# Treatment free queens



## hex0rz (Jan 14, 2014)

Where are they. If they exist i want one... i mean literally, no intervention whatsoever except feeding them if need be.

So many people out there that advertise the next latest and greatest bee genetics. Yet, they all still need us to help them along the way at some point or another...


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Having after midnight dreams? I'm not a queen breeder, but can assure you there are queens with the right traits to make it treatment free.

Carpenter apiaries sells queens with decent resistance.

BWeaver queens are fairly resistant if you can get past the stinging traits from africanized influence.

AdamF has queens with fairly good resistance.


Most beekeepers are not willing to make the changes required to successfully keep bees treatment free. They purchase 2 or 3 queens, keep them a year, find out they are heavily infested with mites, and conclude that it doesn't work. The problem is that they either have other colonies that are mite infested and require treatment or they have so many mite susceptible colonies in the area that their queens with mite resistance genes are overwhelmed by the influx of mites in autumn. It is necessary to switch to resistant genetics and do something about mite bombs that can overwhelm colonies.

I was able to go treatment free by first identifying a queen that had significant mite resistance then getting some Purvis queens to produce drones so I could raise queens and get reasonably pure mating. Once I had about 20 colonies established, I deliberately pushed them to swarm for a couple of years which got enough resistant genetics into the trees that they formed a buffer between my bees and the treated bees common in the area.

If you really want to try treatment free, set a goal of purchasing enough queens to make a difference. When those queens are established in your colonies, start working on the genetics in the area by getting neighboring beekeepers to use treatment free genetics. Consider pushing swarms into the trees like I did if that will help.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> I deliberately pushed them to swarm for a couple of years which got enough resistant genetics into the trees that they formed a buffer between my bees and the treated bees common in the area.


If you read the articles by Randy, you probably aren't accomplishing what you think you are. Feral hives quickly maintain their own genetics, and revert back to their "wild selection" genes. Feral hives caught near commercial apiaries, that have been operating for years allowing swarms to escape, showed little genetic variation decade to decade, despite the change in apiary genetics over the same time period. Essentially, the beekeeper was changing the genetics, but the feral colonies weren't. I'd be interested to see some feral colonies in your area genetically tested to tell what is truly going on (although, who really has the cash for that).



Fusion_power said:


> It is necessary to switch to resistant genetics and do something about mite bombs that can overwhelm colonies.


Which currently involves treatment. Defeating the original purpose. 




Fusion_power said:


> I'm not a queen breeder, but can assure you there are queens with the right traits to make it treatment free.


I recognize this may be a situation of "agree to disagree" . . . . but I disagree. 

If you take a "treatment free" queen and move it to a different hive configuration, an apiary with different management practices, a different geographic area, or a different climate, and it's a crap shoot as to whether they will work or not. The reason why they were successful in one area and not another? No clue. That isn't that just I have no clue, but no one else does either. There are so many factors at play that no one is truly able to identify what makes one apiary that's tf successful while another one isn't. 

Not news to most on here, but years ago I went treatment free. I did everything I was told to by those in the know at the time. Used local genes from feral hives that were surviving year after year, fed little (if anything), natural comb, all mediums, unlimited brood nest, no treatments what soever, uncontrolled swarming, little (if any) honey harvest. In the end all 60 something hives died out. I asked several successful tf beekeepers what I did wrong, or what they did differently than I did. All responded the same way: "I don't know." (aside from those who attacked me for lying, as if losing 60 hives and starting over half a dozen years later wasn't enough, but I digress).

There are so many factors at play.



hex0rz said:


> Where are they. If they exist i want one... i mean literally, no intervention whatsoever except feeding them if need be.


If that's what you're looking for, a queen to plop in and sit back, harvesting honey and occasionally feeding in emergencies, it doesn't exist. The adds and the forum posts, in my opinion, are either snake water or are isolated successful events that are not repeatable.

Not that it will always be that way.

I've tried all the latest "tf queens" (and I continue to purchase from BeeWeaver). They help, they keep mite numbers lower and can usually maintain more mite pressure, but they are not the silver bullet you're looking for. Not yet at least.


----------



## DavidZ (Apr 9, 2016)

Michael Bush has them for sale @ $50 each

lol, good luck


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Typical responses. hex0rz, your work is cut out for you.

SK, at the time, there were no feral colonies in this area except a few beekeeper escapes. Pushing a few dozen swarms into the trees meant putting mite resistant bees between me and the beekeepers.


----------



## Buzz-kill (Aug 23, 2017)

hex0rz said:


> Where are they. If they exist i want one... i mean literally, no intervention whatsoever except feeding them if need be.
> 
> So many people out there that advertise the next latest and greatest bee genetics. Yet, they all still need us to help them along the way at some point or another...


Great thread! Really important and never discussed on BS before. I will be fascinated to see all the well thought out responses. Not.


----------



## fieldsofnaturalhoney (Feb 29, 2012)

DavidZ said:


> Michael Bush has them for sale @ $50 each lol,


Why does this make you laugh out loud:scratch:



hex0rz said:


> Where are they. If they exist i want one... i mean literally, no intervention whatsoever except feeding them if need be.
> So many people out there that advertise the next latest and greatest bee genetics. Yet, they all still need us to help them along the way at some point or another...


Isn't feeding them an intervention/help? Yes, even TF queens need management. It's not like you can put any queen in a box, sit back and see what happens to them or the mites. Not to mention, wouldn't you be dying to count & intervene because you thought the numbers told you they needed it


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Fusion_power said:


> SK, at the time, there were no feral colonies in this area except a few beekeeper escapes. Pushing a few dozen swarms into the trees meant putting mite resistant bees between me and the beekeepers.


By what means could you possibly have ascertained that they were "no feral" bees in your area with any sort of certainty? 
Just curious.


----------



## ShrekVa (Jan 13, 2011)

I can’t claim any isolated mating yards or fantastical buffers between my bees and others. I did however move myself and my bees from sw VA to west TN nearly three years ago and they are thriving. I don’t share the non-intervention ideas becoming prevalent in the TF community right now, I manage my bees for increase and for honey production and they do very well. I am very fond of plastic foundation and queen excluders, as well as feed. I do not use any miticides, or antibiotics. I have been growing my apiary a bit slow with profit from hives only. I don’t sell queens, because it’s more efficient and profitable to sell nuc’s at this point. Good luck in your search for queens, if you want to travel some you can find them in my yards.


----------



## DavidZ (Apr 9, 2016)

lol...I'm a crunchy...lmao


----------



## CBQueens (Sep 13, 2017)

I am going to experiment with a treatment free out yard next year. I have found some neglected hives out on a farm. If they survive another winter, I will graft from them. I am only doing it because there is a niche market from folks demanding TF queens and nucs. I will try to sell it to them (with a no guarantee disclaimer). 

But I worry it's not going to be profitable for me because they are going to die on me, or their population won't thrive enough for me to split.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

hex0rz said:


> Where are they. If they exist i want one... i mean literally, no intervention whatsoever except feeding them if need be.
> 
> So many people out there that advertise the next latest and greatest bee genetics. Yet, they all still need us to help them along the way at some point or another...


Check http://wildernessbees.com


----------



## ShrekVa (Jan 13, 2011)

CBQueens said:


> I am going to experiment with a treatment free out yard next year. I have found some neglected hives out on a farm. If they survive another winter, I will graft from them. I am only doing it because there is a niche market from folks demanding TF queens and nucs. I will try to sell it to them (with a no guarantee disclaimer).
> 
> But I worry it's not going to be profitable for me because they are going to die on me, or their population won't thrive enough for me to split.


If that is the case then they are not good bees and you shouldn't be trying to fill the niche market with them. Consider actually developing a bee you would want before offering them up as TF, their should be more qualifying factors than they happened to not die the previous year when nearly everything else died.


----------



## hex0rz (Jan 14, 2014)

Buzz-kill said:


> Great thread! Really important and never discussed on BS before. I will be fascinated to see all the well thought out responses. Not.


Wow, of all the responses, this one caught my attention most. Thank you for your entirely oxymoronic post...



fieldsofnaturalhoney said:


> Isn't feeding them an intervention/help? Yes, even TF queens need management. It's not like you can put any queen in a box, sit back and see what happens to them or the mites. Not to mention, wouldn't you be dying to count & intervene because you thought the numbers told you they needed it


I wouldn't think feeding is a treatment. Intervention, by definition, sure. 

My hope is to experience a queen that can bring back what it was like pre varroa day. Forage is a factor, but that's a bigger battle...

Other then that, thanks for all the responses, ill look into these suggestions.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

We raise our own queens, or allow our bees to raise them through swarming or splits, and we've been completely TF for 10 years. However, we do feed syrup when honey is lacking.

I'm confidant that our queens are completely TF and will stay that way for as long as we keep bees. Its really not that hard to resist the temptation to add the latest 'miracle cure' into our colonies.....We decided a while ago that "Treating' is harder (on the bees) than not treating...and often results in dead bees anyway.

difern't strokes......


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

drummerboy said:


> We raise our own queens, or allow our bees to raise them through swarming or splits, and we've been completely TF for 10 years. However, we do feed syrup when honey is lacking.
> 
> I'm confidant that our queens are completely TF and will stay that way for as long as we keep bees. Its really not that hard to resist the temptation to add the latest 'miracle cure' into our colonies.....We decided a while ago that "Treating' is harder (on the bees) than not treating...and often results in dead bees anyway.
> 
> difern't strokes......


I thought you bought them from a local guy, both queens and nucs.
Are those local bees and queens you buy tf ?



drummerboy said:


> I guess I'd want to visit this apiary before buying anything from them, beekeepers can be rip off artists as well as anyone. :s
> 
> We typically buy 'over-wintered' 5 frame Nuc's from a local guy for $120.00, and his queens for $35.00 (up from $25.00).
> 
> ...


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

I bought 2 from Beeweaver in TX this spring. Only one was accepted. That mama was too hot for my no-smoker operation. Not stinging, but very defensive and bouncing off my veil. I live in the suburbs so I can't have any of that. Have 3 of her daughters that I will take through the winter to see how they do. I also buy them from Wildflowermeadows in CA. Haven't taken those through the winter yet.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

If you are interested in the carnis, I have a daughter from the aggressive commercial operation that mated 
with the local carnis drones on top of an ant hill hives. Basically through out the season, the owner never 
show up to treat or care for his bees because the hives are on a very busy street in an open grass field. They are 
there for 5 seasons already. I only saw once during the mid-Spring time that the owner was there maybe harvesting
the honey. Never saw him there to treat his bees at all.

For me, I have been removing the mites off the hives along with the cap broods going on the 3rd seasons now, tf. This daughter queen has not been evaluated yet because she's only been laying since the last week of August. Very strong, big and solid laying pattern queen. I don't know how resistant the bees are or how aggressive they are. The local drones are a bit docile but to be able to keep the carpenter ants out of the hives, they sure got something in their genetics alright. And she is totally tf queen. 

Tf to me means that the hive can withstand the mite load without crashing during the early Spring time and late Autumn time hive build up. So don't be too surprised when you see the mite load have increased during the mite and bees emergence cycle. If not crashed yet then those are the bees you want to keep as tf stocks!


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

If a "TF" beekeeper who sells TF queens has to buy package bees to replace the deadouts, aren't the queens raised in the apiary worthless as a source of TF bees?


----------



## ShrekVa (Jan 13, 2011)

Michael Palmer said:


> If a "TF" beekeeper who sells TF queens has to buy package bees to replace the deadouts, aren't the queens raised in the apiary worthless as a source of TF bees?


Yes


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

ruthiesbees said:


> I bought 2 from Beeweaver in TX this spring. Only one was accepted. That mama was too hot for my no-smoker operation.


Give them a call. Let them know the queen was too hot. They have a discretionary replacement policy for hot queens.

About 5 years ago I got a couple queens from them and one was hot. If I went near their hive with a weedwacker, they'd chase me a clear 100+ yards away. I emailed them letting them know the laying pattern was fantastic, but I couldn't deal with the heat. They replaced the hot queen with a suggestion "not to go near the hive with a weedwacker." Not that I followed the suggestion.

Bought bees 4 out of the last 5 years from them and haven't had the issue repeat itself since. Although one BeeWeaver hive of mine was a little testy last night, but so were about 6 others 

They stand by their product.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

If there was such a thing - wouldn't everyone be using them?
In my opinion - if a "treatment free" queen can not be taken out of the seller's hive and put into the buyer's hive and still act as a tf queen - there is no product there.

If treatment free means the queen produces bees that do not need to receive any form of treatments to help them overcome parasites/viruses - then the buyer should not need to do this either.

A disclaimer that the TF queen may not work for the seller because of hive configuration/methods are (IMO) covers to get out of having to admit that a TF queen actually is not. If the seller really has a queen that produces bees that do not need any treatment - then the buyer also should get the same results without any treatment.

There was a discussion a bit ago in which I admitted that a "guarantee" from the seller was not reasonable - but I do say that unless a tf queen performs as tf when the hive is changed - it is not a product. The buyer and seller would have to work out some agreeable method between themselves as to how to handle it.

In the end, just as a seller can't really guarantee a queen to a buyer - the buyer really has no reason (with such disclaimers) to believe the tf queen is really nothing more than a fluke for that seller's hive.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

MikeJ said:


> If treatment free means the queen produces bees that do not need to receive any form of treatments to help them overcome parasites/viruses - then the buyer should not need to do this either.


says you.

what i say is that describing queens raised in apiaries managed off treatments as 'treatment free' is an accurate description of what they are, no more or no less.

your statement quoted above comes with an underlying assumption that the queen's dna is the one and only factor that determines how a colony overcomes parasites and viruses...

and tends to ignore the many other factors, not all of which are fully understood at this point, such as nutrition, weather, management techniques, the nature of and exposure to whatever local bee population is present, ect.

making such pronouncement is just as inaccurate and misleading as a seller of treatment free queens giving a 100% guarantee there will be no problems with parasites and viruses.

jmho, but as with many issues this is an evolving one in with which the truth will be found somewhere in the middle of the extreme positions.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> what i say is that describing queens raised in apiaries managed off treatments as 'treatment free' is an accurate description of what they are, no more or no less.


But is that how they are typically advertised or promoted? As bees raised off treatments? Or as "TF bees"?

When was the last time you saw an ad, post, or communication that said "Queens Raised in Apiaries Managed Off Treatments For Sale." Or "Queens Raised Without The Use of Treatments For Sale." I don't know that I ever have. Instead, I see posts such as "Treatment Free Queens for Sale" or "TF Queens Available" (such as this one http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?339916-2017-treatment-free-queens-for-sale). No further information is provided, whatsoever, either as a disclaimer that what worked for them may or may not work for you, or that several factors are involved other than genetics. In fact, there is typically no "description" at all.

Take Mike Bush's post for instance, as its the only active one in the For Sale section that promotes TF Queens. The sole link provided goes to: http://bushfarms.com/beesqueens.htm. It gives detailed information about shipping times, price, and provides pictures. But as far as management, it just talks about genetics being acquired from "feral swarms."

And that isn't a dig at Mike. That's how I always see the ads. "Our genetics have been treatment free since ____." But nothing else about location, management, nutrition, local population . . . no underlying "description" at all! In order to find that information, you have to dig DEEP. Several hours some times. I've bought bees for years from BeeWeaver, and I love their stock, but their information is no different. Their website says:

"Bee Weaver queens have been selected for genetic resistance to Varroa mites and bee viruses. Our hardy BeeWeaver breed builds huge hives full of honey and bees - with no need for any other mite controls."

The natural, and logical conclusion the consumer should draw is that they are TF, and if I buy them I will get TF bees. 

In any situation, when the fine print is difficult to find and takes extensive research, there is usually a reason why. I find it harder to find the fine print on Snake Oil than I do on Tylenol. Just saying.



squarepeg said:


> jmho, but as with many issues this is an evolving one in with which the truth will be found somewhere in the middle of the extreme positions.


Truer words may not have ever been spoken.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

TF queens? TF queens?
I'm still looking for beekeeper resistant queens for sale.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

You US people are smiled upon by fate.
Here you could name a queen a tf queen if she and her colony lives for one season and one winter into next season. No matter if bred or surviving mutt.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> says you.
> ...


hhmmm? Yep - that is why my nick is above those words 

It seems to me (not trying to put anyone down) when many tf sellers are advertising the "treatment free" is spoken of as if it is a product (i.e. not an environment). Then if it comes to questions about the queens' abilities it becomes the environment in which they were raised.

I (personally) do not see paying for a queen raised in a treatment free environment - if in my hive I have to treat to keep her alive. I can get those queens from anywhere.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

MikeJ said:


> I (personally) do not see paying for a queen raised in a treatment free environment


And I do see that I will do exactly that and then try to adapt the descendants to my locale.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

just remember P = G+E + G x E.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> But is that how they are *typically* advertised or promoted?





MikeJ said:


> when _*many*_ tf sellers are advertising the "treatment free" is spoken of as if it is a product


(bold and italics mine)

typically? many? how typical and how many?

i must admit i am not privy to these typical and numerous sellers. perhaps you guys could share some real life examples with us. 

the only advertiser of treatment free queens that i am even aware of is michael bush here on this forum and his listing contains no audacious claims. the only thing a potential buyer can infer is that these queens were 'produced' under treatment free management.

how are they not a product?

i mean no offense to anyone either mike. i would be irritated as well if i became aware of someone trying to take advantage of the naive by misrepresenting what they are selling...

but to date i have not observed that happening.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Yes I hope GEI will work to my advantage.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> (bold and italics mine)
> 
> typically? many? how typical and how many?
> 
> i must admit i am not privy to these typical and numerous sellers. perhaps you guys could share some real life examples with us.


First, you're parcing words and I think you know it. Not really productive to the conversation.

Second, I gave two examples in my above post, that were situations off the top of my head. If you want me to dig further, I would bet I could come up with 5 more examples in about 15 minutes of internet research. Or you could google it yourself and give me 2 situations where I'm wrong and we can call it even.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Screw it, here's 4 examples I found between the last post and this one by googling "tf queens for sale":

1. http://anarchyapiaries.org/hivetools/node/17210 (advertises "tf queens" and "survivor stock" by describing the genetics, but does nothing to outline management or environment).

2. http://forum.tfbees.net/viewtopic.php?t=535 (an ad posted for "tf queens" with no mention to management or environment).

3. http://parkerbees.com/products.html (selling "100% treatment free" without any definition or suggestion to management or environment).

4. http://www.pleasedbees.com/naturally-sized-bees-for-sale/ (indicating that "my bees have been treatment free since 2009" without going into anything about management or environment)

Not a single one of those results (first page of google) gives any indication that the treatment free status is dependent on hive configuration, geographic location, environment, or management. Some talk about genetics. Others don't talk about anything. Not one single person gives any statement even close to something that can be read as "queens raised in apiaries managed off treatments as 'treatment free'."

Disclaimer: I know nothing about any of these people's bees. I did a 10 second internet search, and I am in no way disparaging any of these producers. Their names were used as an example of the information posted by people selling tf queens and is NOT, in anyway, an attempt to make any comment on the quality of their products.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

squarepeg said:


> (bold and italics mine)
> 
> typically? many? how typical and how many?
> 
> ...


Come on squarepeg, you've been around here long enough to have read all of the mumbo jumbo about tf queens that everyone else has read.
Lets be real.

Why not fully address this claim as posted above:
"It seems to me (not trying to put anyone down) when many tf sellers are advertising the "treatment free" is spoken of as if it is a product (i.e. not an environment). Then if it comes to questions about the queens' abilities it becomes the environment in which they were raised.

I (personally) do not see paying for a queen raised in a treatment free environment - if in my hive I have to treat to keep her alive. I can get those queens from anywhere."


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> As bees raised off treatments? Or as "TF bees"?


i think you are correct in that it comes down to a parsing of words.

my pushback to mike is mostly because in my view he sets an arbitrary bar for tf sellers with respect to what a buyer should expect in terms of outcomes once the bees are brought home.

none of the advertisers you linked above make any claims in that regard nor should they.

however with so much left to be understood about whether there is something special about certain bees or whether other factors at play are more important the points you all make here are well taken.

at the same time if an buyer has an interest in acquiring bees demonstrating success off treatments, and if the seller is representing his experience with the stock in an honest way, who are we to say there is something untoward about it?

do i have tf bees? you betcha. no mumbo jumbo clyde.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> at the same time if an buyer has an interest in acquiring bees demonstrating success off treatments, and if the seller is representing his experience with the stock in an honest way, who are we to say there is something untoward about it?


But that's the whole point. No one is saying "I have experience demonstrating success with bees off treatments." They say I have "treatment free bees." The difference is substantial.

Take BeeWeaver's website for instance:
*
"Our hardy BeeWeaver breed builds huge hives full of honey and bees - with no need for any other mite controls."*

Did they say only that "we don't use treatments and our bees are healthy" or instead do they imply that their bees don't need mite controls? 

Is that statement ambiguous? I don't think so. I think it states that their bees don't need mite controls. Is that true? Not really. It depends on a number of other factors.

To put it another way, if I bought a can of spray paint at a home improvement store that said the color was blue, I take it home and spray something and the color comes out green. I take it back to the store and say I want to return it because I was told it was blue and it wasn't, do you think they'd give me my money back, or do you think they'd get in a philosophical argument about "well, the color your observing depends on the available spectrum of the light imposed on the color, so in certain environments the paint may be viewed more blue than green, but not necessarily in all environments, so sometimes it is green although it isn't always, and we don't feel the need to tell customers that because the environment really plays such a larger role in the color of the paint than the paint actually does." Probably not. 

So why is the treatment free world any different? Why would you sell a queen as "treatment free", have the customer take it home, have it overridden by mites, only to have the seller later tell the customer "well, it's actually more about management and environment than it is about the genetics of the queen, and I didn't guarantee anything when you think about it, and actually I really just sold you a queen that was raised in a treatment free environment rather than a queen that is guaranteed to be treatment free herself, regardless of the fact that what was sold was called a treatment free queen." 

Seems rather ridiculous.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> Take BeeWeaver's website for instance:
> 
> *"Our hardy BeeWeaver breed builds huge hives full of honey and bees - with no need for any other mite controls."*


not good. also from their site:

"BeeWeaver bees and queens don’t just survive Varroa mites, BeeWeaver colonies thrive in the face of Varroa infestation. BeeWeaver bees free the beekeeper from the constant struggle to test Varroa mite populations and then suppress the mites with chemicals or other control measures."

which is even worse.

my first time to see this sk. i certainly wouldn't promote my bees like that and i'll stand in agreement with you guys on this. that kind of marketing should raise eyebrows.

to the best of my recollection we have had somewhat mixed reviews with respect to beeweaver stock here on the forum, not all bad.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Specialk....

Some reasons a person might buy a queen.
Chalk brood, EFB.

You would be looking for suggestions of queens that fight these.

tracial mite.
You would be looking for queens that fight these.

Honey production
You would be looking for queens that improve yours.

Swaming
If you had a lot of swarming you would be looking to buy queens that were not prone to this.

Not one of those queen sellers are going to throw in lessons so that you can maximize what that queen can do for you.

None of the above reasons are going to give you a garrentee in your hive that the reason you are buying a queen for will happen in you hive.

Why is it that for everything that a person can buy a queen for will have no garantee more will have a track record to look at but a treatment free has to meet a higher standard or is considered bad. 

That is unfair and if somebody sold you one but had to come manage your hive for you to prove the benifit, you couldn't afford the queen. Nobody else is held to that standard when you buy queens for those other reason you might buy one.

Most of the queen sells are probly by word of mouth. A guy was getting 50 lbs of honey and he bought a queen that was proven to be a good producer and now he gets 100 lbs and so he says to his friend, hey I got 100 lbs. His friend says, I only got 50 what did you do. He says I bought this queen.

The chain of events is: 
1. I want more honey (the guy that has found treatments are working really well for him is not going to want treatment free very bad)

2. What should I do? I know this guys queens are suppose to be ok.

3. you take a chance with no garantee and it either works or it doesn't. If it works you blame it on the queen because that is what you changed.

4. You get 100 lbs of honey and so you blame it on the queen and tell you friends what you did.

The person selling you that queen is not going to garantee what you will get. He will garrentee that if you come to his yard and then look at others around him that he gets more honey. If your bred in your own yard, you pick from the queens that impress you to breed from.

So if you were successful like square peg in not treating and you were advising a new bee keeper who is going to be treatment free, you might say to that new bee keeper that he might be better catching a swarm from a bee tree that has been there for awhile or buy one from someone who has been having success. If you are like specialk... or richard cryberg or a couple of others who tried it and did not have success, they will proby advise, hey don't try that cause it doesn't always work like advertized. 

There is not one queen seller who is promoting his queens that is not doing all his testing in his own yard. And that means for any reason he is proud of his queens wether due to production or lack of swam erge.

What makes a person think that a treatment free queen will be differrent. The guy selling it knows it works and probly works better then some southern package that is made with bees that are treated or package that was shaken out after almounds.

So testing in the own guys yard is good enough for every other thing you buy a queen for but not for a treatment free. How many treatment queens give you a garantee that your hive won't die if you treat? How many say hey, if you buy my queen and treat your hive won't die. I will tell you how many, None. Speacial, they make the same sales pitch for thier queens but how many give you a garrentee. You know who give the garantee? The people who have tried them. So if 50 percent of those that try bee weever queens give good reviews and 50 percent of those that try them have hives die, how is that differrent then the national average of hive deaths per year? It is pretty close some years. If you went back to trying to be treatment free, would you start with a Georgia package or a treatment free queen. Since niether one will have a garantee, which one would you take a chance on if your goal was to do it again. If your goal is not to do it again then it is kinda wrong to be telling those that are doing it or going to do it that a queen is bad cause their is no garantee.

There is no garantee in beekeeping if you look at the whole picture. There is no garentee that next year will produce as much as this year did in your own location.

I just think it is wrong to say that one has to give a garantee and the rest don't. Now he should tell the truth of what is happening in his yard and not sneak sugar into his honey to get big numbers or sneak treatment to his hives if treatment free but both will be judged by thier numbers and be given referals by others who try them.

It is wrong to call something bad cause you hold it to a higher standard then the other things that queens are also claimed to help.

I still think you comunicate information better then most people I know and you probly can't even read my post.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

gww said:


> Why is it that for everything that a person can buy a queen for will have no garantee more will have a track record to look at but a treatment free has to meet a higher standard or is considered bad.


I never said a TF queen needed to come with a guarantee. 

But lets just compare two different qualities that you brought up: honey production and treatment free.

How are "honey production" queens sold? They're labeled as "XYZ Apiaries Queen" and in the description they state "we select for honey production." That's it. They don't hold their queens out to do anything in particular. They don't call their queens "100 lb. Hive Queens" or "Maximum Honey Production Queens" with little or no explanation. They just state that honey production is something they select for in their breeding. If I bought a "100 lb. Hive Queen" I'd expect to get 100 lbs of honey. That's what it's called.

How are "treatment free" queens sold? They are labeled as "Treatment Free Queens" and (many) are not given any description on what that means. Many aren't calling them "XYZ Queens" and saying "we select for mite resistance" (although some are, but usually those aren't labeled as "treatment free queens"). Instead, all they tell you is "Treatment Free Queens." As a consumer, without any other explanation or description, what should I expect? I should expect it is what it says it is, that I'll have Treatment Free Queens.

When you hold your product out with a very particular name or to perform a particular action, it's an implied warranty that the product will perform according to that particular action. If it can't, don't hold it out that way.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Specialk


> > The term "breeder queen" has different meanings to different people, and thus different price tags associated.
> >
> > To some, a breeder queen is an unproven, untested new queen from the breeder's most desirable genetics. In other words, a good place to start in breeding. Generally, these aren't that expensive, and usually run around the same price as a good "average" queen.
> >
> ...


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

I'm gonna keep this short. To me, TF means the queen was raised in a TF environment and is a product of other queens raised in the same environment, free of chemical treatments. The chances are better that the bee carries a generic trait that has helped her line survive, but I suspect it is just better beekeeping. 

Compare TF queens to VSH queens. A VSH queen is marketed as have an identified and reproducible genetic trait that makes her offspring remove infected larvae. These are the bees someone who wants to be TF needs as they stand the best chance of surviving in a TF environment. But VSH bees are not sold as treatment free. I wonder why?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

VSH alone is not sufficient to keep a colony alive. When concentrated via inbreeding, VSH tends to compromise ability to produce a crop of honey. This is the reason VSH bees are not marketed as treatment free.


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

only colony I ever lost to winter mite kill was headed up by a Perdue ankle biter queen. All of my locally raised mutts with genetics from Anarchyapiary, WildflowerMeadows, Beeweaver, etc are coming through the winters just fine with normal mite loads with no chemical treatments. I'm using powdered sugar monthly to encourage grooming and DE on the solid bottom board under the screened bottom to kill what falls off so they can't reinfect. When I make a choice to buy a queen bee, I'm specifically looking for a supplier that states "raised in and from colonies that do not require chemical intervention to control mites". I think some of us beekeepers might have a looser definition of what qualifies as "treatment free" for our apiary. I understand the die hard treatment free group considers any intervention to be a treatment, but most of us are happy to start with the genetics that are proven to not need chemical interventions and then go from there.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Most people just want easy solutions without their reflections and improvements to be a part of the result. A queen like a pill.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Or simply want to grow corn without starting with maize.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> When concentrated via inbreeding, VSH tends to compromise ability to produce a crop of honey.


Your opinion....or do you have some actual support for this?


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> Your opinion....or do you have some actual support for this?


Any line concentrated via inbreeding is going to have this effect. Enough inbreeding and your going to have a lot of different issues, one effect of inbreeding is diploid drones, which would mean a reduction in brood, thus a reduction in bees thus a reduction in honey corps.

VSH in particular, if my memory serves me right, when too many of the "VSH alleles" are active at once, can result in bees being TOO hygenic, removing far too much brood. I can't cite this off hand, and I dont particularly want to go digging through papers right now. This is why many people producing high allele count VSH breeders recommend you open mating the daughters in your area. You reduce the effects of VSH, while gaining locally adapted genetics.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jcase said:


> This is why many people producing high allele count VSH breeders recommend you open mating the daughters in your area. You reduce the effects of VSH


Short of buying an II breeder....this is what you get. Open mated daughters. I can't imagine anyone trying to produce honey with an II breeder queen.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> Short of buying an II breeder....this is what you get. Open mated daughters. I can't imagine anyone trying to produce honey with an II breeder queen.


About half my apiary is ii queens, I pulled some honey from an II hive this year.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jcase said:


> I pulled some honey from an II hive this year.


 'some honey from an II hive' Hardly a ringing endorsement. The question was about honey production. I'll repeat myself....I can't imagine anyone trying to produce honey with an II breeder queen.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> 'some honey from an II hive' Hardly a ringing endorsement. The question was about honey production. I'll repeat myself....I can't imagine anyone trying to produce honey with an II breeder queen.


I pulled multiple splits from it, as well as a full super. I could have pulled another super as well, but distributed it to NUCs that needed it. I will be pulling about half a super here shortly, just to force them down to two boxes for the winter. The hive did quite well for where we are, and for the year we had.


There is no difference in honey production from a proper II hive, and any other open mated hive. Unless you have someone producing low quality ii queens.

"I can't imagine anyone trying to produce honey with an II breeder queen." This really just makes no sense. What would you do with excess honey from an II breeder's hive? or any breeder queen hive?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jcase said:


> There is no difference in honey production from a proper II hive, and any other open mated hive. Unless you have someone producing low quality ii queens.


There ya go. jcase says....II is the way to go for honey production. What was I ever thinking.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

jcase said:


> About half my apiary is ii queens, I pulled some honey from an II hive this year.



Please share the source of these II queens.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> There ya go. jcase says....II is the way to go for honey production. What was I ever thinking.


Ignorance and ego makes people say and do silly things. Here, you are just making things up, in response to things you apparently don't understand or otherwise dislike.

Please do explain why one can't use ii queens to produce honey? II is the only way I can get local early spring queens here due to our climate. It is a relatively cheap procedure (outside of initial equipment costs) that I can accomplish in house without issue. If you tried and failed to produce decent queens with it, I'd be more than willing to assist you in getting better at it. If you are just talking out the side of your neck, well then you just exposing your own ignorance.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Fusion_power said:


> VSH alone is not sufficient to keep a colony alive. When concentrated via inbreeding, VSH tends to compromise ability to produce a crop of honey. This is the reason VSH bees are not marketed as treatment free.


I've expressed my doubts on the general validity this statement numerous times over the years. I have plenty of experience with VSH and many other types of bees to know that this comment is certainly not general fact. Bees are far too complex to obey such a blanket statement.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jcase said:


> Ignorance and ego makes people say and do silly things.


I couldn't agree more.




jcase said:


> II is the only way I can get local early spring queens here due to our climate.


Make up your mind. II queens for honey production…..or queen production?


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> Make up your mind. II queens for honey production…..or queen production?


Why not for both? I'm sorry you have a hard time understanding that even ii queens can rule hives that produce honey.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

AstroBee said:


> Please share the source of these II queens.


I have one from VP Queens, the rest I did in house. I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Sue for a few days, she is an amazing teacher. Lucky to live not too far from her. Pretty sure she had a "why does this person want a picture with me", but had to grab one. Amazing experience. (for those that can't tell, the fat ugly one with the big forehead is me, not Sue). I can't recommend her training anymore, it is just great. After taking her classes, my success rate went near perfect (two losses, one failure to introduce on one I gave another keeper, and one just never took off on me laid some but not a lot).


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

AstroBee said:


> I've expressed my doubts on the general validity this statement numerous times over the years.


I have some experience with open mated daughters of II VSH queens....and so far I haven't seen this as a noticeable issue. I don't doubt that the II breeder queen hives might have a problem competing in honey production...but who....with good sense would try?


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> I have some experience with open mated daughters of II VSH queens....and so far I haven't seen this as a noticeable issue. I don't doubt that the II breeder queen hives might have a problem competing in honey production...but who....with good sense would try?


In all seriousness, can you please give good reasons why one can't or shouldn't pull honey from hives headed by II queens.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jcase said:


> In all seriousness, can you please give good reasons why one can't or shouldn't pull honey from hives headed by II queens.


No reason. But....to try to run a honey production business with II queens heading all or even most of the hives would be lunacy....in my opinion.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> No reason. But....to try to run a honey productions business with II queens heading all or even most of the hives would be lunacy....in my opinion.


Thank you. 

Only reasons I could come up with were cost (mostly negated if done in house) or time if you are a huge operation, or don't already produce queens. For a smaller operation, that is producing their own queens, I see no reason not to. Also not all II'd queens end up "breeder" quality, you have to do something with them. If they are complete trash, pinch them, but if they are still perfectly good, no reason to dispatch them. Put them to work somewhere.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

MikeJ said:


> ...
> It seems to me (not trying to put anyone down) when many tf sellers are advertising the "treatment free" is spoken of as if it is a product (i.e. not an environment). Then if it comes to questions about the queens' abilities it becomes the environment in which they were raised.
> ...


I know it is odd for one to reply to their own post 
Actually this post bothered me every time I woke up last night. I feel I messed up with this. Thinking on it, I felt it conveyed that I have dealt with "many" sellers and this was my own personal results from such (I have actually had very little contact personally with tf breeders).

In actuality, my desire was to reflect the various posts I have seen on tf queens. I do think specialKayMe did an great job on communicating (with actual facts) what I was intending to convey from third party observation.
Mostly I was aiming at how the "your mileage may differ" comments seem to slip so often.

So that is off my chest (stop looking at me like that) 

gww: yes - I still admit a guarantee is obviously not something that can be done. I am referring to a tf queen as a product not as an environmental description.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Mike


> gww: yes - I still admit a guarantee is obviously not something that can be done. I am referring to a tf queen as a product not as an environmental description.


Hey, I look at all bees as a product the same way when I can see a death rate of 35 percent in germany and 12 percent in switzerland. It is also interesting to see a couple of headings on a google search that the usa death rate is coming down from some previous years. It seems like bees as a product have differrent enviromental stresses in differrent years no matter how they are kept. Then you will hear about local issue with no real answer but yet we are all pretty much using the same bees in the big picture. There are so many things that happen that a finger can not always be put on the cause and so we just keep doing our best.
Cheers
gww


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

that's a nice post mike and very much appreciated.

as sk pointed out i may have been parsing the words too much and this can be a pitfall when exchanging thoughts in writing like we do here on the forum. 

to be honest my exposure to beekeeping is pretty much limited to beesource and the handful of folks i keep up with in my area, so i regret my reaction the descriptors 'typical' and 'many' as being hyperbole wasn't more tempered.

i think you can see by my replies about the beeweaver ads that we are on the same page with respect to 'honest' advertising and realistic promotion when it comes to marketing tf bees. with respect to the other links provided by sk i didn't really see anything in those that bothered me. 

as far as an implied warranty goes i'll have to disagree with that. in my view the buyer bears some responsibility to do the homework necessary to know what they are getting into. it's not that hard to talk to other beekeepers or ask questions on a forum like this one.

in my case i have detailed with full disclosure the past 3 years of experience with the bees i keep off treatments. should i start marketing queens i'll let that record speak for itself and remind any potential buyer of my first two rules of beekeeping:

1. it depends
2. no guarantees

bee blessed mike.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

MikeJ said:


> I am referring to a tf queen as a product not as an environmental description.


in my view you really can't divorce the two.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

beemandan said:


> No reason. But....to try to run a honey production business with II queens heading all or even most of the hives would be lunacy....in my opinion.



An II queen, once fully inseminated, is as good as a production queen. She can lay up to 2-3 seasons. Tom and Sue said so. These are professional in their trade. Not affected by weather or seasons as long as you can make the drones. A drone laying queen that she turn out to be, I will make her into a drone mother queen Cordovan style, of course. 

If it is loonie, then I will be the first one testing them out this coming Spring using my homemade ghetto II station. You can call me 
a mad (bee) scientist! Already geared up with many altered II syringes this time. I will try to make as many of these II queens as I possibly can to head the production colonies here. One is to test their productivity and second is to test their laying progress over time. Thirdly is to test their mite resistant ability coming from compatible no chemical treatment and mite resistant stocks. I don't see how an II queen is different from an open mated production queen. Both are vigorous productive laying queens, right! If you can make them why not. Centrifuge on! 



II syringes made, more to come:


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

beepro said:


> An II queen, once fully inseminated, is as good as a production queen.


Enough with the II queens already!!!!

My original honey production reference was to VSH queens as one would buy from a VSH queen producer…not selected II VSH queens. As is obvious now…I failed to make that distinction and jcase jumped on my failure to be specific. I presumed…my mistake….that anyone following the thread would intuitively make the connection.
Clearly those who are fascinated with the II process have focused on my error….when I initially referred to the foolishness of using II queens for honey production…my issue was with II VSH queens vs VSH queens that have been open mated. If you want to parade your II qualifications, skills or the magnificence of II queens in general….I think a separated thread would be appropriate. 
My apologies for my part in this totally unrelated branch of the original thread.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

hex0rz said:


> Where are they. If they exist i want one... i mean literally, no intervention whatsoever except feeding them if need be.


if you are unable locate anyone near standpoint, id with bees like that your next best bet would be to track down and collect swarms from and/or do cut outs of proven (confirmed to have made through a winter or two) feral survivors.

a fairly common denominator among those having success keeping bees off treatments is the presence of thriving feral population, and this makes sense because those survivor genes (traits) get cycled into bee operations via the feral drones.

the next step would be to find out if along with survivability (read here 'mite resistance') other desirable traits such as good temperment, favorable response to swarm prevention, and good honey production are also present.

the (almost) fail proof approach and the one not available to most is to find someone having the kind of tf success your are looking for in your general area, and if possible obtain bees and glean management practices from them.

unfortunately and as randy oliver has pointed out in his abj series 'the varroa problem' the beekeeping business like any other business is driven the economics of supply and demand. treatment free is low in demand and is feared counterproductive to meeting supply when it comes the 5% of beekeepers managing the 95% of all colonies that are employed in commercial pursuits.

those us that comprise the other 95% of beekeepers managing the remaining 5% of all colonies as hobbiests and sideliners are perhaps in a better position to work toward developing tf stock, but there doesn't appear to be widespread appetite for that.

jmho, but unless there is general agreement among beekeepers in a given area say a county or group of adjoining counties to transition from current practices to tf, i think its going to be very hard to make a significant change in the bee stock because of open mating and polyandry.

and when's the last time you noticed general agreement among beekeepers?


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> Enough with the II queens already!!!!
> 
> My original honey production reference was to VSH queens as one would buy from a VSH queen producer…not selected II VSH queens. As is obvious now…I failed to make that distinction and jcase jumped on my failure to be specific. I presumed…my mistake….that anyone following the thread would intuitively make the connection.
> Clearly those who are fascinated with the II process have focused on my error….when I initially referred to the foolishness of using II queens for honey production…my issue was with II VSH queens vs VSH queens that have been open mated. If you want to parade your II qualifications, skills or the magnificence of II queens in general….I think a separated thread would be appropriate.
> My apologies for my part in this totally unrelated branch of the original thread.


I apologize for my part in it as well. I expected someone with well over a decade of experience to use correct terms, and not mix up two very different terms. I know now that I made a bad assumption, and should have clarified.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jcase said:


> I expected someone with well over a decade of experience to use correct terms, and not mix up two very different terms. I know now that I made a bad assumption, and should have clarified.


And I expected any knowledgeable readers to follow the direction of the discussion. Seems like we both had overly high expectations.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

beemandan said:


> And I expected any knowledgeable readers to follow the direction of the discussion. Seems like we both had overly high expectations.


another thing I shouldn't have expected, as politeness and others backing things up with facts when asked. We both messed up big time it seems. Alright that is my last of it. If either of us need more, we can make a cranky old man thread, I'm sure we both fit in it fine.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

jcase said:


> a If either of us need more, we can make a cranky old man thread, I'm sure we both fit in it fine.


It would be a popular thread, stretching for pages with plenty jumping in. Like I just did.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

Saltybee said:


> It would be a popular thread, stretching for pages with plenty jumping in. Like I just did.


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?341007-Cranky-old-man-thread&p=1583705#post1583705


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> as far as an implied warranty goes i'll have to disagree with that. in my view the buyer bears some responsibility to do the homework necessary to know what they are getting into. it's not that hard to talk to other beekeepers or ask questions on a forum like this one.


If someone orders a "Cordovan Queen" and the queen that comes in the mail is black (along with her daughters) do you think that's right? Do you think they might have some level of a claim against the breeder for giving him something other than what he wanted? Or is the sole blame on the customer who "should have known better" than to order from that person?

What about if you call up a breeder and tell them you want VERY gentle bees. The breeder tells you they've "got you covered." The queen that comes in the mail is hot. Very hot. You have them genetically tested, and they have AHB genetics. Do you think that's right? Or is the sole blame again falling upon the customer who "should have done more research?"

How is it any different than someone that sells a "Treatment Free Queen" that then comes in the mail, gets riddled by mites and collapses in a matter of months? They ordered a "Treatment Free Queen" and they didn't get what they ordered. The seller, by calling it a "Treatment Free Queen" has held their product out as being able to perform a particular quality: survive without treatments. 

To me, if someone sells "Queens" but lets people know their management practices, which happen to be treatment free, that's one thing. The buyer looked into and weighed everything, and chose to buy the queen. But it's something entirely different if someone sells "Treatment Free Queens" but doesn't let anyone know their management practices. The buyer has nothing further to look into, and is not able to make a fully informed decision. In fact, the seller usually markets it as "Treatment Free Queens" to get a higher price. The same as someone who sells "Cordovan Queens." When you hold yourself out as selling a particular type of queen, you should deliver that queen. 



squarepeg said:


> treatment free is low in demand and is feared counterproductive to meeting supply when it comes the 5% of beekeepers managing the 95% of all colonies that are employed in commercial pursuits.
> 
> those us that comprise the other 95% of beekeepers managing the remaining 5% of all colonies as hobbiests and sideliners are perhaps in a better position to work toward developing tf stock, but there doesn't appear to be widespread appetite for that.


From someone who's kept bees longer than since 2010, I can tell you there's more to this story than you're implying. 

The varroa mite entered the US in 1987. At the time, there was no registered treatment for varroa mites. Everyone's hives were treatment free. And everyone's hives started dying. A few years later the first varroacide was developed and put into practice. But not everyone started using it. Some elected to stay "treatment free." There is a reason you don't see anyone advertising "Treatment Free since 1987." Everyone that was treatment free back then was either forced out of business, or was forced to use treatments. 

Since then a plethora of people have gone treatment free, have entered the arena of treatment free, or started keeping bees treatment free. The vast majority of them are no longer either keeping bees, or doing so treatment free. The reason? It didn't work for them. 

It isn't that the large commercial operations aren't interested in treatment free. They'd absolutely love it. And most are selecting for mite resistance. But they've seen their coworkers become financially devastated from going treatment free. Some lost everything. Their houses, their businesses, their livelihoods. So they aren't interested in repeating that by jumping in with both feet. Most hobby beekeepers that have started keeping bees in the last 10 years don't know, or don't remember the history. They can afford to lose everything, or more often don't realize so many people have risked everything before them only to be forced into bankruptcy. Remember that the next time you pass judgment on a commercial beekeeper for "using chemicals."

It's been 30 years last month since the varroa entered the US. And where's the magic bullet?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

If you purchase something and are disappointed, it´s the end of business for the seller or do you believe people will stay ignorant about that?
Not in the net age.

We are even longer in the mite and treatments situation you describe above SK and no ferals left to use but I wonder why Seeley is discussed suddenly and old habits change...must be the beekeepers are tired to treat or something.
Or the older generation gave up beekeeping and the younger changed their attitude starting to see bees as of value for nutrition ( pollination) and not as livestock?
Must be the vegans who have no use of honey, I know many vegan people keeping bees, or the average young wealthy people wanting regional food not cheap important bad stuff.

Thanks to the romantic views in a cold profit world.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i'm with you sk in that the seller has just as much obligation to deliver as advertised as the buyer does to diligently obtain consumer reports from others with respect to the level of satisfaction they experienced.

when such information is not available then i say no information is also useful in that expectations deserve to be guarded. no one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

sibylle makes the point better than i. like most markets this one polices itself.

i've been pretty careful about which queens i choose to graft from, but in the end there is usually a range in performance from a batch of queens from stellar to not so good.

so the experience the buyer is going to get can vary from off the charts to very poor and the problem is each individual queen isn't proven until she is. so in the end it always depends and there are no guarantees.



Specialkayme said:


> And where's the magic bullet?


no magic bullets, especially none that are just a click and a debit card away. in my area feral colonies and managed colonies derived from them have been doing very well off treatments at least as far back as 1996.

jmho, but it's these and other populations now documented to be surviving varroa off treatments that are likely to provide the answers we are looking for.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> like most markets this one polices itself.


Does it? BeeWeaver continues to hold themselves out as producers of queens that you can just drop in the hive and forget about treatments. They have for years. At least the 5 that I've purchased from them. And they sell out every year. Do their queens hold up to their marketing? Or course not. And yet they continue to make outlandish statements and sell out of queens every year. Where's the policing?

The buck doesn't stop with BeeWeaver though. Someone posts an add for "treatment free queens." Some buy, give it a shot, and they're crap. Does he stop selling? Nope. New beekeepers (like SiWolKe) are starting each year. An endless round of customers. A new sucker born every minute. And should the "system" catch up to the seller, they'll be a new one next year. And the year after that. 

I see no policing. I see uninformed buyers being taken advantage of from sellers, and a treatment free industry ready, willing, and able to add social pressure to make you believe buying that queen is the right thing to do.



squarepeg said:


> in my area feral colonies and managed colonies derived from them have been doing very well off treatments at least as far back as 1996.
> 
> jmho, but it's these and other populations now documented to be surviving varroa off treatments that are likely to provide the answers we are looking for.


Were you around in 1996 to document that?

Ok, so I'll modify my statement. Assume it's correct, and ferals in _your_ area have been doing fine since 1996. So it's been TWENTY ONE YEARS. Where's the answer? Where's the mite proof bees?


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

I think a lot of the problem is that there are basically two definitions for "Treatment Free".

If your the seller, your capitalizing on your environment and suggesting that this will give your queens/bees a leg up (which apparently it may - reading posts - - or may not depending). Your not intending that it be assumed your bees will *end* mite/etc. problems - but just be a large part of the battle (well, maybe not for weaver bees ).

If your the buyer (or at least what I think when I hear "tf"), is thinking along the lines of a finished product that you put in the hive and that should mean at least 90% done. This may be because many beekeepers (esp. backyard keepers) really want a silver bullet, and so we tend to let ourselves "hope" it is this way.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

SK
I think you are very bitter with your personal experience. I´m sorry for that.

I met some people members of this forum, who are happy with the BeeWeavers, we still post via mail.

If people are uninformed, it´s their problem. It´s easy today to be informed. If breeders are able to sell bad queens good luck to them. I do not attack them, I pity the ignorant buyers. I was like them once but I don´t regret this experience.
I lost much money to have "resistant" colonies but today I´m glad because the bad experience made me more careful and taught me much about disease and tf and how local beekeeping is.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Specialk


> The varroa mite entered the US in 1987. At the time, there was no registered treatment for varroa mites. Everyone's hives were treatment free. And everyone's hives started dying. A few years later the first varroacide was developed and put into practice. But not everyone started using it. Some elected to stay "treatment free." There is a reason you don't see anyone advertising "Treatment Free since 1987." Everyone that was treatment free back then was either forced out of business, or was forced to use treatments.


http://www.frosthoneybeefarm.com/

Cheers
gww


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

gww,
i remember member Nordak has some bees from them and is happy.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

MikeJ said:


> I think a lot of the problem is that there are basically two definitions for "Treatment Free".


I agree. I believe this is the heart of the problem. But, I believe some sellers _know_ that the buyer defines the term differently. 



SiWolKe said:


> I think you are very bitter with your personal experience.


Oh no, not at all. I'm very happy where I'm at. My experiences have given me substantial insights to most aspects of the beekeeping community. It's my hope that some others will use the experience, so they don't have to repeat the mistakes I made.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

gww said:


> Specialk
> 
> 
> http://www.frosthoneybeefarm.com/
> ...


I'm not sure the point of your comment. Perhaps you can expand a little more than providing a website link. 

I'm assuming you are attempting to give an example of someone who has never treated, even from 1987. I fail to find that information on their website. Perhaps you can link it for me. 

Regardless, from their website:



> Our Italian Brood stock originates from the USDA Laboratories in Baton Rouge, LA . . .


and again:



> We breed SMR (suppress mite reproduction) bees by using breeder queens linked to the USDA Genetics laboratory in Baton Rouge, LA.


If they didn't treat from 1987 to today, one would assume they have found superior genetics that are mite resistant. If that's the case, why do you need to bring in outside genetics? If anything, to me that means your own genetics weren't working, so you had to find resistant genes from somewhere else. Which really just further illustrates my original point.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i respect your point of view sk, but it begs the question if the bees are crap then why does the demand for them continue year after year to the point of being sold out. shame on the sellers, shame on the buyers, or both? perhaps enough others are having a better experience than you did.

a good friend and a reputable man was here in 1996 and continues to this day all the while off treatments with the line he started from feral cut outs back then. those of us lucky enough to get our hands on them ever since can testify to their performance.

mite proof bees do appear to occupy the vast wooded lands in the area as well as take up residence in structures. another good friend who built a bee vac gets multiple calls every spring to come and collect what turn out being strong healthy overwintered colonies. these usually end up responding well to our swarm prevention measures and yielding a respectable honey crop.

we are talking about hybridized mutts here. my bees, his bees, caught swarms, ect... they all have a similar appearance and tend to be a little bit on the dark side in terms of coloration. hybrid vigor at play perhaps?

not to be repetitive, but i've shared this link on the forum a few times already:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-015-0412-8

with all due respect sk, it baffles me that you don't acknowledge mite resistant bees exist.

i've already indicated that i don't believe there is a straight forward answer at this time for a 'sears and roebuck' treatment bee ready for public consumption, but that's a different question. fortunately there are those who are working toward an answer while it appears that others aren't trying and even worse feel compelled to bad mouth the concept at every opportunity.

all i can offer at this stage in my is the ground truthing that my experience provides. i've toyed with the idea of revisiting graduate school once i hang up the shingle on the day job. with the proper resources available i believe there are answers to be had by studying the bees thriving off treatments here.

it would be interesting for example to examine the pollen, wax, mite resistant behaviors, mite behaviors, mite population growth curves, bee and mite genetics, virology, feral colony density, feral colony longevity, ect...

perhaps at least part of the answer(s) could be teased out if the appropriate attention and resources were devoted to studying this and other populations in that way.

i've always thought that having success off treatments involved more than just genetics. please correct me if i'm wrong sk, but it appears that your gripe with folks selling treatment free queens assumes that there's nothing more to it than breeding, and since no one has been able to breed a 100% guaranteed mite proof bee there should be no claims of treatment free bees for sale?

sorry for the long post.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

If you bought a cordovan bee, and got a solid black bee, you got ripped off.

If you bought a gentle bee, and after a couple months the hive is still cranky, then it could go either way. Perhaps you got sold an aggressive line, or perhaps you are doing something environmental to tick them off. or perhaps you just got ripped off.

If you bought a treatment free queen, you should have gotten a queen from a line that has not been treated for a number of generations/years. This isn't something that is easy to judge, you have to trust the person who sold it to you. Just because a line performs without the need for a treatment for one person in one location does not mean it will for everyone. Putting in your best TF VSH mitebiter miracle bee into a hive loaded with mites and whatnot isn't going to turn that hive around. Same thing taking a TF bee from a location that is perfect for bees, and has a generally healthy population, and putting into a non stellar location with an unhealthy bee population isn't going to turn out the best.

If I buy a treatment free queen, I expect her line of bees to have been surviving without treatments. I don't expect her to turn around the hive I'm putting her in, I don't expect not to have to monitor, and I absolutely expect to have to treat her if the need arises.

In some things genetics are the whole thing (cordovan), in other things genetics are just part of it, the environment plays a big part as well.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Special
First let me say that I think you are probly a better bee keeper due to your experiances. Plus just the fact that you had the will power to continue impresses me. I would also say that you have a really great comunication skill of getting your point across in an understandable way. Wish I had that.

I posted the link with out much because of special knowlage of a personal conversation with nordak where they told him in person that they had been treatment free since if my memory does not fail me 1947.

I tried that as a search date to help find thier link and it didn't work and so by the time I found it, I was tired and was hoping just that some one out there doing long term would be a counter enough.

I don't get your argument on the queens they are using. I don't know anyone who has not had issues when they were raising bees. I mean all the great bee writers that people respect like langstroth and miller all lost all their bees way before mites but were considered good bee keepers cause they like you kept at it and took thier lumps but still found a way to make a living with bees.

So, back to the queens. All those great bee keepers continually imported new stock to try and improve thiers including abby warre. They did not do it because thier stock was no good or not proven but more because they wanted even better or even more to be the very best at what thier lifes work was.

I don't believe everything some one tells me but I also don't think they are liers when they open thier mouths. My proceedure is to learn as much as I can and them make up my own mind. So I take them at their word but also look around and also watch them for the things they might not think to tell me or think I already know.

One thing I do know is that most comercial do have a treatment regimate and still lose 17 percent of thier hives with the cause being a large part due to mites.

They also replace that 17 percent with splits and still make enough extra bees to sell to every one else.

So like I said in a earlier thread. The guy I bought my bees from that does not treat might lose 30 percent but still make it up and be happy and you may only be willing to keep working no matter what you have to do to get down to ten percent. Level of success is a personal thing but that does not mean there are not people out their using thier management skills and just over all committment and finding things that are working and then impoving on them. I believe the kirk websters and the michael bushes when they say they keep bees and don't have to treat. What would remain to be seen after saying that is, can I do it and do I even want to do it.

I for myself don't even know the answer to those to questions but that does not mean that I think it is impossible when I can look and see that it is possible. And if I see it is possible then, I may take a chance that they have did some of the work for me and try thier queens.
You say


> It's my hope that some others will use the experience, so they don't have to repeat the mistakes I made.


I say, I agree. I would look hard at your experiances as I decide what route I might take.
Typed with a smile and not a frown.
Cheers
gww


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

So, if a location has no SHB, natural brood brakes in winter, little other virus dangers, pretty consistent summer flows - - would that mean TF should be easier?

When it is said that the TF queen may not work the same in different locations, shouldn't locations with less variety of pests be better and easier on TF queens?

If so - send them on. I will donate my time to certify your TF queens (sorry no returns)


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Mike 
Keeping bee like you keep bees.
Do you lose exactly the same percentage of bees every year year on and year out.

Put it into perspective for what you are doing. You are raising bees. I have no doubt you will have ebbs and flows. Michael palmer made 1/3rd less honey this year then last year. Square peg made 15 percent more honey this year. Now think about this for a bit. 

You can't keep bees with out having bees but just cause you keep bees, you live in an ever changing world and bees are bees.

Talants are talents also, many people have a green thumb and can take the same seed that somebody else kills every time they plant it and make it bloom.
Cheers
gww


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Last 2 years - yes, 100% each year.
If I keep keeping bees like I have been keeping bees - it would be more humane to just put empty hives out and pretend to kill them off. This is why I decided to start treating.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Mike 
Just so you know. If I lose all my bees and I think treating will help. I will treat. Now I might learn more or get dumb and later repeat my mistake but I will decide what I need to do and then if I do it and it works, I will reap the reward and if it doesn't I will pay the price. I am not judging what you do. I hope you report how it works for you and I will add it to all the things cluttering up my brain and it will be one more thing for me to consider when faced with simular decissions. I wish you the best.
Cheers
gww
Ps Just so you know, I won't tell you my bees lived till they have lived. I don't discount that spring will be the story for one more time and that now it is just hope and caculated risk.


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

MikeJ said:


> So, if a location has no SHB, natural brood brakes in winter, little other virus dangers, pretty consistent summer flows - - would that mean TF should be easier?
> 
> When it is said that the TF queen may not work the same in different locations, shouldn't locations with less variety of pests be better and easier on TF queens?
> 
> If so - send them on. I will donate my time to certify your TF queens (sorry no returns)


If you lived on an island, with no varroa, no wax moths, no SHB no nothing. I would imagine TF beekeeping would be much easier.

Where I am, we have no SHB, only a few lesser wax moths (never seen any in a hive, only seen larvae on stored comb). We do have varroa, and unfortunately a moist environment with nosema.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

jcase said:


> ...
> If you bought a treatment free queen, you should have gotten a queen from a line that has not been treated for a number of generations/years. This isn't something that is easy to judge, you have to trust the person who sold it to you. *Just because a line performs without the need for a treatment for one person in one location does not mean it will for everyone.* Putting in your best TF VSH mitebiter miracle bee into a hive loaded with mites and whatnot isn't going to turn that hive around. Same thing taking a TF bee from a location that is perfect for bees, and has a generally healthy population, and putting into a non stellar location with an unhealthy bee population isn't going to turn out the best.
> 
> If I buy a treatment free queen, I expect her line of bees to have been surviving without treatments. I don't expect her to turn around the hive I'm putting her in, I don't expect not to have to monitor, and I absolutely expect to have to treat her if the need arises.
> ...


The sentence I boldfaced is what I was referring to.

Apparently the TF breeders on the forum are spread out all over.
If I buy a queen from a breeder that says they do not monitor or treat, put this queen in a hive that has reduced exposures to moths and beetles (i.e. less stress) - why should I have to start monitoring and treating?

I understand if a TF queen failing if it is taken from an isolated island to Cali. almonds - but not if it is taken from an average location to one that *reduces* stress.

Let me be frank (not mad or trying to argue) -
There seems to be always "some difference" in location, housing, keeping (the differences seem to be in some unexplained, unknown something).
How can one even know TF is doing anything? How do I know it isn't the beekeeper just stumbled on a way to keep his/her bees going and it has absolutely nothing to do with breeding?

The only way to really "prove" that breeding makes any difference is to take that TF queen to a new location/keeper and see if it continues to function as such. Doesn't that make sense?


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

MikeJ said:


> The sentence I boldfaced is what I was referring to.
> 
> Apparently the TF breeders on the forum are spread out all over.
> If I buy a queen from a breeder that says they do not monitor or treat, put this queen in a hive that has reduced exposures to moths and beetles (i.e. less stress) - why should I have to start monitoring and treating?
> ...


If you buy a queen whom's breeder doesnt monitor, you should monitor because you are a good beekeeper (I assume). Monitoring isn't treatment, it lets you know how the hive is doing as a whole. I'd be really shocked to see any breeder that doesnt at least monitor their breeder queens. Without monitoring in some aspect, you can't know which are doing best. You dont know if you still have that super duper queen to graft off of, or if you have a new one that is laying all drones.

As far as location, some lines of bees do better in one location, and not so much in another. For instance, its pretty well known where I am that southern italian lines just dont do well here. They build up too early, and they dont handle the moisture well. A treatment free GA italian queen, frankly isn't likely to cut it. This is part of the reason the honey bees ended up seperating into different subspecies (other part being geographical seperation). Some bees with certain traits thrived in certain environments, some didn't.

Another way location plays a big part, look at Tropiaelaps clareae and T. mercedesae. While not here in the US yet, they are probably our next big threats. They can't survive without brood. We get a short brood break where I am. If I never have a problem with Tropiaelaps in my bees, and I never treat them, they are technically treatment free right? Even if Tropiaelaps would destroy them in locations where bees don't get a brood break.

TL;DR; Want treatment free bees? Find a LOCAL treatment free beekeeper who has a long history of producing treatment free bees. Start with their bees, follow their methods.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

MikeJ said:


> The only way to really "prove" that breeding makes any difference is to take that TF queen to a new location/keeper and see if it continues to function as such. Doesn't that make sense?


that does make sense mike. when we hear about the failures that folks like randy oliver, our own jrg13 here on the forum, and others have had trying to import treatment free queens from far away locations it tends to support that factors other than genetics are involved.


----------



## TNValleyBeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

From the Frost website. Queen tab.

Our family has been selling queens and bees for 3 generations.* Our Italian Brood stock originates from the USDA Laboratories in Baton Rouge, LA and are crossed with our original stock from the early 1900's that*my Grandfather raised.* These Italians are gentle and excellent honey producers.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Mike


> The only way to really "prove" that breeding makes any difference is to take that TF queen to a new location/keeper and see if it continues to function as such. Doesn't that make sense?


This is just me and it does sorta also go to SiWolke's comment that bee keepers just want a pill that fixes every thing and an easy way to do it.

There have been several threads on the kind of queens that the puppy mills make and then are sold with packages with a 90 percent death rate for the newbees that buy them. This has been mentioned in thread by some really well respected comercial beekeeper. I doubt I have the energy to look up one of them and link them cause searches are hard and I did a few today and know I am not that good at them. I know they are there though.

Now there is no question that breeding is what they are talking about with those package queens. then there are the southern queens that are moved north. Now some still have luck with them but most say hedge your bet and get ones closer and that are also more aclimated to your forage.

There are not one of those bees above that can not be made to work but it takes a bit more from the bee keeper to do it.

I don't know if the package queens dieing and being weak can be considerred a fact or more just a really strong feeling with strong antidotal evidence from some very talented bee keepers. I know they believe it as strong as you believe a queen is not making a differrance where you are and it should.

I think the queen is more of an edge then a silver bullet. It is like saying that treatment is a silver bullet but yet people who treat still lose hives to mite or at least mite vectored virus. When that happens they are told you must not have followed the directions but that is not the case if you only lose 17 percent due to mites but the rest of your hives the treatment worked on.

There is something differrent. I think some queens are better then others on all things that they are ment to do and that the bee keeper has picked everytime to breed from his best but thier is just no silver bullet. I just have to believe that some one around you is not treating bees and that persons bees are alive. I know my bee club is very small and we have all kind of keepers and it will surprize you the one that lost all his bees and the one that still has some alive.

I have been told with my hives that you can not go by size which one will live and which one will die. Why can't I tell by size, everyone says if you want to go through winter it is easier to do it with a strong hive but yet sometimes big hives die and little hives live.

I think jw in this thread ealier may have something in his comment that it might not be the queen but more the bee keeper. Still when playing the odd, I go with the big hive, the aclimated queen and one that was bred for the trait I like best.

You are still playing the odds and you still have to do your part. It might take the queen and some of her sisters and some of her off spring some time to switch your area around and there might be some pain involved while that happens and I might never happen. That is the cost of a route you decide to take and the rest of it is playing the odds and making adjustments untill you get where you want to be.

Michael palmer gives training an a substainable apary. Now how many years and what trials did he have to be where he is today? Going from an apple polinator to a honey producer. From losing and rebuying hundreds of hives every year to getting away from contracts and raising nucs and haveing the tallent and not being secret about his adjustments so that others can do it also.

The point is that he is not where he started and he adjusted till he got it working. I had some one tell me that my area probly did not have enough natural forage to really be able to keep bees successfully and easily. I may have to adjust. I will be using the same bees where ever I put them but may have to make some adjustment to get thier max potential. There is no magic pill. It does not mean my bees would be a bad product but more they are a good product but I still have to do my part.

Their would be poeple bull headed enough to make my area good to max the bee potential. Like planting or like michael and fusion have did by giving away queens to thier neibor so they have more controll over thier breeding stock. You still have to make the adjustments in style and management if you are going to be successful. The easiest and cheepest might be to just treat. Of course untill you do it, you still won't know if you will have bees the next year. You might treat only to find it is your neibors seiven dust that has been killing your bees all along and mite were just a symtom of bee weakness. After you treat, it is just one adjustment that still needs tested out. In my opinion when hit with problims is it is a process of elimination till you hit even and then you can start working on improvement if not yet happy.

If you fall in love with improving, then you may never be happy and be working on improvement for your rest of your life. 

I know several people that lost all their hives around and were really trying and some bee keeper who don't seem to care still survive with bees. 
Cheers
gww


----------



## jcase (Jul 30, 2016)

gww said:


> This is just me and it does sorta also go to SiWolke's comment that bee keepers just want a pill that fixes every thing and an easy way to do it.


This forum needs a +1 or a thank you button.

+1


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> with all due respect sk, it baffles me that you don't acknowledge mite resistant bees exist.


I don't believe I've ever made such a statement. If you implied it from my posts, you may have connected dots that I didn't intend to exist.

There are several independent instances of mite resistance developing. The bees of the Arnot forrest as documented by Seeley, apis mellifera scutellata's well documented resistance, the bees raised on those islands off Norway (the name is escaping me) or the primorsky russian bees are just four well known examples. I suggest there are dozens, if not hundreds more that are not quite as well known. 

Some of these examples developed after I left the treatment free area, but not all. They were shining beacons of hope, and a large push to why I originally went treatment free, and in believing it could be done locally. 

But each one of these examples have the same underlying problem. They are successful on their own terms, in their own locations. The bees of the Arnot forrest are right next to managed colonies. They share very similar genetics to the commercial hives. And yet the commercial hives crash from mites if not treated. The russians were imported to the US, and while they did better than Italians, they still suffer from mite problems much worse than in their home country. Whenever you remove the "mite resistant bees" from the location they were thriving in and try to manage them somewhere else, it doesn't work out. Which means theres more to the puzzle than the bees themselves. The management techniques (as with the Arnot forrest bees - kept in smaller hives), behavioral techniques (scutellata's smaller brood nest and high swarm rate), or environmental techniques (primorsky's isolated geographic location) play as much, if not more of a factor than the genetics. 

So when I hear someone locally that says they have treatment free bees, I think it's possible. But I doubt it. Trust, but verify. Every time I'm shown they aren't resistant. It's just the truth of the matter. 

But if I'm wrong, then answer the original post. We're on page 5 now, but no one can tell the OP where to find these TF bees. Why is that?



squarepeg said:


> it would be interesting for example to examine the pollen, wax, mite resistant behaviors, mite behaviors, mite population growth curves, bee and mite genetics, virology, feral colony density, feral colony longevity, ect...


Some of the best and brightest minds in the industry have tried to crack that egg for nearly 30 years. People alot smarter than me, and no offense, but I'd hedge to bet smarter than you too, have been unsuccessful. 



squarepeg said:


> i've always thought that having success off treatments involved more than just genetics. please correct me if i'm wrong sk, but it appears that your gripe with folks selling treatment free queens assumes that there's nothing more to it than breeding, and since no one has been able to breed a 100% guaranteed mite proof bee there should be no claims of treatment free bees for sale?


Close, but not exactly. My gripe is that people sell "treatment free" queens and bees to people that start out, or are (from very good intentions) very gullible and underinformed about the issues. The implied sales pitch is that you can be treatment free too, if only you have these queens. But it isn't that simple, and no one selling queens is willing to talk about it (because they got their cash). They should be selling "queens" as that's all they are, nothing special. Or if they hold themselves out as something more, they should be held accountable. That's all.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Specialk...


> (as with the Arnot forrest bees - kept in smaller hives),


Please take this well. We are just talking pholosphy here.

What a newbe is told.

Are you indicating that a georgia puppy mill queen if it is kept in smaller hives would do as well as a arnot forrest bee does? 

If that is the case, then I do see your point. If that is not the case then it would mean the queen adds something also.

So why would it be assumed that every new bee keeper that wants bees will insiste on a giant hive. That would be the assumption being made if it is being considerred a set up to sell a new person a threatment free queen. 

I am not as convince that everyone that gets bees wants exactly the same thing out of it. If they don't all want exactly the same thing than telling them it is impossible on either side of the coin would be wrong. That is why they have some responcibility to learn more then heres you box and here is you bees.

But if a georgia queen would do as well kept like the arnot queen, I would have to agree with your position. The newbe should not be sold a bill of goods.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

I hate to do it, but I do agree with SK. I hated to believe that people really thought their cars were going to get EPA milage too. Never under estimate the people. (Did I really say that?)


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

To me the difference of TF breeders and breeders selling conventional queens is the consideration of breeding bees which are able to survive without chemicals.
I hope and trust this is part of their breeding program.

The conventional bred queens sold to beekeepers who treat and do not monitor disease and pests and who do not control swarming and who multiply from susceptible hives will set free weak genetics.
So my personal thinking is this will lead to more and more treating until the losses are as high as with hard bond. We already are near this scenario in germany.

This quote is out of an article my new acquaintance, Dr. Lang, wrote. His aim is to study wild living colonies ( they seem to exist here too) and test the DNA, trying to find out why they survive without treatments.
Also we will do a mind mapping as a group to observe this and find out about the local circumstances which influence health.



> According to the breeding guidelines, e.g. of the German beekeepers are graded in the fields of spring development, gentleness, habit, swarm behavior, varroa tolerance and honey strain in the beekeeping, but also in the beekeepers' everyday life. This has led to significant advances in beekeepers in many areas, but not in the area of ​​the average survivability of the colonies, whereby not only the vorroa tolerance is to be referred to. This unambiguous weakness of human selection, which is equivalent to a partial exposure of the natural selection criteria, can and must be corrected by natural selection criteria, which we can look at in the case of wild honeybees, to a short or long term. Therefore, the employment of the wild honeybees in the course of the next decade could bring revolutionary advances particularly for the adversary. The wild population is the only one to guarantee the continued existence and the efficacy of this eternal life principle of natural selection in the honeybee, and ultimately guarantees, by the way, the continuity of this species independently of us humans.


I hope the google translator did that job right.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> no one can tell the OP where to find these TF bees. Why is that?


i gave the best answer i could in post #69.

i fairly new at this and no expert, but it appears that most of the focus over the past 30 years has been on breeding and as you point out no one has bred that elusive silver bullet.

the arnot example you provide is very telling. bees sharing the same genetics and ecoregion showing us that when managed crash but when left alone don't crash, hmm.

i've not seen any studies specifically looking at and quantifying the things i mentioned in post #85 with respect to surviving feral populations. jmho, but i feel there may be some important lessons to be learned from them.

i would ask why has it taken thirty years for it to become necessary for randy oliver to spend the better part of this past year pleading the case to the beekeeping community for adopting a modified bond method to select for mite resistance?


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

What is the biggest difference between wild and farmed bees? The box. 
Can't help but make a linkage to odfrank's log trick. Lot we do not know about fungi in trees. Maybe instead of a frame feeder a rotting log would do as well.

Stories about how that old abandoned hive in the woods survives, now it is too rotten to move.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> the arnot example you provide is very telling. bees sharing the same genetics and ecoregion showing us that when managed crash but when left alone don't crash, hmm.


I don't think I'd go so far as saying they don't crash when left alone. I would say their lifespan is considerably longer though. The wild colonies in Ithica have a mean life span of 5-6 years of established colonies (with a very high death rate for swarms). Which means there is a 16-20% annual death rate. The cause is unknown (by me). No doubt part of that is starvation, bear attacks, and queen issues, but I would suspect part of that to be varroa too. What percentage can only lead one to speculate. 

But the characteristics that makes it work in the wild aren't economical or feasible in the beekeeping industry (annual requeening by all colonies, 2-3 swarms cast each year, no honey harvested, 40 L max cavity size, 1+ mile radius to adjoining colony, to name a few). The land use requirements would be astounding. If you tried to do that in an apple orchard . . . you'd have no apples. Say goodbye to blueberries, almonds, cucumbers, melons, the list goes on. Decrease the food production, and increase the starvation rates of humans. So you're trading human lives for bee lives. Take your pick. 

Fewer colonies (and smaller colonies) destroys pollination contracts. Honey production hits the floor, and instead it gets imported from China as price doesn't match production (it happened when varroa first hit the US - colony mortality spiked upward, but didn't track honey prices, because the buyer of honey doesn't care, they just want their cheap honey). If you want change, it needs to come from the consumer. Not just the beekeeper. 

Ultimately, there's more to it than looking at the Arnot forest. 



squarepeg said:


> i would ask why has it taken thirty years for it to become necessary for randy oliver to spend the better part of this past year pleading the case to the beekeeping community for adopting a modified bond method to select for mite resistance?


I have no idea why it's taken _Randy_ that long to advocate, it might be worthwhile to ask him, but he isn't the first. Several people have been proposing soft bond approaches going back almost 15 years ago. BIP tech teams started doing it to queen producers in California almost 10 years ago. The industry was ready, willing, and able to change. But the change didn't come. Improvements were made, but no drastic changes.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

With the exception of a misdirected foray into II…I have remained out of this discussion. Mainly because I believe that SpecialK has largely expressed my opinion. Just wanted to state my support.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

This treatment free and mite resistant bees has been in the forum for years but somehow does not seem to spread to many other areas. What I seem to find is that after bringing in VSH genetics into my bees year after year I find no real decrease in mites but real decrease in honey yields. If my bees do not create surplus honey I am just wasting my time and treasure and may as well just keep flies. So from this next season I will be changing my policy where I will take care of the mites and I will bring in more production genetics and breed from my honey producers. The future of the honey bee is tied more to economic value than mite resistance in my opinion.
Johno


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Square
actaully randy started publishing in 2006 and to be honest, has pretty much sang the same tune from his first articals on his site.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/choosing-your-troops-breeding-mite-fighting-bees/

Or at least that is what it is saying to me.
But in the end, people are doing it now and did do it even then. Bee weever is mentioned in this artical. A good case is made that we created our own problims just by treating and breeding from the worst. I did see a study that the usda (I think) did where they were letting hives go untreated and the ones being succesfull were not expending to much extra energy to fight mites to where it effected honey production or meanness. It was not takeing much extra energy from the bees, I however search for a couple of hours and can not find the link. I was looking for something else when I found it the first time but can't remember the search words.
Cheers
gww


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

gww said:


> But in the end, people are doing it now and did do it even then.


People have been doing this since varroa first became a problem….several decades ago. I’ve said it before…Randy Oliver’s ‘new’ approach is actually not new at all.
I worked at the UGA beelab fifteen years ago. They already had an aggressive queen selection and breeding program that had been in place for over ten years. There were countless other similar programs worldwide. 
There were independent breeders as well. Dann Purvis comes to mind. In the north GA mountains he was running a hard…HARD….Bond program. He went out of his way to bring problems to his bees. As he used to say….’I step on my bees hard’. And he did. 

Most of the folks posting on this thread never heard of Dann Purvis. And that’s what makes a series of articles by Randy Oliver seem new. A crop of new beekeepers. It isn’t a criticism. How would a two or even five year beekeeper know?


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

The argument to feed the world's population destroys diversity in nature and makes it dependent on corporations.
It would be urgently advised to preserve this DNA diversity, which would be very possible in protected areas for the bees.
Outside these areas, industrial beekeeping would destroy the resistance, but the necessary genetics would be preserved, and in the event of a collapse of the bee stock by a new epidemic there would be a stockpile which would be immune to the earlier epidemics.
Apart from honey bees, there are many other pollinators, some are already earning a lot of money, but they need other living conditions which can not yet be fulfilled in the conventional agricultural sector.
It is an illusion to believe that the agribusiness and the attitude towards livestock animals would change quickly, even if ethics play a role, this would only be due to a collapse or too high a cost for animal welfare or too high a cost Regeneration of agricultural land.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Specialkayme said:


> ...
> The land use requirements would be astounding. If you tried to do that in an apple orchard . . . you'd have no apples. Say goodbye to blueberries, almonds, cucumbers, melons, the list goes on.


"no apples"..."goodbye"..."blueberries, almonds,cucumbers,melons..."?!
Aren't we falling into that trap again?
Pretty sure if the honeybee refused to take care of those crops some other pollinators would fill it in.
There was a time when almond pollination wasn't the big money.



Specialkayme said:


> Decrease the food production, and increase the starvation rates of humans. So you're trading human lives for bee lives. Take your pick.
> ...



Hmmm... there are people starving now - and it isn't the bee's fault. How about the strewberry/blueberry markets - same thing for just about all crops.
The entire "feeding the world" hoax has been going for a while, and when we actually look at what *is* happening we find it a sham.



What was the average loss percentage of a hives before vorroa showed up? What is it now (not in the late 80s or 90s)? How does one have a healthy wild honeybee population if their swarms experience a *very high* death rate?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Specialkayme said:


> BIP tech teams started doing it to queen producers in California almost 10 years ago. The industry was ready, willing, and able to change. But the change didn't come. Improvements were made, but no drastic changes.


i tried to find more info on the bip website about that but wasn't able to, do you have a link?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Squarepeg, were you ever able to send queens to Baton Rouge for evaluation?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

Probably not the type you're looking for.

Here's some info on the concept overall:
https://beeinformed.org/programs/tech-teams/

And the history:
https://beeinformed.org/2011/06/07/origins/

They gave a presentation at 2012's EAS in Vermont, which is where I learned about it (other than news clips in ABJ), where they showed how they were going to large commercial beekeepers (specifically targeting breeders) and helping them select for resistant genetics. At the time they were starting, resistance was largely viewed as hygienic behavior (this was 2008 after all). So that's what they were testing for, through brood freezing. Of course they were looking at a large number of other factors, but that's what they were showing pictures and talking about (moving from a 12% hygienic rate to an 82% rate, for example). All of the data they collected was confidential though, so you don't find too much information about who was involved or what they found or what they advised to correct or what was corrected. But you get the idea.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

this year was strike 2 on baton rouge dan, i didn't even graft. the couple of winter losses i had were easily made up (and then some) with caught swarms.

i'm building up a bunch of 5 frame medium boxes this winter and i've got a plan for next year that will hopefully result in a bunch more nucs (queens) produced.

assuming i can avoid strike 3 i'd like to see a couple of those end up down there.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

thanks for the info sk, i'll look it over this evening. back to the salt mine...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> assuming i can avoid strike 3 i'd like to see a couple of those end up down there.


I hope you can get some evaluated. Once you do and you get a report from a professional, objective group indicating that those bees have some sort of quantifiable mite resistance….until then it is anybody’s guess.
Could be bee genetics. Could be mite genetics. Could be parasite/parasite genetics. Could be something environmental. Or something we’ve not considered. Or some combination.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

I would be very curious about a quality breakdown of the propolis in a stationary TF hive compared to a traveling mono agriculture hive. 
Wonder if the little sources is part of the difficulty in transporting TF. Where do you get the best propolis? In the best bars, and only the locals know where they are.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

I would like to believe in the alternate pollinators theory but I just can't. We do not grow natural plants in our gardens. 

Brother has a large multi family garden, had it long before having bees. Some years bees made it to his garden, some years not. Something he said this summer stuck with me. I was advocating splits and more hives, he said no 2 was plenty. If he lost both over winter that was ok, it was worth it to buy 2 packages, even at the cost of $105 and up, the yield increase was worth weeding a smaller garden for the bigger bee yield.

No, pollinators are not going away.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

Saltybee said:


> I would like to believe in the alternate pollinators theory but I just can't. We do not grow natural plants in our gardens.
> 
> Brother has a large multi family garden, had it long before having bees. Some years bees made it to his garden, some years not. Something he said this summer stuck with me. I was advocating splits and more hives, he said no 2 was plenty. If he lost both over winter that was ok, it was worth it to buy 2 packages, even at the cost of $105 and up, the yield increase was worth weeding a smaller garden for the bigger bee yield.
> 
> No, pollinators are not going away.


We also have quite large gardens (corn, beans, squash, blueberry, some raspberry, etc.,etc.) most of the bees I see in there are bumblebees. The honeybees do tend to show up in mid/late fall when everything else out there isn't so hot. At that time the sweet peas/beans/squashes/cucumbers are usually still blossoming and the honeybees make some use of them - but by far other pollinators are in there.
I do agree, that I believe I see better yields with the bees - but no to the point of worrying of the loss of food as we know it if the honeybees go away.

Honeybees are easiest for man to deal with (compared to most other pollinators) - that is what makes them so useful. Yet, honeybees tend to be very particular about what they go after, while other pollinators tend to take anything.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

beemandan said:


> Could be bee genetics. Could be mite genetics. Could be parasite/parasite genetics. Could be something environmental. Or something we’ve not considered. Or some combination.


yep. all i know is that the half dozen or so of us that are working with these bees, and i don't want to speak for dar but i suspect it's the same for him and the half dozen or so folks he is involved with down there in hamilton county, continue to manage off treatments season after season without seeing the devastation wrought by varroa as reported by so many others here on the forum.

i'm finally nearing the end of the 2017 honey harvest which has consumed about all of the sideline hours i can afford to devote. baton rouge is one avenue i want to pursue. auburn university is another. 

once the extractor gets it's final cleaning and is put up for the winter i'll be able to get back to seeing if we can get the folks with the know how and resources to take a look see at what the bees are doing up here.

in the meantime i'm not sure what i have to report will do anything to satisfy the skeptical, but from one gentleman to another dan i can assure you that what i am presenting in my experience thread is the honest truth.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> in the meantime i'm not sure what i have to report will do anything to satisfy the skeptical, but from one gentleman to another dan i can assure you that what i am presenting in my experience thread is the honest truth.


I have no doubt about that. Which is just one reason I am interested. And as someone who has fallen for enough false promises to be skeptical....I am hopefully optimistic that yours will be the real deal.


----------



## flamenco108 (Mar 27, 2016)

It's sort of off topic but... I don't know...


Specialkayme said:


> The varroa mite entered the US in 1987. At the time, there was no registered treatment for varroa mites. Everyone's hives were treatment free. And everyone's hives started dying. A few years later the first varroacide was developed and put into practice. But not everyone started using it. Some elected to stay "treatment free." There is a reason you don't see anyone advertising "Treatment Free since 1987." Everyone that was treatment free back then was either forced out of business, or was forced to use treatments.
> 
> Since then a plethora of people have gone treatment free, have entered the arena of treatment free, or started keeping bees treatment free. The vast majority of them are no longer either keeping bees, or doing so treatment free. The reason? It didn't work for them.
> ---CUT---
> It's been 30 years last month since the varroa entered the US. And where's the magic bullet?


It sounds just like fairy tale... 
The Varroa came to Poland (and the rest of Central Europe) at the end of 70's and at the beginning of the 80's. It was the deep bottom of the economic crisis in the country ruled by Communist Party, so read it as a serious crisis (literally empty shelves in shops, just vinegar available). But amitraz had been ready and already trained by institutions as a varroacide. And as Apivarol it is still applied in apiaries the same way as then.
In the middle 80's there was published a book about bee's illnesses and there was a lot about formic and oxalic acids as well as about thymol as method to fight with mites and nosema apis. 
It's difficult to believe for me, that 10 years later there was an acaricide desert, when Varroa came to USA. Especially, when I see, that soviet way of industrial bees and honey production (in sovhoses and kolhoses in the USSR) was developed exactly on the basis of American industrial apiaries.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

flamenco108 said:


> It's difficult to believe for me, that 10 years later there was an acaricide desert, when Varroa came to USA. Especially, when I see, that soviet way of industrial bees and honey production (in sovhoses and kolhoses in the USSR) was developed exactly on the basis of American industrial apiaries.


If you don't believe me, do your research.

Varroa entered the US in 1987. The first application for registeration of a varroacide was fluvalinate on September 6, 1989:

September 6, 1989. Review. 10 Pages.
James Akerman. Ecological Effects Branch.
File Nos. 2724-EUL, 2724-UGN. Apistan Strips (Fluvalinate).
Proposed Registration for Use in Beehives, to Control
Varroa Mites. Adverse 6(a)(2) Data Submitted.
https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/html/109302.html

August 6, 1996 was the application for Formic Acid:
8/6/96
Petition for Tolerance Exemption (PP6E4700) for Formic Acid in or on honey and beeswax - from IR4 exit epa disclaimeron behalf of Mann Lake Ltd. of Hackensack MN.
https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/web/html/frnotices_214900.html

2015 was Oxalic acid.

Inbetween 1989 and 1996 was cumophos, amitraz, and a few others.

So between 1987 and when fluvalinate was approved in the early 1990's, there were no approved treatments. Perhaps it was more backwards than the USSR, but it doesn't change the dates.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 1, 2009)

flamenco108 said:


> ...
> It's difficult to believe for me, that 10 years later there was an acaricide desert, when Varroa came to USA. Especially, when I see, that soviet way of industrial bees and honey production (in sovhoses and kolhoses in the USSR) was developed exactly on the basis of American industrial apiaries.


I am thinking that specialkayme is only referring to "approved" treatments. In other words the governments had nothing listed for varroa treatment - so beekeepers using anything only for varroa would be off label and so illegal technically.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Lucky that the soviets never figured out how to create an EPA cause once the bureaucrats and the technocrats get together we are screwed.
Johno


----------

