


Good points. How come, on average we live longer?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Good points. How come, on average we live longer?


Certainly folks live longer...in part because of advanced medicine, in part because of better overall nutrition.....but a lot of it has to do with the reduction in infant mortality (infant mortality effects such averages severely.....it's like getting a zero on a school assignment).

Deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

This whole thread has gotten so far off track that I am moving on.
To the original poster good luck with whatever choice you make.


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

BEEMANDAN you said it and thank you.
Ill go thought this winter no treat and see what happens next year .


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

I'll confess I did not read this whole thread, and I came to it late.

A couple of comments:

1. If the OP does not want to treat, there is also an alternative to live and let die. Namely, kill the current queen, go back in a few days and tear out any queen cells they started, then give them a frame of eggs from a hive that has a low mite count. Presto, you just broke the brood cycle and got rid of some unfit genes and still kept the hive. I would add that, in this scenario, you could also use Hopguard to knock down the mite level, but that would be optional.

2. Somebody mentioned the idea of "invasive species such as Africanized honeybees." European bees are an invasive species, and so are the mites, and so are a large percentage of the plants the bees are visiting. Not sure that's particularly relevant to the meat of this thread, but it bears mentioning that our entire ecoystem at this point is a hodge-podge of invasive species.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

I would add that if people choose not to treat, that is fine with me. However, I would encourage brand new beekeepers to treat and learn how to keep bees first. Dead bees don't teach you much, and you learn to keep bees by keeping bees. Reading only goes so far, at least in this context.

Also, there are treatments that are safe (for people anyway) and effective. Thymol products and Hopguard cannot possibly be dangerious to people. I put thyme in lots of stuff I cook, and that results in more thymol being in my stew than would ever be in my honey. I can't, after all, taste it in my honey, but I can taste it in my stew, which is the point, after all. 

There are also treatments I would not recommend, particularly Checkmite.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Okay, so if someone taking Lisinopril and Simvastatan and a cpl of fishoil tabs per day is keeping his blood pressure and cholesteral in a good range lives to be 90 and someone who doesn't only lives to be 60, who had the better life? Maybe I didn't do anything wrong except have the wrong Grandparents. So for the sake of a drug free life I should stop the medications? Hmmm, no thanks.

And for the sake of maintaininhg live colonies I will continue their medications too. Except burning of AFB hives and not treating for nosema.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> and not treating for nosema.


hate to bring the thread back to bee's, but why not treating for nosema?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe I didn't do anything wrong except have the wrong Grandparents.


Isn't that an excuse the younger generation has just about warn out?
I hate to say this to you but if you are taking those pills at 60 you are never going to see 90 unless you get to the route cause of why you have to take those pills. You are not alone Mark our society of quick fixes pulls the wool over our eyes making us believe these pills are the answer. They are nothing more than a crutch that we lean on too heavily until it is too late. Medicating your colonies is also a crutch. Are all your bees sick? Is every bee in the colony infested with a mite? There are side affects from using a pesticide on a healthy bee. Likewise there are side affects from taking Lisinopril and Simvastatan. These drugs are keeping you alive and at the same time slowly killing you. That is exactly what is happening to the bees.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

wildbranch2007 said:


> hate to bring the thread back to bee's, but why not treating for nosema?


Not being sure what Nosema counts mean. Not being sure what to use and what formula to use it in, fumidil or lemon juice. Figuring that doing nothing is less a waste of money and labor than doing something I'm not sure of or confident of.

If Randy Oliver doesn't know what Nosema counts indicate I sure as heck don't. Besides, I'm lazy.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

"Figuring that doing nothing is less a waste of money and labor than doing something I'm not sure of"

The above quote makes lots of sense to me. The first old crusty engineer that I worked for always demanded to know what the most likely outcome of any change would be. Sometimes the results of any process or operation are unexpected, but if one cannot derive an outcome before treating, then no treatment is better. Good on you Squeak Creek.


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

Acebird you are so right .


----------



## Keth Comollo (Nov 4, 2011)

Marla Spivak spoke at EAS and said the thinking on nosema is changing. Spore counts don't matter as much as how many bees in a colony have it. If 10% have it then the queen can out lay it. At 50% the colony is under threat. She suggests not treating anyway.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

wildbranch2007 said:


> hate to bring the thread back to bee's, but why not treating for nosema?


There are at least two good reasons besides not wanting to use treatments in general.
1. Fumidil is banned in most of the world...it is not a simple antibiotic, it is a fungal toxin...one which causes birth defects, affects blood vessel growth in tumors, etc...complicated stuff, and most of the world is smart enough not use it at all (it was originally developed for human use, but the birth defect thing especailly made that a non-starter).
2. The recent research seems to show that although fumidil will control nosema C., as the treatment wears off and the concentration in the hive diminishes, it actually stimulates spore production in the nosema...a true treadmill, once you start using it, you will tend to find you need to keep using it.
I've never used the stuff, and never will.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Keth Comollo said:


> Marla Spivak spoke at EAS and said the thinking on nosema is changing. Spore counts don't matter as much as how many bees in a colony have it. If 10% have it then the queen can out lay it. At 50% the colony is under threat. She suggests not treating anyway.


That makes a sort of sense similar to what I was thinking. That if one samples a hive, w/ 50 bees in the sample, just a cpl of bees w/ 5 millions spores can make the spores per bee info look worse than it really is, if most of the rest don't have any or many nosema sporse at all.

So, Beltsville should be telling us how many bees in a sample were infested w/ Nosema and then the spores per bee average. Or is that mean that I mean?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Mark, seems a bit simpler (and faster) to run the samples yourself. I can't see a good reason to expect a bee lab to test 50 bees separately for each hive of each beekeeper that wants to know how many of the bees are infected...especially if the "treatment" is one that will eventually produce more spores in more bees. If you think you want to use fumidil, I'd suggest just using it on all your hives all the time. How much do you really think the govt should spend running 100 separate tests for a hobby beekeeper with 2 hives?...let alone a commercial beekeeper with hundreds of hives. Just get a microscope, some distilled water, and start smooshing bees.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yes Dean, I suppose your are correct. But I'm not going to do that either. See my previous Post for reasons why.

I did not ask for anyone to Sample my hives and report the findings to me, it's something the USDA and NYS want to do. I guyess they have some money to spend so they will get the funds again next year, or something.

On another note. Which is the worst healthwise, taking the advice of my P.A. or following suggested directions from someone on the internet? Hmmmm, brainer or no brainer.

Thanks anyway.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> On another note. Which is the worst healthwise, taking the advice of my P.A.


whats a P.A.? if you go back to Randy Olivers site, he usually post at some point the articles he has written. He went into great detail how to test I think it was 5 bees per hive and get the % of bees per hive that are infected. when N.Y. still had bee inspectors they wanted to test mine for nosema, said no back then, waste of money to test, if it exhist I'm sure my bees have it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

My guess would be Physician Assistant.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

deknow said:


> 2. The recent research seems to show that although fumidil will control nosema C., as the treatment wears off and the concentration in the hive diminishes, it actually stimulates spore production in the nosema...a true treadmill, once you start using it, you will tend to find you need to keep using it.
> I've never used the stuff, and never will.
> 
> deknow


can you share the research you read? thanks


----------



## Keth Comollo (Nov 4, 2011)

> Originally Posted by deknow
> 2. The recent research seems to show that although fumidil will control nosema C., as the treatment wears off and the concentration in the hive diminishes, it actually stimulates spore production in the nosema...a true treadmill, once you start using it, you will tend to find you need to keep using it.
> I've never used the stuff, and never will.


I would love to see this research. Can you point me to a link??


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I too am interested in learning the truth. Where is this published?

Crazy Roland


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I have no idea if Deans assertion is right or wrong but I am beginning to believe more and more that Nosema is a fickle disease that is nearly as impossible to get a definitive diagnosis as it is to determine whether treatment is cost effective. I have treated a grand total of two years in my 40 years of managing a commercial operation. I couldn't tell the difference and I even invested in a microscope. A few years ago while talking to the SD state inspector about the results of the states nosema testing (mine was really low) he asked me what I was doing different than others. I told him I not only hadn't used any fumidil But that I had also decided that the only time I would even use HBH is to try to stimulate some early brood production in December and January. I would like to qualify this by saying that we don't winter up north and I know that brings a whole different dynamic into play.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

the reason I'm interested is I started treating a couple of apiaries one year, the crawlers went down, the honey production went up(now I'll admit how do you know year to year with different flows different weather etc so its a judgement call), so I did a few more yard, and the honey production went up, until two years ago I was treating all yards except one, my control. now this hasn't been a really good year, but the one yard that is falling apart is the untreated yard, now how do you factor in that they leased the land out, they plowed under 150 acres of knapp weed, and all the golden rod in site. the only down side I've seen is that my swarming rate went up the year after treating(the bees feel good?),
I also use my partner as a test case, he doesn't treat or I should say didn't treat. My average honey production went up so much, while his has been going down, he started treating all his nucs, or new hives last year, now this year isn't much of a test, but we will see when we get a "normal" year next year. and no I gave up counting through a microscope.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

glock, how are your bees doin'?


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

There Snowed{18in plus in two days} in right now but humming{i was up checking on them today} i have 14 hives right now .
We are going to have some cold temps this coming week but the bee's seem to be doing well.
can't wait till spring.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

only lost three, not bad. 

nice to hear 'em humming, i was listening to mine too 

did you lose the ones you were concerned about, with the high mite counts?


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

Yes they where the oldest hives and they swarmed i'm quessing 8 times i caught all 8 and they built fast .
My SPM was nil and i know nothing but i am going to pull the queens in mid APRIL this year and put them in nucs and make false swarms and a brood break but i have to figure whats better brood break in april or in july after the flow and if in july what should i do for SPM in spring.
Lots of choices i want to let all the hives requeen themselves plus the nucs i make with the false swarms .so i'll be busy .
Can't wait till spring.
What would you suggest i'm all ears eyes? you know.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

hmm, i'm kind of in the same boat, and still weighing my options.

i now have enough drawn comb to checkerboard supers (per walt wright's recommendations) above several of my hives for swarm prevention. 

i only had enough drawn comb last season to checkerboard one hive, and it was the _only_ one (out of nine) that did not swarm. that hive ended up doing really good drawing out more comb and making honey.

i did an artificial swarm on one of those remaining eight hives, pretty much following michael bush's recommendations for a 'cut down split'. i took the queen, two frames of mixed brood, and one frame of stores to make a nuc. (this was done on march 18, just before our main flow started, and just before the other hives started swarming)

the parent colony was successful in requeening itself, built up nicely, and gave a good harvest.

the nuc surprised me. it filled one deep and two meduims and gave me 6 meduim frames of honey to harvest.

the hives that i don't checkerboard this year might be busted up into mating nucs, as i want to try and raise some queens. but if i have a really good hive in the early build-up, i'll probably go cut down split again.

what kind of set up are you using glock, double deeps for brood?


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

I use all deeps 10 black plastic frame 4.9mil cell. I'm going to give the checker boarding a try i have walt wright's stuff i know i sure don't want 13 hives a swarming but i don't mind a couple. my swarms did real well built up fast this year . I had 2 swarms in sept. and i figured they would never build up in time for winter i didn't have any comb so they had to make it well i put them in a nuc tower{3high}with a frame feeder and hoped for the best well they built all 14 frames and filled them with suryp and pollen and brood and i took out the feeder and put a frame of honey in and there humming away . Here's a pic of the nuc towers i was kinda worryed about having 3 high but there doing find.








I worry about the mite wiping me out but i'm just going to keep making bee's till i win i read about people that pull it off . Are you chemical free?
I'm a organic gardner and i remember when i started out things where alittle hard controlling the bugs but i'm 15 years organic and i have great gardens so i sure would like to do that with my bees i read about the OXALIC ACID what do you do about your mite loads? .
I use drone frames and pull them on day 21 and freeze them and plan on brood breaks and sugar dusting i have SBB on the hives after JUNE .
All my bees came from chemical free hives and the 2 guys i got my bee's from are PA. beekeepers that are working hard to make better bee's to deal with all the problems. I love beekeeping and i have the time and money to try and make better bee's plus i own a restaurant and i take pictures and put them under the glass thats on my counter where they pay and pepole just love to talk about bee's . When i do have xtra honey i know i can sell it .


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Glock: No snow in Snowshoe? Whats up with that?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

@Glock:

You are my kind of guy. Like you, I refuse to put chemicals in my hives, and in the long haul I think it will work. Like Michael Bush, "I don't do anything to or anything against mites." Mites are not a part of my beekeeping. I'm six years into organic gardening, and I have lots of cabbage, spinach and cauliflower in my garden as I type this email. The first two years of organic gardening were the hardest. It has become a walk in the park since that time.

I'm less than two years into beekeeping and have three nucs and three mature hives. This spring I am going to the drone frames and do some interruption of the brood cycle if necessary. I like your apiary. It is so neat. It's a wonderful picture. I think if we "stay the course" we will win.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

cool lookin' apiary glock, bet it looks different with that 18" of snow!

my wife my reacts to all sorts of chemicals, so we buy organically grown, free range, ect.

we also don't use any pesticides or herbicides around our home or small farm.

i don't see why using formic or oxalic acids would go against your organic farming principles.

my bees came from a supplier that doesn't use mite treatments, and i haven't treated for mites yet.

my losses have been low, but it may have been some luck involved. i plan to monitor better this year, and my first plan is to split and requeen any colonies with really high mite loads.

i'll also be using drone frames, and will cull from those hives with high loads.

as for the swarm prevention, walt's 60 page manscript entitled "nectar management, principles and practices" was the most helpful thing i have read about swarming. 

his 'checkerboarding' manipulation is used with smaller supers over a single deep brood chamber. there are other methods that work if you are running all deeps.

walt's manuscript presents good information about when and what to look for, and how to provide room in such a way as to prevent swarming and make more honey.


----------



## GLOCK (Dec 29, 2009)

I love my apiary and can't wait till the weather breaks so i can start planting stuff and getting stung .
I have two bee yards one only has one hive in it right now but come spring i'll fill it.
I'm going to put in a nuc yard in down by my house come spring the yards i have now are 500 yards away so i'm hoping puting the nucs 500 yards away from the other bee yards might be better when it comes to robbing and drifting.


----------



## Beesknees01 (Dec 31, 2012)

Would tea tree oil help as a natural treatment?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

For what?


----------

